Kook witness Richard Randolf Carr
Bud
One of the kook`s favorite witnesses, Carr claimed to see a man in
the upper floors of the TSBD. He said the man had on a "felt hat", and
"heavy-rimmed" glasses. He was in the upper floor of the New County
Courthouse being erected on Houston street. This photo taken from the
sniper window in the TSBD shows just how far away Carr would have
been. Does anyone believe Carr could have made out a person, let alone
details, from this distance?
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/fromwin.jpg
The New County Courthouse is the building in the upper left, past
the Red Brick, or Old County Courthouse (the castle-looking building).
This just further illustrates that conspiracy hungry idiots will latch
on to anything, without question, if they think it indicates
conspiracy. And they won`t let go of a witness such as this, for fear
their trove of conspiracy nuggets might decrease, a step backwards as
kooks see things.
Gil Jesus
He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
under construction.
You make it sound like he was watching out the window of the building.
He wasn't.
After climbing down form the perch, Carr saw the man who he had seen
in the window getting into a 1961 or 62 Rambler station wagon that was
parked on Record St just north of Commerce.
The station wagon, which had Texas license plates and was driven by a
young negro man, drove off in a northerly direction. ( in the
direction of Main and then Elm Sts. )
Carr's description of the car corroborates that of witness Roger
Craig.
Carr's description of the man in the window corroborates that of
witness Carolyn Walther.
Carr's description of a man heading south on Houston toward Commerce
St corroborates that of witness James R. Worrell.
Funny how there was so many corroborating accounts and descriptions
from an army of "kooks" who just happened to all be in Dealey Plaza at
the same time.
curtjester1
Well, what do you expect from 'Kook Poster, Bud', Gil? Nice post.
CJ
Sam McClung
similar to the manson cult,
considers everyone outside skull and bones to be "barbarians"
then you have the imitator wannabees
set up a group, call outsiders kook
Bud
> For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> under construction.
Where do you get this from? Carr told the FBI he went in looking for
work. He was on the stairway at the 6th floor, heading up to the 9th
to find the foreman to inquire about a job when he said he saw the man
in the TSBD window (on the top floor).
> You make it sound like he was watching out the window of the building.
> He wasn't.
People can check "Richard Carr" on this list of Dealey witnesses,
and read what he told the FBI...
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm
> After climbing down form the perch, Carr saw the man who he had seen
> in the window getting into a 1961 or 62 Rambler station wagon that was
> parked on Record St just north of Commerce.
Thats the point, idiot. The TSBD is about 600 feet from the New
County Courthouse. It would be impossible to make out any identifiable
features like "felt hat", or "heavy-rimmed glasses" from that
distance. He could not have seen what he said he saw, it`s that
simple. Look at the photo I provided to confirm this. You`d be lucky
if you could make out a person in a window, forget details.
> The station wagon, which had Texas license plates and was driven by a
> young negro man, drove off in a northerly direction. ( in the
> direction of Main and then Elm Sts. )
Since he couldn`t possibly make out any details to identify anyone
from the distance he was at, it would impossible for his to recognize
such a person when he got to the ground.
> Carr's description of the car corroborates that of witness Roger
> Craig.
>
> Carr's description of the man in the window corroborates that of
> witness Carolyn Walther.
>
> Carr's description of a man heading south on Houston toward Commerce
> St corroborates that of witness James R. Worrell.
>
> Funny how there was so many corroborating accounts and descriptions
> from an army of "kooks" who just happened to all be in Dealey Plaza at
> the same time.
How can there be corroboration if he couldn`t possibly have made out
anyone in the TSBD from where he was at? Here is the photo from the
TSBD, showing the New County Courthouse way in the background to the
left...
Bud
> On Oct 6, 10:03 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> > He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> > building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> > under construction.
>
> Where do you get this from? Carr told the FBI he went in looking for
> work. He was on the stairway at the 6th floor, heading up to the 9th
> to find the foreman to inquire about a job when he said he saw the man
> in the TSBD window (on the top floor).
>
> > You make it sound like he was watching out the window of the building.
> > He wasn't.
>
> People can check "Richard Carr" on this list of Dealey witnesses,
> and read what he told the FBI...
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm
>
> > After climbing down form the perch, Carr saw the man who he had seen
> > in the window getting into a 1961 or 62 Rambler station wagon that was
> > parked on Record St just north of Commerce.
>
> Thats the point, idiot. The TSBD is about 600 feet from the New
> County Courthouse.
Here is the map, confirming my estimate...
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
Gil Jesus
> > � How can there be corroboration if he couldn`t possibly have made out
> > anyone in the TSBD from where he was at?
The question is how could he have NOT seen what he said, if there was
corroboration ?
>>Here is the photo from the
> > TSBD, showing the New County Courthouse way in the background to the
> > left...
>
> > � � � � � � � �http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/fromwin.jpg- Hide quoted text -
Bud, what year was that picture taken ?
Bud
> On Oct 6, 6:56 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > How can there be corroboration if he couldn`t possibly have made out
> > > anyone in the TSBD from where he was at?
>
> The question is how could he have NOT seen what he said, if there was
> corroboration ?
>
> >>Here is the photo from the
> > > TSBD, showing the New County Courthouse way in the background to the
> > > left...
>
>
> Bud, what year was that picture taken ?
Dunno, I found it on Lancer. They give credit to Greg Jaynes for
it, don`t know if that means he took the photo, or found it. I can`t
imagine how when it was taken could matter, the buildings are the same
distance apart now as then.
And I couldn`t help noticing that in typical kook fashion, when you
are questioned on your assertions, you merely ignore the questions.
Where did you get that Carr saw the motorcade from atop a girder from?
How is it possible that Carr could make out details like a hat and
glasses from around 600 feet away? You kooks just say stuff, but when
pressed to back up your words, you just fall silent. This is why you
kooks have no real credibility. Maybe curtjester can help you, he
thought your post was "great stuff". All untrue, but since when do
kooks care about that?
And, speaking of untrue, I was reading Carr`s Clay Shaw trial
testimony. In it, he said he was in the Fifth Ranger battalion, and
that they were almost wiped out (only 13 men left) at Anzio. Only
problem is, the Fifth Rifle Battalion never fought at Anzio. Another
claim that he made under oath was that he hunted with a 70 millimeter
Remington. No such rifle exists.
Bud
> On Oct 6, 8:18 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > How can there be corroboration if he couldn`t possibly have made out
> > > > anyone in the TSBD from where he was at?
>
> > The question is how could he have NOT seen what he said, if there was
> > corroboration ?
>
> > >>Here is the photo from the
> > > > TSBD, showing the New County Courthouse way in the background to the
> > > > left...
>
>
> >Bud, what year was that picture taken ?
>
> Dunno, I found it on Lancer. They give credit to Greg Jaynes for
> it, don`t know if that means he took the photo, or found it. I can`t
> imagine how when it was taken could matter, the buildings are the same
> distance apart now as then.
>
> And I couldn`t help noticing that in typical kook fashion, when you
> are questioned on your assertions, you merely ignore the questions.
> Where did you get that Carr saw the motorcade from atop a girder from?
> How is it possible that Carr could make out details like a hat and
> glasses from around 600 feet away?
Bump for Gil Jesus. Here are two questions sitting here for you. If
you don`t answer them, I`m starting a post with your name on it asking
them.
curtjester1
> On Oct 6, 8:18 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 6:56 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > How can there be corroboration if he couldn`t possibly have made out
> > > > anyone in the TSBD from where he was at?
>
> > The question is how could he have NOT seen what he said, if there was
> > corroboration ?
>
> > >>Here is the photo from the
> > > > TSBD, showing the New County Courthouse way in the background to the
> > > > left...
>
>
> > Bud, what year was that picture taken ?
>
> Dunno, I found it on Lancer. They give credit to Greg Jaynes for
> it, don`t know if that means he took the photo, or found it. I can`t
> imagine how when it was taken could matter, the buildings are the same
> distance apart now as then.
>
that photo? It would seem that Houston is a cross street from the
Commerce St. view, and the TSBD would be off to the right, unseen?
It would seem rather plausible since the building is so much higher
than the rest, that it would corroborate what Carr said, in that he
could only see the top floors of the TSBD at the time.
> And I couldn`t help noticing that in typical kook fashion, when you
> are questioned on your assertions, you merely ignore the questions.
> Where did you get that Carr saw the motorcade from atop a girder from?
> How is it possible that Carr could make out details like a hat and
> glasses from around 600 feet away? You kooks just say stuff, but when
> pressed to back up your words, you just fall silent. This is why you
> kooks have no real credibility. Maybe curtjester can help you, he
> thought your post was "great stuff". All untrue, but since when do
> kooks care about that?
>
It's not difficult Bud when there are so many corroborations that are
offshoot's from each other with witnesses seeing a sportscoat, dark
rim glasses, getting into a Ramber, and not all seeing the same parts
of the whole scenario. What is so difficult about seeing a man with
a sportscoat, horn-rimmed glasses and a hat? That would distinguish
anyone else in a crowd that day. Besides, he saw him coming from out
behind the TSBD where I would imagine he would have a nice view, PLUS
by the time he came down to investigate, saw him coming right TOWARDS
him!!
CJ
Bud
> On Oct 6, 5:55 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 8:18 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > How can there be corroboration if he couldn`t possibly have made out
> > > > > anyone in the TSBD from where he was at?
>
> > > The question is how could he have NOT seen what he said, if there was
> > > corroboration ?
>
> > > >>Here is the photo from the
> > > > > TSBD, showing the New County Courthouse way in the background to the
> > > > > left...
>
>
> > >Bud, what year was that picture taken ?
>
> > Dunno, I found it on Lancer. They give credit to Greg Jaynes for
> > it, don`t know if that means he took the photo, or found it. I can`t
> > imagine how when it was taken could matter, the buildings are the same
> > distance apart now as then.
>
> Bud, why don't you tell us why Carr couldn't have seen the TSBD by
> that photo?
That wasn`t the argument I was making (but I will get into that if
you like). I was saying that there was no way that Carr could make out
details from the distance he was from the TSBD. It`s around 600 feet,
about 2 football fields away. There is no way he could make out a
"felt hat", or "tie" or "heavy-rimmed glasses from that distance. He
just couldn`t, nobody could.
> It would seem that Houston is a cross street from the
> Commerce St. view, and the TSBD would be off to the right, unseen?
> It would seem rather plausible since the building is so much higher
> than the rest, that it would corroborate what Carr said, in that he
> could only see the top floors of the TSBD at the time.
The New Courthouse isn`t so much higher than the rest. Carr said he
was on the 6th flloor. The Old Red Courthouse is about as tall as the
New Courthouse. The biggest problem for line of sight (besides the
distance) is that the bid red castle-looking Red Courthouse is between
the two buildings (TSBD and New Courthouse), and the New Courthouse is
set so far back off of Houston St. Heres a few visuals...
First an overhead...
http://www.dealey.org/Dealey1.jpg
The New Courthouse is the light building in the upper right. The
TSBD is to the lower left. Right dead smack in the way between the two
is the Old Red Courthouse (the dark building).
Here is a view from the TSBD, looking down Houston. I said earlier
that the building in the background is the New Courthouse, but I`m
pretty sure now that was wrong. The New courthouse is set back so far,
it can`t be seen in this photo, and it seems very likely the the
eastern side of the TSBD could not be seen at all from that building.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkdp1.jpg
I suggest you go to google maps, and check what I`m saying, type in
"Main street and Houston street, Dallas Texas" (that will center the
area pretty well), and it will give you a nice overhead of the area,
with a scale. I`ve viewed it, but I had trouble capturing it for a
link.
> > And I couldn`t help noticing that in typical kook fashion, when you
> > are questioned on your assertions, you merely ignore the questions.
> > Where did you get that Carr saw the motorcade from atop a girder from?
> > How is it possible that Carr could make out details like a hat and
> > glasses from around 600 feet away? You kooks just say stuff, but when
> > pressed to back up your words, you just fall silent. This is why you
> > kooks have no real credibility. Maybe curtjester can help you, he
> > thought your post was "great stuff". All untrue, but since when do
> > kooks care about that?
>
> It's not difficultBudwhen there are so many corroborations that are
> offshoot's from each other with witnesses seeing a sportscoat, dark
> rim glasses, getting into a Ramber, and not all seeing the same parts
> of the whole scenario.
Carr cannot corroborate anything if he can`t see what he said he
saw, it`s as simple as that. No way he could make out details of a
person from that distance. No way he can recognize such a person when
he got to the street.
> What is so difficult about seeing a man with
> a sportscoat, horn-rimmed glasses and a hat?
He makes out these details at around 600 feet away? With a large
building between him and the TSBD?
> That would distinguish
> anyone else in a crowd that day. Besides, he saw him coming from out
> behind the TSBD where I would imagine he would have a nice view, PLUS
> by the time he came down to investigate, saw him coming right TOWARDS
> him!!
Thats just stupid. How does he recognize a person on the street
that he saw from that far away?
curtjester1
before you do the Conspiracy-Witness-Kook-Theory-Dance mold you put
yourself into. All your talking about is 2 dinky city blocks, Bud.
A felt hat is just more of a dress hat, and would be worn with a sport
coat, and one could sure clarify that when someone was coming towards
you, couldn't one?
CJ
> > > Remington. No such rifle exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
curtjester1
> For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> under construction.
>
just one short city block away.
CJ
curtjester1
> On Oct 6, 7:03 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:> For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> > He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> > building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> > under construction.
>
> Bud, how come you didn't challenge the location? That would make it
> just one short city block away.
>
> CJ
>
said, on the northeast corner of Main & Houston, only one block away.
Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
CJ
>
>
> > You make it sound like he was watching out the window of the building.
> > He wasn't.
>
> > After climbing down form the perch, Carr saw the man who he had seen
> > in the window getting into a 1961 or 62 Rambler station wagon that was
> > parked on Record St just north of Commerce.
>
> > The station wagon, which had Texas license plates and was driven by a
> > young negro man, drove off in a northerly direction. ( in the
> > direction of Main and then Elm Sts. )
>
> > Carr's description of the car corroborates that of witness Roger
> > Craig.
>
> > Carr's description of the man in the window corroborates that of
> > witness Carolyn Walther.
>
> > Carr's description of a man heading south on Houston toward Commerce
> > St corroborates that of witness James R. Worrell.
>
> > Funny how there was so many corroborating accounts and descriptions
> > from an army of "kooks" who just happened to all be in Dealey Plaza at
> > the same time.- Hide quoted text -
Bud
In other words, you have nothing to contest the information i
presented, but still very much want to believe Carr is a viable
witness, because you like what he said (regardless of whether he could
see what he said he saw).
> All your talking about is 2 dinky city blocks,Bud.
No, I`m talking about 600 feet. The length of two football fields.
With a massive structure right in the line of sight between the two
buildings.
> A felt hat is just more of a dress hat, and would be worn with a sport
> coat, and one could sure clarify that when someone was coming towards
> you, couldn't one?
When he got to the ground, any number of people could be moving
around. There just is no way he could pick one of these people out as
someone he saw in a TSBD window, as I`ve shown.
Bud
> On Oct 6, 7:03 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:> For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> > He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> > building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> > under construction.
>
> Bud, how come you didn't challenge the location? That would make it
> just one short city block away.
Do I need to correct everything that Gil says that is wrong?
Bud
> On Oct 7, 7:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 6, 7:03 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:> For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> > > He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> > > building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> > > under construction.
>
> >Bud, how come you didn't challenge the location? That would make it
> > just one short city block away.
>
> > CJ
>
> said, on the northeast corner of Main & Houston,
Now you are moving the building he said he was in. I linked to maps
showing the location of the New County Courthouse.
> only one block away.
> Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
> 308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
<snicker>The truth hurts, doesn`t it Curt? Carr is no witness to
anything. What he said can corroborate nothing if he could not see
what he claimed to have seen.
Walt
> On Oct 6, 8:18 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 6:56 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > How can there be corroboration if he couldn`t possibly have made out
> > > > anyone in the TSBD from where he was at?
>
> > The question is how could he have NOT seen what he said, if there was
> > corroboration ?
>
> > >>Here is the photo from the
> > > > TSBD, showing the New County Courthouse way in the background to the
> > > > left...
>
>
> > Bud, what year was that picture taken ?
>
> Dunno, I found it on Lancer. They give credit to Greg Jaynes for
> it, don`t know if that means he took the photo, or found it. I can`t
> imagine how when it was taken could matter, the buildings are the same
> distance apart now as then.
>
> And I couldn`t help noticing that in typical kook fashion, when you
> are questioned on your assertions, you merely ignore the questions.
> Where did you get that Carr saw the motorcade from atop a girder from?
> How is it possible that Carr could make out details like a hat and
> glasses from around 600 feet away? You kooks just say stuff, but when
> pressed to back up your words, you just fall silent. This is why you
> kooks have no real credibility. Maybe curtjester can help you, he
> thought your post was "great stuff". All untrue, but since when do
> kooks care about that?
>
> And, speaking of untrue, I was reading Carr`s Clay Shaw trial
> testimony. In it, he said he was in the Fifth Ranger battalion, and
> that they were almost wiped out (only 13 men left) at Anzio. Only
> problem is, the Fifth Rifle Battalion never fought at Anzio. Another
> claim that he made under oath was that he hunted with a 70 millimeter
> Remington. No such rifle exists.
Another claim that he made under oath was that he hunted with a 70
millimeter Remington. No such rifle exists.
Jesus H.Christ on a skateboard!.... 70mm!!..... That's nearly
3inches..( 2.755") ....
Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee... A 70 mm hunting rifle....hee,hee,hee...
What was he hunting, a tiger?? ...as in
A German "Tiger" tank?
Bud
> On 6 Oct, 19:55, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 8:18 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 6:56 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > How can there be corroboration if he couldn`t possibly have made out
> > > > > anyone in the TSBD from where he was at?
>
> > > The question is how could he have NOT seen what he said, if there was
> > > corroboration ?
>
> > > >>Here is the photo from the
> > > > > TSBD, showing the New County Courthouse way in the background to the
> > > > > left...
>
I know, Carr said a lot of strange things in his Shaw trial
testimony that went unchallenged. His testimony can be found here...
http://www.jfk-online.com/carrshaw.html
He also said...
"...and I went to Anzio beachhead and my battalion was annihilated,
13 men left in the Fifth Ranger Battalion."
The problem with that is the Fifth Ranger Battalion did not fight
at Anzio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Ranger_Battalion_(United_States)
He also claimed he "qualified as expert with a bolt-action rifle"
while in the Army. The main rifle of the US Army from about 1938 on
was the M1 Garland, a clip fed rifle.
Walt
Not true.... Although the Garand was designed in 1928, it wasn't
adopted as the official rifle of the US army until 1940. The Army had
tested the rifle and even bought some before 1940 but they really
weren't produced in large quantities until 1940.
Bud
They were making a hundred a day in 1939 for the army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand_rifle
But it does seem likely that Carr was trained to shoot with the
Springfield M1903, a bolt-action rifle.
curtjester1
> On Oct 7, 10:41 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 7:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 6, 7:03 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:> For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> > > > He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> > > > building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> > > > under construction.
>
> > >Bud, how come you didn't challenge the location? That would make it
> > > just one short city block away.
>
> > > CJ
>
> > Nevermind!!!Bud'swild goose scenario chase is corroborated as Gil
> > said, on the northeast corner of Main & Houston,
>
> Now you are moving the building he said he was in. I linked to maps
> showing the location of the New County Courthouse.
>
there too, Bud. And you didn't show a nice picture of the TSBD in
relation, how come?
> > only one block away.
> > Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
> > 308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
>
> <snicker>The truth hurts, doesn`t it Curt? Carr is no witness to
> anything. What he said can corroborate nothing if he could not see
> what he claimed to have seen.
>
>
Yeah it must, Bud, when a 'thread' you started blows up in yer face!
<howl> Bud, he was high up, higher than the rest of the buildings,
and could see logically what he said he saw, which was the top floors
only of the TSBD. Are you going to argue now, that the prisoners
couldn't see, either?
CJ
>
> > CJ
>
> > > > You make it sound like he was watching out the window of the building.
> > > > He wasn't.
>
> > > > After climbing down form the perch, Carr saw the man who he had seen
> > > > in the window getting into a 1961 or 62 Rambler station wagon that was
> > > > parked on Record St just north of Commerce.
>
> > > > The station wagon, which had Texas license plates and was driven by a
> > > > young negro man, drove off in a northerly direction. ( in the
> > > > direction of Main and then Elm Sts. )
>
> > > > Carr's description of the car corroborates that of witness Roger
> > > > Craig.
>
> > > > Carr's description of the man in the window corroborates that of
> > > > witness Carolyn Walther.
>
> > > > Carr's description of a man heading south on Houston toward Commerce
> > > > St corroborates that of witness James R. Worrell.
>
> > > > Funny how there was so many corroborating accounts and descriptions
> > > > from an army of "kooks" who just happened to all be in Dealey Plaza at
> > > > the same time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On Oct 8, 12:17 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 10:41 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 7:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 6, 7:03 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:> For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> > > > > He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> > > > > building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> > > > > under construction.
>
> > > >Bud, how come you didn't challenge the location? That would make it
> > > > just one short city block away.
>
> > > > CJ
>
> > > Nevermind!!!Bud'swild goose scenario chase is corroborated as Gil
> > > said, on the northeast corner of Main & Houston,
>
> > Now you are moving the building he said he was in. I linked to maps
> > showing the location of the New County Courthouse.
>
> No, it's the same building that even housed prisoners that saw stuff
> there too,Bud.
Yah, they had prisoners in a building that was being built. You
kooks are a particularly stupid bunch, I can`t even lead you by the
hand. It`s like taking a retard through a store full of shiny objects.
Here is what Carr told the FBI...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10730&relPageId=32
Notice he says the New County Courthouse being constructed at
Commerce and Houston. Find that building on a map, and you`ll find
where he said he was. I`ll give a hint, it wasn`t across the street
from TSBD.
> And you didn't show a nice picture of the TSBD in
> relation, how come?
In relation to what, idiot. I`ve said that it seems the TSBD can`t
be seen from the NCC.
> > > only one block away.
> > > Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
> > > 308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
>
> > <snicker>The truth hurts, doesn`t it Curt? Carr is no witness to
> > anything. What he said can corroborate nothing if he could not see
> > what he claimed to have seen.
>
> Yeah it must,Bud, when a 'thread' you started blows up in yer face!
You`ve offered nothing to harm anything I`ve said.
> <howl> Bud, he was high up, higher than the rest of the buildings,
No, he wasn`t, idiot. He was on the 6th floor, about midway up in
the building.
> and could see logically what he said he saw, which was the top floors
> only of the TSBD.
Doubtful he could see the TSBD at all from where he was. It`s
certain that he couldn`t make out details even if he could see a
person from the distance he was from the TSBD.
> Are you going to argue now, that the prisoners
> couldn't see, either?
I`ve seen it said that holding cell are not on the Houston side.
Makes sense, why do you want criminals gawking down on the general
public in a busy thoroughfare? Why would cells have windows at all? I
have read in this newsgroup information that I believe came from Gary
mack, that the cells cannot see anything on Houston St. One thing I
know for sure, you accept this information as solid, without ever
looking into whether these witnesses could see what they claimed to
see.
curtjester1
> On Oct 9, 8:19 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 12:17 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 10:41 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 7, 7:18 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 6, 7:03 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:> For the record, the witness was Richard Randolph Carr.
>
> > > > > > He watched the motorcade from a perch on a girder of the new Courts
> > > > > > building at the northeast corner of Main and Houston Streets, then
> > > > > > under construction.
>
> > > > >Bud, how come you didn't challenge the location? That would make it
> > > > > just one short city block away.
>
> > > > > CJ
>
> > > > Nevermind!!!Bud'swild goose scenario chase is corroborated as Gil
> > > > said, on the northeast corner of Main & Houston,
>
> > > Now you are moving the building he said he was in. I linked to maps
> > > showing the location of the New County Courthouse.
>
> > No, it's the same building that even housed prisoners that saw stuff
> > there too,Bud.
>
> Yah, they had prisoners in a building that was being built. You
> kooks are a particularly stupid bunch, I can`t even lead you by the
> hand. It`s like taking a retard through a store full of shiny objects.
> Here is what Carr told the FBI...
>
>
LOL, I have already answered some of this below, as I missed this. Of
course they have prisoners in the same building as the Courthouse!
Most all cities have that. You take the prisoner from the cell and
take him via elevators right into an area for the courtrooms. Very
efficient, and they don't have to use vehicles. Carr was on an
interview, so he misstated the street. Nice try, but no cigar. New
County Courthouse on northeast side of Main and Houston. Old CC on
the southeast side of Main and Houston.
> Notice he says the New County Courthouse being constructed at
> Commerce and Houston. Find that building on a map, and you`ll find
> where he said he was. I`ll give a hint, it wasn`t across the street
> from TSBD.
>
I told you I looked it up. It would be called catercorner. The NCC
wasn't even in the middle of Dealey Plaza, it was more on the TSBD
side of Dealey.
> > And you didn't show a nice picture of the TSBD in
> > relation, how come?
>
> In relation to what, idiot. I`ve said that it seems the TSBD can`t
> be seen from the NCC.
>
Well, it seems your way more than wrong, name caller <shame shame>
> > > > only one block away.
> > > > Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
> > > > 308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
>
> > > <snicker>The truth hurts, doesn`t it Curt? Carr is no witness to
> > > anything. What he said can corroborate nothing if he could not see
> > > what he claimed to have seen.
>
> > Yeah it must,Bud, when a 'thread' you started blows up in yer face!
>
> You`ve offered nothing to harm anything I`ve said.
>
Besides the multiple, intertwining, testimonies of witnesses? The
fact you show a picture that doesn't have the TSBD in it, so as to
make any attempt at a point? The fact that you are waffling even as
to where the New County Courthouse building is? The fact that the
building is much closer than you opine according to Gil, and my two
books citings for the proper place of the building? What, Bud,
what???
> > <howl> Bud, he was high up, higher than the rest of the buildings,
>
> No, he wasn`t, idiot. He was on the 6th floor, about midway up in
> the building.
>
I've seen 7th, and of aren't the floors of the TSBD are only 8 ft.
apart except for the 7th floor?
> > and could see logically what he said he saw, which was the top floors
> > only of the TSBD.
>
> Doubtful he could see the TSBD at all from where he was. It`s
> certain that he couldn`t make out details even if he could see a
> person from the distance he was from the TSBD.
>
Why....40 prisoners could? They saw two men fooling with the scope of
the rilfe and the one isolated for commentary, Johnny Powell described
their skin color and clothing. They were on the fifth and sixth floor
of the same building Richard Carr was at, the New County Courthouse
Building, on the northeast corner of Main and Houston. The TSBD was
on the west side of Houston and could easily be a way of sight for
anyone on the west side of the building on Houston...as well as the
County Records next door, and the Dal-Tex which was across the street,
which would have a side view into the TSBD instead of directly through
the SN's side.
> > Are you going to argue now, that the prisoners
> > couldn't see, either?
>
> I`ve seen it said that holding cell are not on the Houston side.
> Makes sense, why do you want criminals gawking down on the general
> public in a busy thoroughfare? Why would cells have windows at all? I
> have read in this newsgroup information that I believe came from Gary
> mack, that the cells cannot see anything on Houston St. One thing I
> know for sure, you accept this information as solid, without ever
> looking into whether these witnesses could see what they claimed to
> see.
>
I see you never have been inside of a crowded city jail system.
Outside the cells are day rooms (card tables, TV's etc) and
recrecation rooms (basketball areas), that would have windows like any
other office building. Actually it would make sense that they would
allow the prisoners out to just see the parade. Guards generally like
to see prisoners happy, it makes their jobs easier. And it was
brought to the attention of one of the prisoner's lawyer, Kaufman, who
did go to WC Hubert to question why the prisoners weren't allowed to
testify.
CJ
Bud
They don`t put prisoners in a building while it`s being built,
idiot.
> Most all cities have that. You take the prisoner from the cell and
> take him via elevators right into an area for the courtrooms. Very
> efficient, and they don't have to use vehicles. Carr was on an
> interview, so he misstated the street. Nice try, but no cigar. New
> County Courthouse on northeast side of Main and Houston. Old CC on
> the southeast side of Main and Houston.
No, you are an idiot, and you are referring to the wrong building.
Carr went into the New County Courthouse being built at Commerce and
Houston.
> > Notice he says the New County Courthouse being constructed at
> > Commerce and Houston. Find that building on a map, and you`ll find
> > where he said he was. I`ll give a hint, it wasn`t across the street
> > from TSBD.
>
> I told you I looked it up. It would be called catercorner. The NCC
> wasn't even in the middle of Dealey Plaza, it was more on the TSBD
> side of Dealey.
You are looking at the wrong building. You are an idiot.
http://www.texasescapes.com/DallasTexas/Dallas-County-Courthouse-Dallas-Texas.htm
> > > And you didn't show a nice picture of the TSBD in
> > > relation, how come?
>
> > In relation to what, idiot. I`ve said that it seems the TSBD can`t
> > be seen from the NCC.
>
> Well, it seems your way more than wrong, name caller <shame shame>
The New County Courthouse is between Commerce and Jackson streets
on Houston, idiot.
> > > > > only one block away.
> > > > > Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
> > > > > 308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
>
> > > > <snicker>The truth hurts, doesn`t it Curt? Carr is no witness to
> > > > anything. What he said can corroborate nothing if he could not see
> > > > what he claimed to have seen.
>
> > > Yeah it must,Bud, when a 'thread' you started blows up in yer face!
>
> > You`ve offered nothing to harm anything I`ve said.
>
> Besides the multiple, intertwining, testimonies of witnesses?
How can what Carr said "intertwine" with anyone else if he could not
see what he said he saw?
> The
> fact you show a picture that doesn't have the TSBD in it, so as to
> make any attempt at a point?
I`ve made my point. I`ve shown conclusively that Carr could see the
things he claimed to have seen from where he was.
> The fact that you are waffling even as
> to where the New County Courthouse building is?
Gil put it in the wrong place, not me.
> The fact that the
> building is much closer than you opine according to Gil, and my two
> books citings for the proper place of the building?
<snicker> An idiot and your kook books agree the building is at one
place. Maps and the city of Dallas place it at another.
> What, Bud,
> what???
Easy enough to look up, Curt. I`m right, your sources are wrong, and
Carr is not a viable witness. The favorite kind of witness for kooks.
> > > <howl> Bud, he was high up, higher than the rest of the buildings,
>
> > No, he wasn`t, idiot. He was on the 6th floor, about midway up in
> > the building.
>
> I've seen 7th, and of aren't the floors of the TSBD are only 8 ft.
> apart except for the 7th floor?
What are you babbling about? There is a building between the TSBD
and the building Carr was in.
> > > and could see logically what he said he saw, which was the top floors
> > > only of the TSBD.
>
> > Doubtful he could see the TSBD at all from where he was. It`s
> > certain that he couldn`t make out details even if he could see a
> > person from the distance he was from the TSBD.
>
> Why....40 prisoners could?
Thats just a factoid you picked up on the kook sites you frequent.
The FBI looked into these things, in this post Jean Davison tells what
they found....
>They saw two men fooling with the scope of
> the rilfe and the one isolated for commentary, Johnny Powell described
> their skin color and clothing.
All forty said this, did they? And you know Johnny Powell was there
how, because he said so? Like with Carr, you accept anything you like
the sound of, without looking too hard at the source.
> They were on the fifth and sixth floor
> of the same building Richard Carr was at, the New County Courthouse
> Building, on the northeast corner of Main and Houston.
You`re an idiot, you don`t even know what building Carr was in, or
where it is located. I`ll help you out with one more visual. The New
County Courthouse is the white building to the right. You can count 6
stories up, and see where Carr was, and see that he could not possibly
see over the Red Brick Courthouse to the left of it...
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txpstcrd/courthouses/DallasNew_OldCourthouse1972.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~txpstcrd/countycourthouses.html&h=282&w=450&sz=53&hl=en&start=6&sig2=tXGUOv-cqv1Vq2zRJ5isXA&um=1&usg=__nm54QgBU4znpKodpIFyDaKwT4pw=&tbnid=TWUsgp3C6_UW0M:&tbnh=80&tbnw=127&ei=5p7uSJ-FDJ6eec3jpakH&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnew%2Bcounty%2Bcourthouse%2Bdallas%2Btexas%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
> The TSBD was
> on the west side of Houston and could easily be a way of sight for
> anyone on the west side of the building on Houston...as well as the
> County Records next door, and the Dal-Tex which was across the street,
> which would have a side view into the TSBD instead of directly through
> the SN's side.
You are looking at the wrong building, idiot. The New County
Courthouse is not next to the Records building.
> > > Are you going to argue now, that the prisoners
> > > couldn't see, either?
>
> > I`ve seen it said that holding cell are not on the Houston side.
> > Makes sense, why do you want criminals gawking down on the general
> > public in a busy thoroughfare? Why would cells have windows at all? I
> > have read in this newsgroup information that I believe came from Gary
> > mack, that the cells cannot see anything on Houston St. One thing I
> > know for sure, you accept this information as solid, without ever
> > looking into whether these witnesses could see what they claimed to
> > see.
>
> I see you never have been inside of a crowded city jail system.
> Outside the cells are day rooms (card tables, TV's etc) and
> recrecation rooms (basketball areas), that would have windows like any
> other office building. Actually it would make sense that they would
> allow the prisoners out to just see the parade. Guards generally like
> to see prisoners happy, it makes their jobs easier. And it was
> brought to the attention of one of the prisoner's lawyer, Kaufman, who
> did go to WC Hubert to question why the prisoners weren't allowed to
> testify.
In other words, you haven`t looked to it, you liked the sound of it
so you accepted it, right? What were their names?
David Von Pein
MORE ABOUT RICHARD CARR.......
For a really good laugh concerning "the dreaded Richard Randolph
Carr", check out pages 880 to 883 of Vincent Bugliosi's book,
"Reclaiming History".
Anyone who reads those four Carr-related pages of Bugliosi's book and
then still thinks that Richard Randolph Carr has even a SPECK of
credibility left in him....is a loon.
Just a small "Carr" sample from "RH":
"Though Carr has no credibility and no one in authority is the
least bit interested in what he has to say, apparently the
conspirators who murdered Kennedy are still terrified that the
authorities might listen to him one day, and according to him, they
have been trying to intimidate and even murder him for years, all to
no avail. .... Obviously, the conspirators found it easy to eliminate
President Kennedy, but they never could find a way to eliminate the
person they feared the most, the dreaded Richard Randolph Carr." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 883 of "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
To read all four pages of VB's book that deal with the subject of
Richard Carr, simply type the following keywords into the search box
at the following webpage:
"Then there's the story of Richard Randolph Carr."
Those keywords above are the first words written by Bugliosi in
"Reclaiming History" concerning the laughable Mr. Carr, and by using
those keywords in a search at the webpage below, you can get immediate
access to pages 880 through 882 (re: Carr).*
The Amazon Reader says the Carr material starts on Page 858, for some
reason. That's not correct; but clicking the "Page 858" link will take
you to the correct page about Carr, page 880:
www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0393045250/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
* = Note: The "Amazon Reader" device that is used to access the "RH"
pages only allows you to see two additional pages on either side of
the first page being accessed. So, to read Page 883, another separate
search must be performed. Typing "dreaded Richard Randolph Carr" into
the search box will provide access to Page 883.
I thought that Bud might be particularly interested in reading Mr.
Bugliosi's comments regarding Carr, since he started this thread. And
Bud will find that everything he has said re. Carr is buttressed by
Bugliosi's research in "RH" as well.
curtjester1
floor.
> > Most all cities have that. You take the prisoner from the cell and
> > take him via elevators right into an area for the courtrooms. Very
> > efficient, and they don't have to use vehicles. Carr was on an
> > interview, so he misstated the street. Nice try, but no cigar. New
> > County Courthouse on northeast side of Main and Houston. Old CC on
> > the southeast side of Main and Houston.
>
> No, you are an idiot, and you are referring to the wrong building.
> Carr went into the New County Courthouse being built at Commerce and
> Houston.
>
Ok. So that is different from the New County Courthouse on the NE
corner of Main and Houston that would have house prisoners and held
court of which the Old County Courthouse that wasn't? So new in
replacing the old would be sorta common, like the newer one that
replaced the one at Commerce in latter years?
> > > Notice he says the New County Courthouse being constructed at
> > > Commerce and Houston. Find that building on a map, and you`ll find
> > > where he said he was. I`ll give a hint, it wasn`t across the street
> > > from TSBD.
>
> > I told you I looked it up. It would be called catercorner. The NCC
> > wasn't even in the middle of Dealey Plaza, it was more on the TSBD
> > side of Dealey.
>
> You are looking at the wrong building. You are an idiot.
>
> http://www.texasescapes.com/DallasTexas/Dallas-County-Courthouse-Dall...
>
So there is a newer building at Commerce replacing 'A' new one at the
N.E. corner of Main and Houston that was opposite the street of the
old courthouse (going towards the TSBD) where as the new construct is
on the opposite side of the old courthouse going the other way. Ok, I
see.
> > > > And you didn't show a nice picture of the TSBD in
> > > > relation, how come?
>
> > > In relation to what, idiot. I`ve said that it seems the TSBD can`t
> > > be seen from the NCC.
>
> > Well, it seems your way more than wrong, name caller <shame shame>
>
> The New County Courthouse is between Commerce and Jackson streets
> on Houston, idiot.
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&abauth=bb246a88%3AMqFlqmsQ...
>
> > > > > > only one block away.
> > > > > > Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
> > > > > > 308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
>
> > > > > <snicker>The truth hurts, doesn`t it Curt? Carr is no witness to
> > > > > anything. What he said can corroborate nothing if he could not see
> > > > > what he claimed to have seen.
>
> > > > Yeah it must,Bud, when a 'thread' you started blows up in yer face!
>
> > > You`ve offered nothing to harm anything I`ve said.
>
> > Besides the multiple, intertwining, testimonies of witnesses?
>
> How can what Carr said "intertwine" with anyone else if he could not
> see what he said he saw?
>
Seems like you offer nothing that would make that he couldn't see.
You have the old courthouse which isn't very high and a new edifice
behind it and if on the Commerce Street side would have a nice view
towards the TSBD without looking through other buildings since the
TSBD is on the opposite side of the street. Looks like that new
building is 8 or 9 stories if I am counting right. Why would he see
the same as Carolyn Walther? Do you believe it was just blind fate?
> > The
> > fact you show a picture that doesn't have the TSBD in it, so as to
> > make any attempt at a point?
>
> I`ve made my point. I`ve shown conclusively that Carr could see the
> things he claimed to have seen from where he was.
>
I do like your reasoning (for once)..<wink>
> > The fact that you are waffling even as
> > to where the New County Courthouse building is?
>
> Gil put it in the wrong place, not me.
>
He was sorta right...it's all in the semantics.
> > The fact that the
> > building is much closer than you opine according to Gil, and my two
> > books citings for the proper place of the building?
>
> <snicker> An idiot and your kook books agree the building is at one
> place. Maps and the city of Dallas place it at another.
>
Wow, we must be cartologists to sound so 'idiotoic', huh?
> > What, Bud,
> > what???
>
> Easy enough to look up, Curt. I`m right, your sources are wrong, and
> Carr is not a viable witness. The favorite kind of witness for kooks.
>
He's a witness the corroborates other witnesses. Some witnesses saw 2
people up on the sixth floor, some didn't. They still corroborate
that there was action there. So, you have to invent a conspiracy on
your own, to counteract the conspiracy you are trying so desperately
to disprove. You have to find 'kook' witnesses that say the same
thing, to say there was a conspiracy of kooks that day. So, Bud, you
are really a 'CT', after all. <snicker>
> > > > <howl> Bud, he was high up, higher than the rest of the buildings,
>
> > > No, he wasn`t, idiot. He was on the 6th floor, about midway up in
> > > the building.
>
> > I've seen 7th, and of aren't the floors of the TSBD are only 8 ft.
> > apart except for the 7th floor?
>
> What are you babbling about? There is a building between the TSBD
> and the building Carr was in.
>
Maybe the old courthouse. The TSBD is on the other side of Houston,
so you don't have to look through buildings. Or as he said if he was
slightly blocked, he could still potentially see a part of the
building like the top floors, since that new edifice was so high. Too
bad you can't show a picture from where he was toward the TSBD at that
time period, huh? Or even in latter times?
> > > > and could see logically what he said he saw, which was the top floors
> > > > only of the TSBD.
>
> > > Doubtful he could see the TSBD at all from where he was. It`s
> > > certain that he couldn`t make out details even if he could see a
> > > person from the distance he was from the TSBD.
>
> > Why....40 prisoners could?
>
> Thats just a factoid you picked up on the kook sites you frequent.
> The FBI looked into these things, in this post Jean Davison tells what
> they found....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
Oh she does, does she? The disinfo Queen, forgot to tell about the
1978 journalism of Golz who had a piece on persons not interviewed.
It would have shown a Johnny Powell who was not a DUI person that they
have to have to discount. And what about the sixth floor prisoners
that is avoided in her 'research'?
> >They saw two men fooling with the scope of
> > the rilfe and the one isolated for commentary, Johnny Powell described
> > their skin color and clothing.
>
> All forty said this, did they? And you know Johnny Powell was there
> how, because he said so? Like with Carr, you accept anything you like
> the sound of, without looking too hard at the source.
>
Not just Powell, there was a Willie Mitchell as well. I guess they
didn't like the part about two men and a scope, so Jean and the FBI
didn't want to go there?
> > They were on the fifth and sixth floor
> > of the same building Richard Carr was at, the New County Courthouse
> > Building, on the northeast corner of Main and Houston.
>
> You`re an idiot, you don`t even know what building Carr was in, or
> where it is located. I`ll help you out with one more visual. The New
> County Courthouse is the white building to the right. You can count 6
> stories up, and see where Carr was, and see that he could not possibly
> see over the Red Brick Courthouse to the left of it...
>
> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.c...
>
How high is the Old Red Brick thing, Bud?
Earl Golz, DMN, 12/19/78, 'Witnesses Overlooked in JFK Probe'. You
got the names, no go gettum, boy!
Bud
It was a new building being built from the ground up, idiot. Why
not research the building instead of making ignorant guesses?
> > > Most all cities have that. You take the prisoner from the cell and
> > > take him via elevators right into an area for the courtrooms. Very
> > > efficient, and they don't have to use vehicles. Carr was on an
> > > interview, so he misstated the street. Nice try, but no cigar. New
> > > County Courthouse on northeast side of Main and Houston. Old CC on
> > > the southeast side of Main and Houston.
>
> > No, you are an idiot, and you are referring to the wrong building.
> > Carr went into the New County Courthouse being built at Commerce and
> > Houston.
>
> Ok. So that is different from the New County Courthouse on the NE
> corner of Main and Houston that would have house prisoners and held
> court of which the Old County Courthouse that wasn't? So new in
> replacing the old would be sorta common, like the newer one that
> replaced the one at Commerce in latter years?
You are still an idiot, and you are still reffering to the wrong
building.
> > > > Notice he says the New County Courthouse being constructed at
> > > > Commerce and Houston. Find that building on a map, and you`ll find
> > > > where he said he was. I`ll give a hint, it wasn`t across the street
> > > > from TSBD.
>
> > > I told you I looked it up. It would be called catercorner. The NCC
> > > wasn't even in the middle of Dealey Plaza, it was more on the TSBD
> > > side of Dealey.
>
> > You are looking at the wrong building. You are an idiot.
>
> > http://www.texasescapes.com/DallasTexas/Dallas-County-Courthouse-Dall...
>
> So there is a newer building at Commerce replacing 'A' new one at the
> N.E. corner of Main and Houston that was opposite the street of the
> old courthouse (going towards the TSBD) where as the new construct is
> on the opposite side of the old courthouse going the other way. Ok, I
> see.
You are still an idiot, and you are still looking at a building
Carr did not say he was in.
> > > > > And you didn't show a nice picture of the TSBD in
> > > > > relation, how come?
>
> > > > In relation to what, idiot. I`ve said that it seems the TSBD can`t
> > > > be seen from the NCC.
>
> > > Well, it seems your way more than wrong, name caller <shame shame>
>
> > The New County Courthouse is between Commerce and Jackson streets
> > on Houston, idiot.
>
> >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&abauth=bb246a88%3AMqFlqmsQ...
>
> > > > > > > only one block away.
> > > > > > > Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
> > > > > > > 308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
>
> > > > > > <snicker>The truth hurts, doesn`t it Curt? Carr is no witness to
> > > > > > anything. What he said can corroborate nothing if he could not see
> > > > > > what he claimed to have seen.
>
> > > > > Yeah it must,Bud, when a 'thread' you started blows up in yer face!
>
> > > > You`ve offered nothing to harm anything I`ve said.
>
> > > Besides the multiple, intertwining, testimonies of witnesses?
>
> > How can what Carr said "intertwine" with anyone else if he could not
> > see what he said he saw?
>
> Seems like you offer nothing that would make that he couldn't see.
Other than obstructions and distance.
> You have the old courthouse which isn't very high and a new edifice
> behind it and if on the Commerce Street side would have a nice view
> towards the TSBD without looking through other buildings since the
> TSBD is on the opposite side of the street. Looks like that new
> building is 8 or 9 stories if I am counting right.
Doesn`t matter how high the building is if Carr is on the 6th floor,
idiot.
> Why would he see
> the same as Carolyn Walther?
It`s obvious he couldn`t.
> Do you believe it was just blind fate?
If Carr couldn`t see what he said he saw, then no corroboration is
possible.
> > > The
> > > fact you show a picture that doesn't have the TSBD in it, so as to
> > > make any attempt at a point?
>
> > I`ve made my point. I`ve shown conclusively that Carr could see the
> > things he claimed to have seen from where he was.
>
> I do like your reasoning (for once)..<wink>
Yah, i do that a lot. Carr could not see what he claimed.
> > > The fact that you are waffling even as
> > > to where the New County Courthouse building is?
>
> > Gil put it in the wrong place, not me.
>
> He was sorta right...it's all in the semantics.
No, he made the same mistake that the authors of the kook books you
reffered to made. It happens because kooks don`t check these things,
if a witness says something they like, it`s golden.
Thats why all the kooks think he was working in the building, when he
wasn`t, they just repeat the same misinformation. Kooks aren`t looking
for truth, they are looking for justification for the stupid things
they want to believe.
> > > The fact that the
> > > building is much closer than you opine according to Gil, and my two
> > > books citings for the proper place of the building?
>
> > <snicker> An idiot and your kook books agree the building is at one
> > place. Maps and the city of Dallas place it at another.
>
> Wow, we must be cartologists to sound so 'idiotoic', huh?
No, just idiots. And don`t even try to rectify your ignorance with a
simple search, because you are afraid you`d have to admit you were
wrong, and Carr is not a viable witness.
> > > What, Bud,
> > > what???
>
> > Easy enough to look up, Curt. I`m right, your sources are wrong, and
> > Carr is not a viable witness. The favorite kind of witness for kooks.
>
> He's a witness the corroborates other witnesses.
He can`t corroborate,. He couldn`t see what he claimed.
> Some witnesses saw 2
> people up on the sixth floor, some didn't. They still corroborate
> that there was action there. So, you have to invent a conspiracy on
> your own, to counteract the conspiracy you are trying so desperately
> to disprove. You have to find 'kook' witnesses that say the same
> thing, to say there was a conspiracy of kooks that day. So, Bud, you
> are really a 'CT', after all. <snicker>
Theres that idiot thinking. Nothing you are saying is addressing the
issues I raised. There is nothing you can offer, Carr was in a place
where he couldn`t see what he said he saw, it`s as simple as that.
> > > > > <howl> Bud, he was high up, higher than the rest of the buildings,
>
> > > > No, he wasn`t, idiot. He was on the 6th floor, about midway up in
> > > > the building.
>
> > > I've seen 7th, and of aren't the floors of the TSBD are only 8 ft.
> > > apart except for the 7th floor?
>
> > What are you babbling about? There is a building between the TSBD
> > and the building Carr was in.
>
> Maybe the old courthouse. The TSBD is on the other side of Houston,
> so you don't have to look through buildings.
Go to google maps like I suggested, and type in what I suggested,
make you sure you know what buildings are which, and you will see that
the OCC directly in the LOS of the TSBD and the NCC.
> Or as he said if he was
> slightly blocked, he could still potentially see a part of the
> building like the top floors, since that new edifice was so high.
The building is high. Carr wasn`t high in the building, only at the
6th floor. You can look at the photo I supplied, count up the floors,
and see that is the middle of the NCC, nowhere near high enough to see
over the OCC. Your desperation to hang onto worthless information is
showing.
> Too
> bad you can't show a picture from where he was toward the TSBD at that
> time period, huh? Or even in latter times?
I showed a picture from the sniper window looking towards the New
County courthouse (it would be the same line of sight looking from the
NCC to the TSBD). You just can`t see the NCC because it is stepped
back from Houston. No use supplying links again you ignored the first
time.
> > > > > and could see logically what he said he saw, which was the top floors
> > > > > only of the TSBD.
>
> > > > Doubtful he could see the TSBD at all from where he was. It`s
> > > > certain that he couldn`t make out details even if he could see a
> > > > person from the distance he was from the TSBD.
>
> > > Why....40 prisoners could?
>
> > Thats just a factoid you picked up on the kook sites you frequent.
> > The FBI looked into these things, in this post Jean Davison tells what
> > they found....
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> Oh she does, does she? The disinfo Queen,
You idiots are afraid to look into these things, opting instead to
use the "sounds good to me" method.. Jean actually researches, and
finds things idiots like yourself don`t want to know.
>forgot to tell about the
> 1978 journalism of Golz who had a piece on persons not interviewed.
> It would have shown a Johnny Powell who was not a DUI person that they
> have to have to discount. And what about the sixth floor prisoners
> that is avoided in her 'research'?
All you need to do is name a witness, and establish he had a view
of Dealy Plaza on 11-22, then quote what he had to say. Can you do
this?
> > >They saw two men fooling with the scope of
> > > the rilfe and the one isolated for commentary, Johnny Powell described
> > > their skin color and clothing.
>
> > All forty said this, did they? And you know Johnny Powell was there
> > how, because he said so? Like with Carr, you accept anything you like
> > the sound of, without looking too hard at the source.
>
> Not just Powell, there was a Willie Mitchell as well. I guess they
> didn't like the part about two men and a scope, so Jean and the FBI
> didn't want to go there?
When did they say this? To who?
> > > They were on the fifth and sixth floor
> > > of the same building Richard Carr was at, the New County Courthouse
> > > Building, on the northeast corner of Main and Houston.
>
> > You`re an idiot, you don`t even know what building Carr was in, or
> > where it is located. I`ll help you out with one more visual. The New
> > County Courthouse is the white building to the right. You can count 6
> > stories up, and see where Carr was, and see that he could not possibly
> > see over the Red Brick Courthouse to the left of it...
>
> >http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.c...
>
> How high is the Old Red Brick thing, Bud?
I assume you have a computer, look it up. I provided a photo of the
old and new courthouses next to one another, and someone on the sixth
floor could not possibly see the TSBD over the OCC.
> > > The TSBD was
> > > on the west side of Houston and could easily be a way of sight for
> > > anyone on the west side of the building on Houston...as well as the
> > > County Records next door, and the Dal-Tex which was across the street,
> > > which would have a side view into the TSBD instead of directly through
> > > the SN's side.
>
> > You are looking at the wrong building, idiot. The New County
> > Courthouse is
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
Thanks for that, David. I was reading a bit about the supposed
attempts on Carr`s life somewhere, and it said that Carr had killed a
man who was trying to kill him. Seemed to me that if the kooks think
this was an attempt to silence him, there is a body with a name
supplying a valuable lead from which to begin an investigation. Again,
the kooks don`t waste energy on these things, they don`t really expect
them to lead anywhere, and they like them where they stand, with just
information to make crackpot claims about.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> For a really good laugh concerning "the dreaded Richard Randolph
> Carr", check out pages 880 to 883 of Vincent Bugliosi's book,
> "Reclaiming History".
What about Robinson?
> Anyone who reads those four Carr-related pages of Bugliosi's book and
> then still thinks that Richard Randolph Carr has even a SPECK of
> credibility left in him....is a loon.
Really? Then why is his story corroborated by two other witnesses and
a photo? How many of your "star" witnesses have any corroboration on
their side? Let me answer for you - NONE!
> Just a small "Carr" sample from "RH":
>
> "Though Carr has no credibility and no one in authority is the
> least bit interested in what he has to say, apparently the
> conspirators who murdered Kennedy are still terrified that the
> authorities might listen to him one day, and according to him, they
> have been trying to intimidate and even murder him for years, all to
> no avail. .... Obviously, the conspirators found it easy to eliminate
> President Kennedy, but they never could find a way to eliminate the
> person they feared the most, the dreaded Richard Randolph Carr." --
> Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 883 of "Reclaiming History: The
> Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
Obviously Vince has forgotten about corroboration being paramount in a
court case since he had
NOT practiced for years as he has been busy writing books that are
full of lies. How can a witness
lack credibility when they have two others and a photo corroborating
them? I guess he went to the
"less is more" school of law. Why does he, like you, ignore evidence?
The story of Marvin Robinson was BURIED because it corroborated a
CONSPIRACY! His story was
contained in CD-5 (Commission Document) and it was left out of the 26
volumes. It took years before
researcher Henry Hurt found it buried at the National Archives. Here
is what it said regarding Marvin
Robinson:
"Soon after the shooting, Marvin C. Robinson was driving west along
Elm Street in heavy traffic. According to an FBI report dated the next
day, just as Robinson crossed the Elm and Houston intersection, he saw
a "light-colored Nash station wagon" stop in front of the Book
Depository. A white man walked down the grassy incline from the
building, got into the Nash, and the car moved off in the direction of
Oak Cliff. Robinson was unable to provide any additional information."
Henry Hurt spoke with Carr and said this:
"It should be noted that over the years Carr's testimony has been
somewhat inconsistent. And, for whatever reason, he has been seriously
intimidated since originally offering his account to officials. He has
been shot at and **has found sticks of dynamite wired to his
autobmobile's ignition switch.** Still, Carr's earliest reports to
officials are consistent on his sighting of the Nash Rambler."
Funny how the LNers always forget the dynamite wired to his engine,
huh? I agree if all we had was Carr saying this it would be like
accepting a WC "star" witness at their word - shaky at best, but
luckily we have Robinson and Craig saying the same thing. And then
there is that photo that shows the TSBD ten minutes after the
shooting. The Hertz clock on the roof reads 12:40. That photograph
shows what appears to be a Rambler station wagon in the traffic on
Elm--lending support Craig's story.
Bud
wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > MORE ABOUT RICHARD CARR.......
>
> > For a really good laugh concerning "the dreaded Richard Randolph
> > Carr", check out pages 880 to 883 of Vincent Bugliosi's book,
> > "Reclaiming History".
>
> What about Robinson?
Jackie?
> > Anyone who reads those four Carr-related pages of Bugliosi's book and
> > then still thinks that Richard Randolph Carr has even a SPECK of
> > credibility left in him....is a loon.
>
> Really? Then why is his story corroborated by two other witnesses and
> a photo?
Kooks always ask the wrong questions. The question you should be
asking is "Could he have seen what he claims to have seen?".
> How many of your "star" witnesses have any corroboration on
> their side? Let me answer for you - NONE!
Quite a number of people in Oak Cliff corroborate each other on
seeing Oswald with a gun shortly after Tippit was killed.
> > Just a small "Carr" sample from "RH":
>
> > "Though Carr has no credibility and no one in authority is the
> > least bit interested in what he has to say, apparently the
> > conspirators who murdered Kennedy are still terrified that the
> > authorities might listen to him one day, and according to him, they
> > have been trying to intimidate and even murder him for years, all to
> > no avail. .... Obviously, the conspirators found it easy to eliminate
> > President Kennedy, but they never could find a way to eliminate the
> > person they feared the most, the dreaded Richard Randolph Carr." --
> > Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 883 of "Reclaiming History: The
> > Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
>
> Obviously Vince has forgotten about corroboration being paramount in a
> court case since he had
> NOT practiced for years as he has been busy writing books that are
> full of lies. How can a witness
> lack credibility when they have two others and a photo corroborating
> them? I guess he went to the
> "less is more" school of law. Why does he, like you, ignore evidence?
So, a witness wouldn`t have to be in Dallas at all, as long as he
said something that was similar to what another person said.
> The story of Marvin Robinson was BURIED because it corroborated a
> CONSPIRACY!
Notice none of the kooks are touching the premise of my post, which
was that it was physically impossible for Carr to see what he claimed
to have seen.
> His story was
> contained in CD-5 (Commission Document) and it was left out of the 26
> volumes. It took years before
> researcher Henry Hurt found it buried at the National Archives. Here
> is what it said regarding Marvin
> Robinson:
>
> "Soon after the shooting, Marvin C. Robinson was driving west along
> Elm Street in heavy traffic. According to an FBI report dated the next
> day, just as Robinson crossed the Elm and Houston intersection, he saw
> a "light-colored Nash station wagon" stop in front of the Book
> Depository. A white man walked down the grassy incline from the
> building, got into the Nash, and the car moved off in the direction of
> Oak Cliff. Robinson was unable to provide any additional information."
Notice that Hunt doesn`t just produce the document verbatim. This
usually means that the document doesn`t say what is claimed, or
contains information that draws into question the information
supplied.
> Henry Hurt spoke with Carr and said this:
>
> "It should be noted that over the years Carr's testimony has been
> somewhat inconsistent. And, for whatever reason, he has been seriously
> intimidated since originally offering his account to officials. He has
> been shot at and **has found sticks of dynamite wired to his
> autobmobile's ignition switch.** Still, Carr's earliest reports to
> officials are consistent on his sighting of the Nash Rambler."
>
> Funny how the LNers always forget the dynamite wired to his engine,
> huh?
How do you know it happened? Have you ever seen a police report?
> I agree if all we had was Carr saying this it would be like
> accepting a WC "star" witness at their word - shaky at best, but
> luckily we have Robinson and Craig saying the same thing. And then
> there is that photo that shows the TSBD ten minutes after the
> shooting. The Hertz clock on the roof reads 12:40. That photograph
> shows what appears to be a Rambler station wagon in the traffic on
> Elm--lending support Craig's story.
Kooks see what they want to in photos.
Maybe next post robcap can take a stab at whether Carr could
possibly see the things he said he had.
David Von Pein
RE: THE "NASH RAMBLER" STORY........
I have little doubt that SOMEBODY probably did get into a "Rambler"
type station wagon in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination.
But even if this is true (and, again, it probably is) -- so what?
The person who entered that Rambler could not POSSIBLY have been Lee
Harvey Oswald. There isn't even the SLIMMEST of chances it could have
been Oswald, because Oswald was getting on McWatters' bus several
blocks east of the TSBD at that time (or was very close to getting on
the bus at any rate; either way, LHO was several blocks away from
Dealey Plaza by the time the "Rambler man" was spotted by anyone).
But kooks won't accept the rock-solid FACT of LHO being several blocks
east of the TSBD as of 12:40 PM. No, the kooks WANT Oswald to have
gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald did get into that
station wagon.
Kooks ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in
this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.
For example, take Jim Fetzer and David Mantik on BlackOpRadio last
night (October 9th). Especially mega-kook Fetzer, who never met a
conspiracy theory he didn't love. Fetzer wants to believe that JFK was
hit by FOUR separate bullets; and that at least two additional
gunshots were fired on Nov. 22, for a total of at least SIX shots
(similar to Oliver Stone's fantasy in his movie).
Fetzer will totally ignore the PROVABLE FACT of Kennedy being struck
by just TWO bullets. The autopsy and the photos/X-rays prove this
fact, of course. But those things aren't good enough for the mega-
kooks like Fetzer. No, those things (naturally) are supposed to be
thrown out the window, because they are "faked" or "manipulated" in
some way (right down to ALL three autopsists being rotten, worthless
liars for years on end).
And Fetzer wants to believe the incredibly-stupid notion that Oswald's
Carcano could not have been responsible for the fatal gunshot that hit
the President in the head, because (per the kook named Fetzer) the
type of wounds suffered by JFK came from a rifle that was more "high-
powered" than Oswald's Carcano gun.
That, folks, is called REAL DENIAL.
Fetzer totally ignores (or just THROWS OUT) all of the known and
PROVABLE facts regarding the bullet evidence in the JFK murder case --
which is bullet evidence that ALL leads to only one single gun,
Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, of course.
There are bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the VERY CAR in
which JFK was slain.
There's CE399 (from Oswald's gun) found in the VERY SAME hospital to
which the victims were taken.
There are three bullets shells from Oswald's gun found in the VERY
SAME building and Sniper's Nest from which the assassin (IDed as LHO)
fired three shots at the motorcade.
And the gun that links to all of the above items is found on the VERY
SAME sixth floor from which the sniper (Oswald) fired that weapon.
But, per James H. Fetzer (a mega-kook of the First Order, without
question), all of this stuff is to be tossed out the window....merely
because Fetzer tells us that the wounds inflicted upon President
Kennedy could not possibly have been caused by Oswald's MC C2766
rifle. Even though all of the people who looked into this case on an
"official" level agreed that Oswald and Oswald's gun positively DID
kill the President.
Listening to Fetzer take total control of Len Osanic's "BlackOp"
interview with David Mantik on 10/9/08, as he spouted one piece of
conspiracy-related tripe after another (with Mantik sitting there in
total, or near-total, agreement with this kook named James), was
almost enough to make me lose my lunch.
The word "pathetic" came to mind about 50 times as I listened to
Fetzer's and Mantik's garbage. I guess it's akin to a car wreck,
though....you know you shouldn't look and should not slow down to
impede the traffic flow on the highway, but you do it anyway.
Same way with listening to some of these kooks like Fetzer....I know
he's going to say things that are so 100% wrong, it'll want to make a
reasonable person scream, but you keep on listening
anyway....sometimes just for the many laughs that result from hearing
the kook regurgitate the same worn-out crap that has been debunked a
million times before.
So, for a nice combination of laughs and outrage, go here:
Bud
Looking at the photos on the Education Forum made me realize that
vanguard of the kook movement isn`t going to be around a whole lot
longer. Since conspiracy worship is fueled more on emotionalism than
reality, and the next generation will never have lived in a time the
major players (Hoover, JFK, LBJ) were alive, I expect the idea of
conspiracy in this event will diminish and fade, eventually becoming a
footnote to the whole affair.
curtjester1
building named similarly or with the same meaning for buildings. And
speaking of ignorant guesses, you don't produce any pictures showing
your point, that being of a man interviewing for a job, Richard Carr,
not being able to see what he saw on Nov. 22, 1963.
> > > > Most all cities have that. You take the prisoner from the cell and
> > > > take him via elevators right into an area for the courtrooms. Very
> > > > efficient, and they don't have to use vehicles. Carr was on an
> > > > interview, so he misstated the street. Nice try, but no cigar. New
> > > > County Courthouse on northeast side of Main and Houston. Old CC on
> > > > the southeast side of Main and Houston.
>
> > > No, you are an idiot, and you are referring to the wrong building.
> > > Carr went into the New County Courthouse being built at Commerce and
> > > Houston.
>
> > Ok. So that is different from the New County Courthouse on the NE
> > corner of Main and Houston that would have house prisoners and held
> > court of which the Old County Courthouse that wasn't? So new in
> > replacing the old would be sorta common, like the newer one that
> > replaced the one at Commerce in latter years?
>
> You are still an idiot, and you are still reffering to the wrong
> building.
>
No, the prisoners are still being held in the NewER Criminal Courts/
County Courthouse building whilst the newEST one is being built. The
Old Red Brick one is different from those TWO.
> > > > > Notice he says the New County Courthouse being constructed at
> > > > > Commerce and Houston. Find that building on a map, and you`ll find
> > > > > where he said he was. I`ll give a hint, it wasn`t across the street
> > > > > from TSBD.
>
> > > > I told you I looked it up. It would be called catercorner. The NCC
> > > > wasn't even in the middle of Dealey Plaza, it was more on the TSBD
> > > > side of Dealey.
>
> > > You are looking at the wrong building. You are an idiot.
>
> > > http://www.texasescapes.com/DallasTexas/Dallas-County-Courthouse-Dall...
>
> > So there is a newer building at Commerce replacing 'A' new one at the
> > N.E. corner of Main and Houston that was opposite the street of the
> > old courthouse (going towards the TSBD) where as the new construct is
> > on the opposite side of the old courthouse going the other way. Ok, I
> > see.
>
> You are still an idiot, and you are still looking at a building
> Carr did not say he was in.
>
You are still avoiding what he may have seen from that building.
> > > > > > And you didn't show a nice picture of the TSBD in
> > > > > > relation, how come?
>
> > > > > In relation to what, idiot. I`ve said that it seems the TSBD can`t
> > > > > be seen from the NCC.
>
> > > > Well, it seems your way more than wrong, name caller <shame shame>
>
> > > The New County Courthouse is between Commerce and Jackson streets
> > > on Houston, idiot.
>
> > >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&abauth=bb246a88%3AMqFlqmsQ...
>
> > > > > > > > only one block away.
> > > > > > > > Groden's, The KIlling of Lee Harvey Oswald pg. 106, and Crossfire pg.
> > > > > > > > 308 opposite...Grrrrrr%&^%&^$%&$$$$#$#())!!!!
>
> > > > > > > <snicker>The truth hurts, doesn`t it Curt? Carr is no witness to
> > > > > > > anything. What he said can corroborate nothing if he could not see
> > > > > > > what he claimed to have seen.
>
> > > > > > Yeah it must,Bud, when a 'thread' you started blows up in yer face!
>
> > > > > You`ve offered nothing to harm anything I`ve said.
>
> > > > Besides the multiple, intertwining, testimonies of witnesses?
>
> > > How can what Carr said "intertwine" with anyone else if he could not
> > > see what he said he saw?
>
> > Seems like you offer nothing that would make that he couldn't see.
>
> Other than obstructions and distance.
>
There is nothing one couldn't see if they were a stone' throw from
Houston. The TSBD was on the other side. That's probably 75 feet at
least separating the buildings on the east side of Houston to the west
side where the TSBD would be.
> > You have the old courthouse which isn't very high and a new edifice
> > behind it and if on the Commerce Street side would have a nice view
> > towards the TSBD without looking through other buildings since the
> > TSBD is on the opposite side of the street. Looks like that new
> > building is 8 or 9 stories if I am counting right.
>
> Doesn`t matter how high the building is if Carr is on the 6th floor,
> idiot.
>
Really when the Old Brick Courthouse is what, 4 stories?
> > Why would he see
> > the same as Carolyn Walther?
>
> It`s obvious he couldn`t.
>
No, that's your assertion. Your not proving it. He is seeing a lot
besides Carolyn Walther too. He is seeing James Worrell, Marvin
Robinson, Roy Cooper, Helen Forrest, and James Pennington, for the
Rambler and sportcoat.
> > Do you believe it was just blind fate?
>
> If Carr couldn`t see what he said he saw, then no corroboration is
> possible.
>
All he would have had to have seen was anything different which would
take in enormous possibilities, but he didn't.
> > > > The
> > > > fact you show a picture that doesn't have the TSBD in it, so as to
> > > > make any attempt at a point?
>
> > > I`ve made my point. I`ve shown conclusively that Carr could see the
> > > things he claimed to have seen from where he was.
>
> > I do like your reasoning (for once)..<wink>
>
> Yah, i do that a lot. Carr could not see what he claimed.
>
Show us a nice direct line pic. But even if you could, it wouldn't
diminish the other sighters would it?
> > > > The fact that you are waffling even as
> > > > to where the New County Courthouse building is?
>
> > > Gil put it in the wrong place, not me.
>
> > He was sorta right...it's all in the semantics.
>
> No, he made the same mistake that the authors of the kook books you
> reffered to made. It happens because kooks don`t check these things,
> if a witness says something they like, it`s golden.
Your either ignoring, or are still confused on the 3 buildings.
> Thats why all the kooks think he was working in the building, when he
> wasn`t, they just repeat the same misinformation. Kooks aren`t looking
> for truth, they are looking for justification for the stupid things
> they want to believe.
>
It really is a point that bears no pertinance to the issue, working or
interviewing for work does it? Is this what disinfo people are
trained to do?
> > > > The fact that the
> > > > building is much closer than you opine according to Gil, and my two
> > > > books citings for the proper place of the building?
>
> > > <snicker> An idiot and your kook books agree the building is at one
> > > place. Maps and the city of Dallas place it at another.
>
> > Wow, we must be cartologists to sound so 'idiotoic', huh?
>
> No, just idiots. And don`t even try to rectify your ignorance with a
> simple search, because you are afraid you`d have to admit you were
> wrong, and Carr is not a viable witness.
>
He's just a witness of thousands, and you pick on something buried
within an issue. Anyone could find out stuff that people didn't
know. Did you know that Harold Byrd took the SN window home in 1964
as a trophy for his home?
> > > > What, Bud,
> > > > what???
>
> > > Easy enough to look up, Curt. I`m right, your sources are wrong, and
> > > Carr is not a viable witness. The favorite kind of witness for kooks.
>
> > He's a witness the corroborates other witnesses.
>
> He can`t corroborate,. He couldn`t see what he claimed.
>
Lots of people saw stuff from Commerce, why couldn't he?
> > Some witnesses saw 2
> > people up on the sixth floor, some didn't. They still corroborate
> > that there was action there. So, you have to invent a conspiracy on
> > your own, to counteract the conspiracy you are trying so desperately
> > to disprove. You have to find 'kook' witnesses that say the same
> > thing, to say there was a conspiracy of kooks that day. So, Bud, you
> > are really a 'CT', after all. <snicker>
>
> Theres that idiot thinking. Nothing you are saying is addressing the
> issues I raised. There is nothing you can offer, Carr was in a place
> where he couldn`t see what he said he saw, it`s as simple as that.
>
Is this the only mantra you can come up with? I guess, because you
don't have any pictures of anything blocking his potential view.
> > > > > > <howl> Bud, he was high up, higher than the rest of the buildings,
>
> > > > > No, he wasn`t, idiot. He was on the 6th floor, about midway up in
> > > > > the building.
>
> > > > I've seen 7th, and of aren't the floors of the TSBD are only 8 ft.
> > > > apart except for the 7th floor?
>
> > > What are you babbling about? There is a building between the TSBD
> > > and the building Carr was in.
>
> > Maybe the old courthouse. The TSBD is on the other side of Houston,
> > so you don't have to look through buildings.
>
> Go to google maps like I suggested, and type in what I suggested,
> make you sure you know what buildings are which, and you will see that
> the OCC directly in the LOS of the TSBD and the NCC.
>
I looked up enough to see that the TSBD is quite visible to all the
buildings on the east side of Houston.
> > Or as he said if he was
> > slightly blocked, he could still potentially see a part of the
> > building like the top floors, since that new edifice was so high.
>
> The building is high. Carr wasn`t high in the building, only at the
> 6th floor. You can look at the photo I supplied, count up the floors,
> and see that is the middle of the NCC, nowhere near high enough to see
> over the OCC. Your desperation to hang onto worthless information is
> showing.
>
But the old brick courthouse is only about 4 stories as best I can
tell with a few funny coned steeple tops with plenty of space between
them.
> > Too
> > bad you can't show a picture from where he was toward the TSBD at that
> > time period, huh? Or even in latter times?
>
> I showed a picture from the sniper window looking towards the New
> County courthouse (it would be the same line of sight looking from the
> NCC to the TSBD). You just can`t see the NCC because it is stepped
> back from Houston. No use supplying links again you ignored the first
> time.
>
Show it again. Did you show a picture from the Southwest window where
most of the sightings were of people in the TSBD?
> > > > > > and could see logically what he said he saw, which was the top floors
> > > > > > only of the TSBD.
>
> > > > > Doubtful he could see the TSBD at all from where he was. It`s
> > > > > certain that he couldn`t make out details even if he could see a
> > > > > person from the distance he was from the TSBD.
>
> > > > Why....40 prisoners could?
>
> > > Thats just a factoid you picked up on the kook sites you frequent.
> > > The FBI looked into these things, in this post Jean Davison tells what
> > > they found....
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> > Oh she does, does she? The disinfo Queen,
>
> You idiots are afraid to look into these things, opting instead to
> use the "sounds good to me" method.. Jean actually researches, and
> finds things idiots like yourself don`t want to know.
>
Jean didn't do a thorough job,and now your on her bandwagon? Is she
commenting about other witnesses that corroborate two people on the
sixth floor? Is she from the area? You take stuff that is probably
spoonfed from the FBI or DPD, without going further like Golz did and
still support her?
> >forgot to tell about the
> > 1978 journalism of Golz who had a piece on persons not interviewed.
> > It would have shown a Johnny Powell who was not a DUI person that they
> > have to have to discount. And what about the sixth floor prisoners
> > that is avoided in her 'research'?
>
> All you need to do is name a witness, and establish he had a view
> of Dealy Plaza on 11-22, then quote what he had to say. Can you do
> this?
>
We did. Two of them concerning the sixth floor of the TSBD, and even
a lawyer who went to Hubert of the WC. How much clearer can two men
fiddling with a scope be?? 12/19/78 Golz.
> > > >They saw two men fooling with the scope of
> > > > the rilfe and the one isolated for commentary, Johnny Powell described
> > > > their skin color and clothing.
>
> > > All forty said this, did they? And you know Johnny Powell was there
> > > how, because he said so? Like with Carr, you accept anything you like
> > > the sound of, without looking too hard at the source.
>
> > Not just Powell, there was a Willie Mitchell as well. I guess they
> > didn't like the part about two men and a scope, so Jean and the FBI
> > didn't want to go there?
>
> When did they say this? To who?
>
Is this what they teach you in disinfo school...to be that obstinate?
> > > > They were on the fifth and sixth floor
> > > > of the same building Richard Carr was at, the New County Courthouse
> > > > Building, on the northeast corner of Main and Houston.
>
> > > You`re an idiot, you don`t even know what building Carr was in, or
> > > where it is located. I`ll help you out with one more visual. The New
> > > County Courthouse is the white building to the right. You can count 6
> > > stories up, and see where Carr was, and see that he could not possibly
> > > see over the Red Brick Courthouse to the left of it...
>
> > >http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.c...
>
> > How high is the Old Red Brick thing, Bud?
>
> I assume you have a computer, look it up. I provided a photo of the
> old and new courthouses next to one another, and someone on the sixth
> floor could not possibly see the TSBD over the OCC
Bud, it's a lower building, probably doubly lower than the NCC that
was being built on Commerce. Your not being Richard Carr's eyes no
matter how much you are wishing the information to be.
CJ
.> > > The TSBD was
curtjester1
> RE: THE "NASH RAMBLER" STORY........
>
> I have little doubt that SOMEBODY probably did get into a "Rambler"
> type station wagon in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination.
> But even if this is true (and, again, it probably is) -- so what?
>
> The person who entered that Rambler could not POSSIBLY have been Lee
> Harvey Oswald. There isn't even the SLIMMEST of chances it could have
> been Oswald, because Oswald was getting on McWatters' bus several
> blocks east of the TSBD at that time (or was very close to getting on
> the bus at any rate; either way, LHO was several blocks away from
> Dealey Plaza by the time the "Rambler man" was spotted by anyone).
>
Nash Rambler Station wagon on Elm Street, said, "If it wasn't Oswald,
it was his identical twin."
James Pennington saw a man in a white shirt run from the side of the
TSBD and enter a Nash Rambler station, and later identified the man as
"Lee Harvey Oswald."
Mrs. Reid in her second floor office saw LHO with a coke in a white
shirt only while Marrion Baker saw a man with a long sleeve brown
shirt 2 minutes after the shooting in the TSBD.
Roger Craig ID'd Lee Harvey Oswald as the man getting in the Rambler
station wagon 2 hours after the assassination.
> But kooks won't accept the rock-solid FACT of LHO being several blocks
> east of the TSBD as of 12:40 PM. No, the kooks WANT Oswald to have
> gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald did get into that
> station wagon.
>
> Kooks ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in
> this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.
Researchers with their mind's made up or going out of their way to
ignore the INSURMOUNTABLE evidence that there were Look-Alike'(s)
setting up Lee Harvey Oswald in ABUNDANCE six months prior to the day
of the assassination, have or will be proven wrong.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud has created his own conpiracy by honing in on a cache of
conspirators (witnesses) who came to Dealey Plaza that day to just
conspire evidence and not to simply look at a parade. Caveat Emptor,
don't worship Bud The CT.
CJ
Sam McClung
news:c42de852-0330-412e...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<snipped to>
> Harold Byrd took the SN window home in 1964
> as a trophy for his home
imagine what skull and bones and the other illumination took for their
yale tombs?
David Von Pein
RE: OSWALD AND THE RAMBLER.....
So, per the CTers, Oswald gets into a Rambler at 12:40....but is also
seen on a bus at the same time (by a witness who knew Oswald on
sight).
But if the kooks want to believe Oz got into the Rambler...what
happened next? Did the driver of the Rambler get mad at LHO all of a
sudden and kick the bastard out of the car....so that Oswald then had
to walk from his roominghouse to the Tippit murder site?
Just how can the CTers weave a reasonable, logical scenario that has
Oswald in a Rambler (with, apparently, a co-plotter?) at 12:40....but
then Oswald is on foot again just minutes later at about 1:00 in Oak
Cliff.
Let's hear a kook weave a cohesive and believable tale out of this
nonsense. And then be sure to add into your theory the fact that
you've got to make both Mary Bledsoe and William Whaley liars and/or
crackpot witnesses in your "Oswald In Rambler" tale.
This oughta be good. Let's hear it.
curtjester1
wrote:
And Roy Cooper, Helen Forrest, and James Pennington....
Might be of interest Rob, that light colored Nash Rambler station
wagons were owned by names familiar to JFK researchers. A 1962
Rambler Ambassador, 4-door station wagon, M#H171787 was owned by Clay
Shaw. A 1959 or 196 light blue or light green Nash Rambler was owned
by Lawrence Howard.
CJ
Sam McClung
> Helen Forrest who saw a man run from the side of the TSBD and enter
> a
> Nash Rambler Station wagon on Elm Street, said, "If it wasn't
> Oswald,
> it was his identical twin."
> James Pennington saw a man in a white shirt run from the side of the
> TSBD and enter a Nash Rambler station, and later identified the man
> as
> "Lee Harvey Oswald."
> Mrs. Reid in her second floor office saw LHO with a coke in a white
> shirt only while Marrion Baker saw a man with a long sleeve brown
> shirt 2 minutes after the shooting in the TSBD.
> Roger Craig ID'd Lee Harvey Oswald as the man getting in the Rambler
> station wagon 2 hours after the assassination.
if by "bus" nagell meant station wagon, then nagell said rambler 2,
and oz was in the rambler
if 11-21-63 can mean 11-22-63 or later, then bus can be rambler
looks like lee was spaced out all day on "cyanide pills" i.e.
pharmaceutical drugs, could explain him doing stuff like offloading a
rifle from the CIA's "Air Conditioning" truck
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Lee Oswald was at the Jiffy Store at 310 S. Industrial Blvd, (a mile
southwest of the TSBD) at 9:30 a.m. Bought two beers and had to show
ID to store clerk Fred Moore. Moore remembered the name on the
license as Lee Oswald or H. Lee Oswald and the birthyear as 1939.
The license turned up five days later at TDPS (Texas Department of
Public Safety). He came in a 1/2 hour later and ordered two pieces
of Peco Brittle (candy) and one more beer, and was nervously pacing
the aisles as he ate the candy.
CJ
Bud
The similarity in names seems only to confuse idiots like you and
Gil, and the authors of those kook books you read.
> And
> speaking of ignorant guesses, you don't produce any pictures showing
> your point, that being of a man interviewing for a job, Richard Carr,
> not being able to see what he saw on Nov. 22, 1963.
I`ve given you plenty of visuals. Heres another...
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/img/standing/specialreports/1122dealymap.jpg
Carr was in the Dallas County Courthouse (the building at the
bottom). The Old Red Courthouse blocks the view to the TSBD. Carr
couldn`t see trough it. He couldn`t see over it. He couldn`t see what
he claimed to see.
> > > > > Most all cities have that. You take the prisoner from the cell and
> > > > > take him via elevators right into an area for the courtrooms. Very
> > > > > efficient, and they don't have to use vehicles. Carr was on an
> > > > > interview, so he misstated the street. Nice try, but no cigar. New
> > > > > County Courthouse on northeast side of Main and Houston. Old CC on
> > > > > the southeast side of Main and Houston.
>
> > > > No, you are an idiot, and you are referring to the wrong building.
> > > > Carr went into the New County Courthouse being built at Commerce and
> > > > Houston.
>
> > > Ok. So that is different from the New County Courthouse on the NE
> > > corner of Main and Houston that would have house prisoners and held
> > > court of which the Old County Courthouse that wasn't? So new in
> > > replacing the old would be sorta common, like the newer one that
> > > replaced the one at Commerce in latter years?
>
> > You are still an idiot, and you are still reffering to the wrong
> > building.
>
> No, the prisoners are still being held in the NewER Criminal Courts/
> County Courthouse building whilst the newEST one is being built. The
> Old Red Brick one is different from those TWO.
I don`t care about the prisoners. I was locating where Carr was for
you. I`m still not sure you know where he was.
> > > > > > Notice he says the New County Courthouse being constructed at
> > > > > > Commerce and Houston. Find that building on a map, and you`ll find
> > > > > > where he said he was. I`ll give a hint, it wasn`t across the street
> > > > > > from TSBD.
>
> > > > > I told you I looked it up. It would be called catercorner. The NCC
> > > > > wasn't even in the middle of Dealey Plaza, it was more on the TSBD
> > > > > side of Dealey.
>
> > > > You are looking at the wrong building. You are an idiot.
>
> > > > http://www.texasescapes.com/DallasTexas/Dallas-County-Courthouse-Dall...
>
> > > So there is a newer building at Commerce replacing 'A' new one at the
> > > N.E. corner of Main and Houston that was opposite the street of the
> > > old courthouse (going towards the TSBD) where as the new construct is
> > > on the opposite side of the old courthouse going the other way. Ok, I
> > > see.
>
> > You are still an idiot, and you are still looking at a building
> > Carr did not say he was in.
>
> You are still avoiding what he may have seen from that building.
He couldn`t see the TSBD to see anything, thats the point. you
havn`t offered anything to counter that point, except that you really
want to believe he could see what he claimed.
But that isn`t where Carr was. That building building wasn`t under
construction, Carr wasn`t in there looking for work. He was in the
Dallas County Courthouse, 600 feet away behind the Red Courthouse.
> > > You have the old courthouse which isn't very high and a new edifice
> > > behind it and if on the Commerce Street side would have a nice view
> > > towards the TSBD without looking through other buildings since the
> > > TSBD is on the opposite side of the street. Looks like that new
> > > building is 8 or 9 stories if I am counting right.
>
> > Doesn`t matter how high the building is if Carr is on the 6th floor,
> > idiot.
>
> Really when the Old Brick Courthouse is what, 4 stories?
You haven`t looked at the photos of it? There is a cure for
ignorance. But you prefer ignorance, as real factual information is
detrimental to kook story telling.
> > > Why would he see
> > > the same as Carolyn Walther?
>
> > It`s obvious he couldn`t.
>
> No, that's your assertion. Your not proving it.
I already have, in the first post. You haven`t offered anything to
counter my assertions.
> He is seeing a lot
> besides Carolyn Walther too. He is seeing James Worrell, Marvin
> Robinson, Roy Cooper, Helen Forrest, and James Pennington, for the
> Rambler and sportcoat.
He isn`t seeing anything from where he was at.
> > > Do you believe it was just blind fate?
>
> > If Carr couldn`t see what he said he saw, then no corroboration is
> > possible.
>
> All he would have had to have seen was anything different which would
> take in enormous possibilities, but he didn't.
Try a coherant rebuttal.
> > > > > The
> > > > > fact you show a picture that doesn't have the TSBD in it, so as to
> > > > > make any attempt at a point?
>
> > > > I`ve made my point. I`ve shown conclusively that Carr could see the
> > > > things he claimed to have seen from where he was.
>
> > > I do like your reasoning (for once)..<wink>
>
> > Yah, i do that a lot. Carr could not see what he claimed.
>
> Show us a nice direct line pic.
I presented two photo looking from the TSBD down Houston. The New
Dallas County Courthouse (now the George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building)
can`t be seen, because it sits back off of Houston, as the maps I
provided show.
> But even if you could, it wouldn't
> diminish the other sighters would it?
I didn`t start a post about the other witnesses. I started a post
pointing out that this witness, Carr, could not see what he said he
had. This removes any input he had, except to kooks who would cling to
a conspiracy lie well after it has been shown to be one.
> > > > > The fact that you are waffling even as
> > > > > to where the New County Courthouse building is?
>
> > > > Gil put it in the wrong place, not me.
>
> > > He was sorta right...it's all in the semantics.
>
> > No, he made the same mistake that the authors of the kook books you
> > reffered to made. It happens because kooks don`t check these things,
> > if a witness says something they like, it`s golden.
>
> Your either ignoring, or are still confused on the 3 buildings.
Where did Carr say he was Curt? He said Commerce and Houston,
looking for work in the courthouse being built. I`ve shown maps, and
shown testimony, and shown photos backing up my contentions. I`m not
confused, you are a kook pretending carr is a viable witness because
you want to believe what he claimed to have seen.
> > Thats why all the kooks think he was working in the building, when he
> > wasn`t, they just repeat the same misinformation. Kooks aren`t looking
> > for truth, they are looking for justification for the stupid things
> > they want to believe.
>
> It really is a point that bears no pertinance to the issue, working or
> interviewing for work does it?
Just another example of kooks misrepresenting information. One of
many.
> Is this what disinfo people are
> trained to do?
Point out the lies you kooks tell?
> > > > > The fact that the
> > > > > building is much closer than you opine according to Gil, and my two
> > > > > books citings for the proper place of the building?
>
> > > > <snicker> An idiot and your kook books agree the building is at one
> > > > place. Maps and the city of Dallas place it at another.
>
> > > Wow, we must be cartologists to sound so 'idiotoic', huh?
>
> > No, just idiots. And don`t even try to rectify your ignorance with a
> > simple search, because you are afraid you`d have to admit you were
> > wrong, and Carr is not a viable witness.
>
> He's just a witness of thousands, and you pick on something buried
> within an issue. Anyone could find out stuff that people didn't
> know. Did you know that Harold Byrd took the SN window home in 1964
> as a trophy for his home?
Good to see you leaving Carr and his lies behind.
> > > > > What, Bud,
> > > > > what???
>
> > > > Easy enough to look up, Curt. I`m right, your sources are wrong, and
> > > > Carr is not a viable witness. The favorite kind of witness for kooks.
>
> > > He's a witness the corroborates other witnesses.
>
> > He can`t corroborate,. He couldn`t see what he claimed.
>
> Lots of people saw stuff from Commerce, why couldn't he?
As pointed out, distance and obstruction between where he was and
the TSBD.
> > > Some witnesses saw 2
> > > people up on the sixth floor, some didn't. They still corroborate
> > > that there was action there. So, you have to invent a conspiracy on
> > > your own, to counteract the conspiracy you are trying so desperately
> > > to disprove. You have to find 'kook' witnesses that say the same
> > > thing, to say there was a conspiracy of kooks that day. So, Bud, you
> > > are really a 'CT', after all. <snicker>
>
> > Theres that idiot thinking. Nothing you are saying is addressing the
> > issues I raised. There is nothing you can offer, Carr was in a place
> > where he couldn`t see what he said he saw, it`s as simple as that.
>
> Is this the only mantra you can come up with? I guess, because you
> don't have any pictures of anything blocking his potential view.
I`ve provided maps and photos supporting my contention.
> > > > > > > <howl> Bud, he was high up, higher than the rest of the buildings,
>
> > > > > > No, he wasn`t, idiot. He was on the 6th floor, about midway up in
> > > > > > the building.
>
> > > > > I've seen 7th, and of aren't the floors of the TSBD are only 8 ft.
> > > > > apart except for the 7th floor?
>
> > > > What are you babbling about? There is a building between the TSBD
> > > > and the building Carr was in.
>
> > > Maybe the old courthouse. The TSBD is on the other side of Houston,
> > > so you don't have to look through buildings.
>
> > Go to google maps like I suggested, and type in what I suggested,
> > make you sure you know what buildings are which, and you will see that
> > the OCC directly in the LOS of the TSBD and the NCC.
>
> I looked up enough to see that the TSBD is quite visible to all the
> buildings on the east side of Houston.
Then you are just an idiot.
> > > Or as he said if he was
> > > slightly blocked, he could still potentially see a part of the
> > > building like the top floors, since that new edifice was so high.
>
> > The building is high. Carr wasn`t high in the building, only at the
> > 6th floor. You can look at the photo I supplied, count up the floors,
> > and see that is the middle of the NCC, nowhere near high enough to see
> > over the OCC. Your desperation to hang onto worthless information is
> > showing.
>
> But the old brick courthouse is only about 4 stories as best I can
> tell with a few funny coned steeple tops with plenty of space between
> them.
So, you really have nothing to contest my contentions, eh? Maybe
a photo of the two building side by side showing that Carr`s vantage
on the 6th floor of the New Dallas County Courthouse can see over the
Red Brick Courthouse.
> > > Too
> > > bad you can't show a picture from where he was toward the TSBD at that
> > > time period, huh? Or even in latter times?
>
> > I showed a picture from the sniper window looking towards the New
> > County courthouse (it would be the same line of sight looking from the
> > NCC to the TSBD). You just can`t see the NCC because it is stepped
> > back from Houston. No use supplying links again you ignored the first
> > time.
>
> Show it again. Did you show a picture from the Southwest window where
> most of the sightings were of people in the TSBD?
We are talking about the supposed observations of a particular
person, Carr.
> > > > > > > and could see logically what he said he saw, which was the top floors
> > > > > > > only of the TSBD.
>
> > > > > > Doubtful he could see the TSBD at all from where he was. It`s
> > > > > > certain that he couldn`t make out details even if he could see a
> > > > > > person from the distance he was from the TSBD.
>
> > > > > Why....40 prisoners could?
>
> > > > Thats just a factoid you picked up on the kook sites you frequent.
> > > > The FBI looked into these things, in this post Jean Davison tells what
> > > > they found....
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> > > Oh she does, does she? The disinfo Queen,
>
> > You idiots are afraid to look into these things, opting instead to
> > use the "sounds good to me" method.. Jean actually researches, and
> > finds things idiots like yourself don`t want to know.
>
> Jean didn't do a thorough job,and now your on her bandwagon?
<snicker> You can`t even look at the links I provide.
> Is she
> commenting about other witnesses that corroborate two people on the
> sixth floor? Is she from the area? You take stuff that is probably
> spoonfed from the FBI or DPD, without going further like Golz did and
> still support her?
Start another post, put up what you have, and I`ll address it.
> > >forgot to tell about the
> > > 1978 journalism of Golz who had a piece on persons not interviewed.
> > > It would have shown a Johnny Powell who was not a DUI person that they
> > > have to have to discount. And what about the sixth floor prisoners
> > > that is avoided in her 'research'?
>
> > All you need to do is name a witness, and establish he had a view
> > of Dealy Plaza on 11-22, then quote what he had to say. Can you do
> > this?
>
> We did.
I didn`t catch it. How did you establish they were there?
> Two of them concerning the sixth floor of the TSBD, and even
> a lawyer who went to Hubert of the WC. How much clearer can two men
> fiddling with a scope be?? 12/19/78 Golz.
>
> > > > >They saw two men fooling with the scope of
> > > > > the rilfe and the one isolated for commentary, Johnny Powell described
> > > > > their skin color and clothing.
>
> > > > All forty said this, did they? And you know Johnny Powell was there
> > > > how, because he said so? Like with Carr, you accept anything you like
> > > > the sound of, without looking too hard at the source.
>
> > > Not just Powell, there was a Willie Mitchell as well. I guess they
> > > didn't like the part about two men and a scope, so Jean and the FBI
> > > didn't want to go there?
>
> > When did they say this? To who?
>
> Is this what they teach you in disinfo school...to be that obstinate?
At kook school they teach you to take kooky shit at face value. You
can`t even answer basic questions.
> > > > > They were on the fifth and sixth floor
> > > > > of the same building Richard Carr was at, the New County Courthouse
> > > > > Building, on the northeast corner of Main and Houston.
>
> > > > You`re an idiot, you don`t even know what building Carr was in, or
> > > > where it is located. I`ll help you out with one more visual. The New
> > > > County Courthouse is the white building to the right. You can count 6
> > > > stories up, and see where Carr was, and see that he could not possibly
> > > > see over the Red Brick Courthouse to the left of it...
>
> > > >http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.c...
>
> > > How high is the Old Red Brick thing, Bud?
>
> > I assume you have a computer, look it up. I provided a photo of the
> > old and new courthouses next to one another, and someone on the sixth
> > floor could not possibly see the TSBD over the OCC
>
> Bud, it's a lower building, probably doubly lower than the NCC that
> was being built on Commerce.
"probably"? I`ve looked at photos of the two buildings side by side,
have you? I`ve counted up 6 floors on the NCC and seen that it doesn`t
come near to seeing over the Red Brick Courthouse, have you?
> Your not being Richard Carr's eyes no
> matter how much you are wishing the information to be.
I know it isn`t humanly possible for him to see what he claimed for
two separate reasons, distance and obstacles. You still haven`t
offered anything in rebuttal outside of desperation to believe what he
said.
Bud
Bud pointed out that one witness, Richard Carr, could not see the
things he claimed to see.
Sam McClung
>> looks like lee was spaced out all day on "cyanide pills" i.e.
>> pharmaceutical drugs, could explain him doing stuff like offloading
>> a
>> rifle from the CIA's "Air Conditioning" truck
> Lee Oswald was at the Jiffy Store at 310 S. Industrial Blvd, (a mile
> southwest of the TSBD) at 9:30 a.m. Bought two beers and had to
> show
> ID to store clerk Fred Moore. Moore remembered the name on the
> license as Lee Oswald or H. Lee Oswald and the birthyear as 1939.
> The license turned up five days later at TDPS (Texas Department of
> Public Safety). He came in a 1/2 hour later and ordered two pieces
> of Peco Brittle (candy) and one more beer, and was nervously pacing
> the aisles as he ate the candy.
the "air conditioning" truck was kept a mile southwest of the tsbd, oz
and ruby had to go there to get it to drop off the rifle on elm at the
north knoll
a beer for oz and ruby at 9:30 am
unload rifle at north knoll from "air conditioning" truck
another beer for oz at 10 after the candy
ruby was going to be running at assassination time and that second
beer was too much
Gil Jesus
>
> Well, what do you expect from 'Kook Poster, Bud', Gil? �Nice post.
>
> CJ-
Bud never heard of binoculars, I guess.
curtjester1
>
> > > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=107...
>
> > > > > > LOL, I have already answered some of this below, as I missed this. Of
> > > > > > course they have prisoners in the same building as the Courthouse!
>
> > > > > They don`t put prisoners in a building while it`s being built,
> > > > > idiot.
>
> > > > They could, especially if they were just building an extra wing or
> > > > floor.
>
> > > It was a new building being built from the ground up, idiot. Why
> > > not research the building instead of making ignorant guesses?
>
> > Because your introducing a topic with bad pictures that already has a
> > building named similarly or with the same meaning for buildings.
>
> The similarity in names seems only to confuse idiots like you and
> Gil, and the authors of those kook books you read.
>
> > And
> > speaking of ignorant guesses, you don't produce any pictures showing
> > your point, that being of a man interviewing for a job, Richard Carr,
> > not being able to see what he saw on Nov. 22, 1963.
>
> I`ve given you plenty of visuals. Heres another...
>
>
> Carr was in the Dallas County Courthouse (the building at the
> bottom). The Old Red Courthouse blocks the view to the TSBD. Carr
> couldn`t see trough it. He couldn`t see over it. He couldn`t see what
> he claimed to see.
>
distance up the NCC on Commerce street to the TSBD. I bet the
distance from a building on the east side of Houston to the western
corner of the TSBD to be at least a 150-200 feet. Looking over the
little ol' red brick old courthouse would NOT be much of an
obstacle. Try another small point to make a larger point invalid,
like disinfo people do.
CJ
curtjester1
Binos!!!? I bet he could have seen the word Mauser as well!
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> RE: THE "NASH RAMBLER" STORY........
>
> I have little doubt that SOMEBODY probably did get into a "Rambler"
> type station wagon in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination.
> But even if this is true (and, again, it probably is) -- so what?
>
> The person who entered that Rambler could not POSSIBLY have been Lee
> Harvey Oswald. There isn't even the SLIMMEST of chances it could have
> been Oswald, because Oswald was getting on McWatters' bus several
> blocks east of the TSBD at that time (or was very close to getting on
> the bus at any rate; either way, LHO was several blocks away from
> Dealey Plaza by the time the "Rambler man" was spotted by anyone).
You CAN'T prove this as the the bus driver FAILED to ID LHO in anyway,
so there is NO real proof he was ever on the bus. You only witness
was at odds with everyone else on the bus in what she said, this most
certainly would not have stood up in a courtroom. When you PROVE LHO
ever took a bus we can move on.
> But kooks won't accept the rock-solid FACT of LHO being several blocks
> east of the TSBD as of 12:40 PM. No, the kooks WANT Oswald to have
> gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald did get into that
> station wagon.
Because NO proof or evidence means it is NOT "rock solid", it is
simply a case of the WC claiming this (that LHO took a bus). There is
more evidence he got into the station wagon than he got on a bus.
> Kooks ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in
> this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.
LOL!!!! You have described the LN position perfectly!
> For example, take Jim Fetzer and David Mantik on BlackOpRadio last
> night (October 9th). Especially mega-kook Fetzer, who never met a
> conspiracy theory he didn't love. Fetzer wants to believe that JFK was
> hit by FOUR separate bullets; and that at least two additional
> gunshots were fired on Nov. 22, for a total of at least SIX shots
> (similar to Oliver Stone's fantasy in his movie).
This is what the real evidence shows, you know - the stuff you ignore
- so until you can prove otherwise the evidence always wins out.
> Fetzer will totally ignore the PROVABLE FACT of Kennedy being struck
> by just TWO bullets. The autopsy and the photos/X-rays prove this
> fact, of course. But those things aren't good enough for the mega-
> kooks like Fetzer. No, those things (naturally) are supposed to be
> thrown out the window, because they are "faked" or "manipulated" in
> some way (right down to ALL three autopsists being rotten, worthless
> liars for years on end).
When all the personnel who actually saw JFK's body agree with you let
me know and then we can move on. Unfortunately for you the
proponderance of witnesses place more than 2 bullets hitting JFK.
> And Fetzer wants to believe the incredibly-stupid notion that Oswald's
> Carcano could not have been responsible for the fatal gunshot that hit
> the President in the head, because (per the kook named Fetzer) the
> type of wounds suffered by JFK came from a rifle that was more "high-
> powered" than Oswald's Carcano gun.
So Adm. Burkley is a "kook" too then because he put the result of
death down as a "high-velocity" bullet to the head on the death
certificate.
> That, folks, is called REAL DENIAL.
It sure is and you have a REAL BAD CASE OF IT!
> Fetzer totally ignores (or just THROWS OUT) all of the known and
> PROVABLE facts regarding the bullet evidence in the JFK murder case --
> which is bullet evidence that ALL leads to only one single gun,
> Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, of course.
What evidence is this? I don't recall a ballistic section in the WCR
or in the 26 volumes, why?
> There are bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the VERY CAR in
> which JFK was slain.
Do you chain of custody for them? Can you prove they were in JFK or
JBC? Can you prove LHO fired them? I think NO is the answer for all
of the questions.
> There's CE399 (from Oswald's gun) found in the VERY SAME hospital to
> which the victims were taken.
Have you proved it was LHO's gun? Have you proved it was inside JFK
or JBC? Have you proved LHO fired the bullet? Again NO is the answer
to all questions.
> There are three bullets shells from Oswald's gun found in the VERY
> SAME building and Sniper's Nest from which the assassin (IDed as LHO)
> fired three shots at the motorcade.
Again, where is your proof LHO ever owned CE-139? Where is your proof
he fired the three shots? Where is your proof the bullets from the
shell casings went inside JFK or JBC?
> And the gun that links to all of the above items is found on the VERY
> SAME sixth floor from which the sniper (Oswald) fired that weapon.
Where is your proof for this claim?
> But, per James H. Fetzer (a mega-kook of the First Order, without
> question), all of this stuff is to be tossed out the window....merely
> because Fetzer tells us that the wounds inflicted upon President
> Kennedy could not possibly have been caused by Oswald's MC C2766
> rifle. Even though all of the people who looked into this case on an
> "official" level agreed that Oswald and Oswald's gun positively DID
> kill the President.
Of course they did since the parts of the government were involved.
> Listening to Fetzer take total control of Len Osanic's "BlackOp"
> interview with David Mantik on 10/9/08, as he spouted one piece of
> conspiracy-related tripe after another (with Mantik sitting there in
> total, or near-total, agreement with this kook named James), was
> almost enough to make me lose my lunch.
The truth causes some to get sick, especially when they are used to
spreading lies all the time.
> The word "pathetic" came to mind about 50 times as I listened to
> Fetzer's and Mantik's garbage. I guess it's akin to a car wreck,
> though....you know you shouldn't look and should not slow down to
> impede the traffic flow on the highway, but you do it anyway.
Ante up some proof and Fetzer will go away, it is funny that it is
that simple yet the LNers have been unable to do this for nearly 45
years now.
> Same way with listening to some of these kooks like Fetzer....I know
> he's going to say things that are so 100% wrong, it'll want to make a
> reasonable person scream, but you keep on listening
> anyway....sometimes just for the many laughs that result from hearing
> the kook regurgitate the same worn-out crap that has been debunked a
> million times before.
Dave thinks he is a "reasonable person", now I think I will be sick.
> So, for a nice combination of laughs and outrage, go here:
>
> www.blackopradio.com/black395b.ram
The truth is there and that is like garlic to a Vampire, thus DVP is
sick.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
CJ- I read that a Rambler was tied back to D.H. Byrd as well (I think
the one Ruth Paine was using). By the way, Byrd took the WESTERN
WINDOW for his collection. I wonder why when the WC said the shooter
was on the EASTERN side?
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
By the way, Byrd took the WESTERN WINDOW for his collection.
The window that Byrd had removed as the sniper window was offered for
sale on E Bay about a year ago.
Do you have PROOF of which window Byrd had removed??
I "believe" it it was the WEST end window based on other information I
have....But I'd like verification like a photo of workmen removing the
west end window.
Walt
Duh....Dumb question...They said the SE window was the sniper's nest
window because that's where the evidence (rifle shells) had been
planted.
Bud
Not from Carr I didn`t. And he also needed x-ray vision to go with
those binoculars. Probably safer to conclude he didn`t see what he
claimed to have seen.
Bud
If Carr said something kooks liked, it woulldn`t matter if he was
locked in a vault in Florida at the time, they`d still believe him.
> CJ
Bud
No, it is impossible to see the TSBD from the NCC, the Old Red
Courthouse is in the way. Here is a map with a star on it showing the
location of the building (now the George L. Allen Sr. Courthouse
building) Carr was in.
http://www.legalhelpinntx.com/law_office/courthouse_directions/dallas04.html
Heres another...
http://www.dallascourts.com/maps.asp?map=newmap
> I bet the
> distance from a building on the east side of Houston to the western
> corner of the TSBD to be at least a 150-200 feet.
You wouldn`t have to guess if you had looked it up. It`s around 600
feet away from the TSBD.
> Looking over the
> little ol' red brick old courthouse would NOT be much of an
> obstacle.
He couldn`t see over it, it is higher than he was.
The fourth photo down on this page shows the Old County Courthouse
next to the new one Carr was in when it was being built. The photo was
taken from Dealey Plaza.
http://www.texasescapes.com/DallasTexas/Dallas-County-Courthouse-Dallas-Texas.htm
Carr was on the 6th floor of the white building, which is three
window rows down. He could not see over the building from there.
And, again, the view from the TSBD looking down Houston.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkdp1.jpg
The New County Courthouse can`t be seen in this photo, because it
sits back off of Houston about 30 feet. The lot it sits on is the
opening just past the Old Red Brick Courthouse. Obviously, if you
can`t see the building Carr was in from the TSBD, than Carr could not
see the TSBD from where he was. But you can see a yellow bus down on
Houston. That is about the distance away Carr was. Does anyone think
they could make out a "felt hat" and "heavy-rimmed glasses" on someone
on that bus?
> Try another small point to make a larger point invalid,
> like disinfo people do.
<snicker> It`s a small point if the witness coundn`t see what he
claimed to see?
> CJ
Bud
wrote:
> On Oct 10, 5:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > RE: THE "NASH RAMBLER" STORY........
>
> > I have little doubt that SOMEBODY probably did get into a "Rambler"
> > type station wagon in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination.
> > But even if this is true (and, again, it probably is) -- so what?
>
> > The person who entered that Rambler could not POSSIBLY have been Lee
> > Harvey Oswald. There isn't even the SLIMMEST of chances it could have
> > been Oswald, because Oswald was getting on McWatters' bus several
> > blocks east of the TSBD at that time (or was very close to getting on
> > the bus at any rate; either way, LHO was several blocks away from
> > Dealey Plaza by the time the "Rambler man" was spotted by anyone).
>
> You CAN'T prove this as the the bus driver FAILED to ID LHO in anyway,
Kook logic; You can`t have been on a bus if the driver can`t
identify you.
> so there is NO real proof he was ever on the bus.
Like what, idiot, film?
> You only witness
> was at odds with everyone else on the bus in what she said,
Who else on the bus knew Oswald by sight?
> this most
> certainly would not have stood up in a courtroom.
She IDed him down to the rip in his shirt and missing buttons. The
shirt with the rip was found to have a transfer from the bus.
Naturally, such evidence gets chucked out in Kook court.
> When you PROVE LHO
> ever took a bus we can move on.
The only thing we can prove here is that kooks are retarded, and
aren`t the least bit interested in what actually occurred in this
case. They prefer their own retard rewrite.
> > But kooks won't accept the rock-solid FACT of LHO being several blocks
> > east of the TSBD as of 12:40 PM. No, the kooks WANT Oswald to have
> > gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald did get into that
> > station wagon.
>
> Because NO proof or evidence means it is NOT "rock solid", it is
> simply a case of the WC claiming this (that LHO took a bus). There is
> more evidence he got into the station wagon than he got on a bus.
With a transfer from the bus on his person, idiot?
> > Kooks ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in
> > this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.
>
> LOL!!!! You have described the LN position perfectly!
>
> > For example, take Jim Fetzer and David Mantik on BlackOpRadio last
> > night (October 9th). Especially mega-kook Fetzer, who never met a
> > conspiracy theory he didn't love. Fetzer wants to believe that JFK was
> > hit by FOUR separate bullets; and that at least two additional
> > gunshots were fired on Nov. 22, for a total of at least SIX shots
> > (similar to Oliver Stone's fantasy in his movie).
>
> This is what the real evidence shows, you know - the stuff you ignore
> - so until you can prove otherwise the evidence always wins out.
That why the WC`s conclusions stand. They have no serious
contenders.
> > Fetzer will totally ignore the PROVABLE FACT of Kennedy being struck
> > by just TWO bullets. The autopsy and the photos/X-rays prove this
> > fact, of course. But those things aren't good enough for the mega-
> > kooks like Fetzer. No, those things (naturally) are supposed to be
> > thrown out the window, because they are "faked" or "manipulated" in
> > some way (right down to ALL three autopsists being rotten, worthless
> > liars for years on end).
>
> When all the personnel who actually saw JFK's body agree with you let
> me know and then we can move on. Unfortunately for you the
> proponderance of witnesses place more than 2 bullets hitting JFK.
Only three people conducted the autopsy. Thats the preponderance.
> > And Fetzer wants to believe the incredibly-stupid notion that Oswald's
> > Carcano could not have been responsible for the fatal gunshot that hit
> > the President in the head, because (per the kook named Fetzer) the
> > type of wounds suffered by JFK came from a rifle that was more "high-
> > powered" than Oswald's Carcano gun.
>
> So Adm. Burkley is a "kook" too then because he put the result of
> death down as a "high-velocity" bullet to the head on the death
> certificate.
Burkley was not a wound ballistics expert.
> > That, folks, is called REAL DENIAL.
>
> It sure is and you have a REAL BAD CASE OF IT!
>
> > Fetzer totally ignores (or just THROWS OUT) all of the known and
> > PROVABLE facts regarding the bullet evidence in the JFK murder case --
> > which is bullet evidence that ALL leads to only one single gun,
> > Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, of course.
>
> What evidence is this? I don't recall a ballistic section in the WCR
> or in the 26 volumes, why?
Because you are an idiot. Both contain ballistic information.
> > There are bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the VERY CAR in
> > which JFK was slain.
>
> Do you chain of custody for them? Can you prove they were in JFK or
> JBC? Can you prove LHO fired them? I think NO is the answer for all
> of the questions.
Do you think your objections to this evidence matter? I think not.
It is there for people who are really intersted in the truth, idiots
will deny everything that points to their precious patsy.
> > There's CE399 (from Oswald's gun) found in the VERY SAME hospital to
> > which the victims were taken.
>
> Have you proved it was LHO's gun? Have you proved it was inside JFK
> or JBC? Have you proved LHO fired the bullet? Again NO is the answer
> to all questions.
The only reasonable conclusions are yes to all. Kooks go into
contortions to reach other, stupider conclusions.
> > There are three bullets shells from Oswald's gun found in the VERY
> > SAME building and Sniper's Nest from which the assassin (IDed as LHO)
> > fired three shots at the motorcade.
>
> Again, where is your proof LHO ever owned CE-139? Where is your proof
> he fired the three shots? Where is your proof the bullets from the
> shell casings went inside JFK or JBC?
Again, the only reasonable conclusions to draw are the ones the WC
made. Retards want to make other conclusions, but what can that
matter?
> > And the gun that links to all of the above items is found on the VERY
> > SAME sixth floor from which the sniper (Oswald) fired that weapon.
>
> Where is your proof for this claim?
Like what, a photo of Oz firing? Wouldn`t you only claim that was
faked as well? Perhaps an Oswald confession. No, wait, kooks would
claim he was drugged. Fact is, only one conclusion is reasonable and
possible, that Oz committed these crimes.
> > But, per James H. Fetzer (a mega-kook of the First Order, without
> > question), all of this stuff is to be tossed out the window....merely
> > because Fetzer tells us that the wounds inflicted upon President
> > Kennedy could not possibly have been caused by Oswald's MC C2766
> > rifle. Even though all of the people who looked into this case on an
> > "official" level agreed that Oswald and Oswald's gun positively DID
> > kill the President.
>
> Of course they did since the parts of the government were involved.
Yah, either Oswald did it alone, or thousands of people were in
cahoots to make it look like he did it alone.
> > Listening to Fetzer take total control of Len Osanic's "BlackOp"
> > interview with David Mantik on 10/9/08, as he spouted one piece of
> > conspiracy-related tripe after another (with Mantik sitting there in
> > total, or near-total, agreement with this kook named James), was
> > almost enough to make me lose my lunch.
>
> The truth causes some to get sick, especially when they are used to
> spreading lies all the time.
>
> > The word "pathetic" came to mind about 50 times as I listened to
> > Fetzer's and Mantik's garbage. I guess it's akin to a car wreck,
> > though....you know you shouldn't look and should not slow down to
> > impede the traffic flow on the highway, but you do it anyway.
>
> Ante up some proof and Fetzer will go away, it is funny that it is
> that simple yet the LNers have been unable to do this for nearly 45
> years now.
We have had the only explanation on the table for 45 years.
> > Same way with listening to some of these kooks like Fetzer....I know
> > he's going to say things that are so 100% wrong, it'll want to make a
> > reasonable person scream, but you keep on listening
> > anyway....sometimes just for the many laughs that result from hearing
> > the kook regurgitate the same worn-out crap that has been debunked a
> > million times before.
>
> Dave thinks he is a "reasonable person", now I think I will be sick.
>
> > So, for a nice combination of laughs and outrage, go here:
>
> >www.blackopradio.com/black395b.ram
>
> The truth is there and that is like garlic to a Vampire, thus DVP is
> sick.
Retards are still pretending Oswald was innocent.
curtjester1
>
> Heres another...
>
> http://www.dallascourts.com/maps.asp?map=newmap
>
> > I bet the
> > distance from a building on the east side of Houston to the western
> > corner of the TSBD to be at least a 150-200 feet.
>
> You wouldn`t have to guess if you had looked it up. It`s around 600
> feet away from the TSBD.
>
> > Looking over the
> > little ol' red brick old courthouse would NOT be much of an
> > obstacle.
>
> He couldn`t see over it, it is higher than he was.
>
> The fourth photo down on this page shows the Old County Courthouse
> next to the new one Carr was in when it was being built. The photo was
> taken from Dealey Plaza.
>
>
> Carr was on the 6th floor of the white building, which is three
> window rows down. He could not see over the building from there.
>
> And, again, the view from the TSBD looking down Houston.
>
> http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkdp1.jpg
>
> The New County Courthouse can`t be seen in this photo, because it
> sits back off of Houston about 30 feet. The lot it sits on is the
> opening just past the Old Red Brick Courthouse. Obviously, if you
> can`t see the building Carr was in from the TSBD, than Carr could not
> see the TSBD from where he was. But you can see a yellow bus down on
> Houston. That is about the distance away Carr was. Does anyone think
> they could make out a "felt hat" and "heavy-rimmed glasses" on someone
> on that bus?
>
relevance, and it really doesn't. You say 30 feet off Houston for the
NCC, and you don't count that the west end of the TSBD goes down
almost a city block. It's just too dumb to make any more comment on.
> > Try another small point to make a larger point invalid,
> > like disinfo people do.
>
> <snicker> It`s a small point if the witness coundn`t see what he
> claimed to see?
>
>
Better go find another cameraman, you're one short <chort chort>j.
CJ
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Duh, I was being SARCASTIC!!!! Walt is a hoot, he thinks I wouldn't
know this? My point was Byrd was privy to where the shots came from
in HIS building or he would have taken the SN window.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
The article, Byrds, Planes, and an Automobile, I believe said SN
window, but after seeing Sam McClung's photo of a second soda bottle
on the West side, it surely would dovetail for the SN in lesser known
form on the other side.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Oct 11, 1:27 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 5:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > RE: THE "NASH RAMBLER" STORY........
>
> > > I have little doubt that SOMEBODY probably did get into a "Rambler"
> > > type station wagon in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination.
> > > But even if this is true (and, again, it probably is) -- so what?
>
> > > The person who entered that Rambler could not POSSIBLY have been Lee
> > > Harvey Oswald. There isn't even the SLIMMEST of chances it could have
> > > been Oswald, because Oswald was getting on McWatters' bus several
> > > blocks east of the TSBD at that time (or was very close to getting on
> > > the bus at any rate; either way, LHO was several blocks away from
> > > Dealey Plaza by the time the "Rambler man" was spotted by anyone).
>
> > You CAN'T prove this as the the bus driver FAILED to ID LHO in anyway,
>
> Kook logic; You can`t have been on a bus if the driver can`t
> identify you.
Well since you PAY the driver and request a transfer from HIM is it
too much to ask for the driver to remember you?
> > so there is NO real proof he was ever on the bus.
>
> Like what, idiot, film?
NO witnesses. To bad you have none that are reliable.
> > You only witness
> > was at odds with everyone else on the bus in what she said,
>
> Who else on the bus knew Oswald by sight?
NOT a matter of knowing him by sight as they were shown pictures of
him (McWatters saw LHO in a lineup), but NONE of Bledsoe's testimony
matched anyone else's on the bus. It is very shaky in regards to LHO
ever staying at her place in the first place since she couldn't
provide any proof he did, thus, she would NOT know him from a hole in
the ground.
> > this most
> > certainly would not have stood up in a courtroom.
>
> She IDed him down to the rip in his shirt and missing buttons. The
> shirt with the rip was found to have a transfer from the bus.
> Naturally, such evidence gets chucked out in Kook court.
She described the wrong shirt, she mentioned the shirt AFTER he went
to his boarding house. Also, no one else described the man in the
same way as her and this would have been brought up. She said his
shirt was wide open yet she could NOT even remember if he had a t-
shirt on or not.
> > When you PROVE LHO
> > ever took a bus we can move on.
>
> The only thing we can prove here is that kooks are retarded, and
> aren`t the least bit interested in what actually occurred in this
> case. They prefer their own retard rewrite.
Blah, blah, blah....this means we CAN'T expect any proof from Bud.
> > > But kooks won't accept the rock-solid FACT of LHO being several blocks
> > > east of the TSBD as of 12:40 PM. No, the kooks WANT Oswald to have
> > > gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald did get into that
> > > station wagon.
>
> > Because NO proof or evidence means it is NOT "rock solid", it is
> > simply a case of the WC claiming this (that LHO took a bus). There is
> > more evidence he got into the station wagon than he got on a bus.
>
> With a transfer from the bus on his person, idiot?
NOT found until he was in custody. What a coincidence. It was in
perfect condition too, no bends or dog ears despite being jammed into
his pocket. Furthermore, it was good for only fifteen minutes (bus
transfer) so why did he take it when he allegedly got in a cab? He
got off at 12:44 PM (but got on at 12:40 PM supposedly) so either time
means by the time he was back at the bus stop (as seen by Mrs.
Roberts) his transfer was expired. So why carry it with you?
Especially when you have just changed shirts? (This is really all too
much info for Bud, he doesn't care about common sense, logic or
details, he just believes what he is told.)
> > > Kooks ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in
> > > this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.
>
> > LOL!!!! You have described the LN position perfectly!
>
> > > For example, take Jim Fetzer and David Mantik on BlackOpRadio last
> > > night (October 9th). Especially mega-kook Fetzer, who never met a
> > > conspiracy theory he didn't love. Fetzer wants to believe that JFK was
> > > hit by FOUR separate bullets; and that at least two additional
> > > gunshots were fired on Nov. 22, for a total of at least SIX shots
> > > (similar to Oliver Stone's fantasy in his movie).
>
> > This is what the real evidence shows, you know - the stuff you ignore
> > - so until you can prove otherwise the evidence always wins out.
>
> That why the WC`s conclusions stand. They have no serious
> contenders.
ONLY in your world, and your world consists of 10% of the population
if you are lucky.
> > > Fetzer will totally ignore the PROVABLE FACT of Kennedy being struck
> > > by just TWO bullets. The autopsy and the photos/X-rays prove this
> > > fact, of course. But those things aren't good enough for the mega-
> > > kooks like Fetzer. No, those things (naturally) are supposed to be
> > > thrown out the window, because they are "faked" or "manipulated" in
> > > some way (right down to ALL three autopsists being rotten, worthless
> > > liars for years on end).
>
> > When all the personnel who actually saw JFK's body agree with you let
> > me know and then we can move on. Unfortunately for you the
> > proponderance of witnesses place more than 2 bullets hitting JFK.
>
> Only three people conducted the autopsy. Thats the preponderance.
Really? I thought Humes initially agreed with the Siebert and O'Neill
report? I guess those folks at PH weren't real doctors and nurses in
Bud's mind.
> > > And Fetzer wants to believe the incredibly-stupid notion that Oswald's
> > > Carcano could not have been responsible for the fatal gunshot that hit
> > > the President in the head, because (per the kook named Fetzer) the
> > > type of wounds suffered by JFK came from a rifle that was more "high-
> > > powered" than Oswald's Carcano gun.
>
> > So Adm. Burkley is a "kook" too then because he put the result of
> > death down as a "high-velocity" bullet to the head on the death
> > certificate.
>
> Burkley was not a wound ballistics expert.
Don't have to be to list the CAUSE OF DEATH!!! He was a doctor and he
knew what killed his patient.
> > > That, folks, is called REAL DENIAL.
>
> > It sure is and you have a REAL BAD CASE OF IT!
>
> > > Fetzer totally ignores (or just THROWS OUT) all of the known and
> > > PROVABLE facts regarding the bullet evidence in the JFK murder case --
> > > which is bullet evidence that ALL leads to only one single gun,
> > > Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, of course.
>
> > What evidence is this? I don't recall a ballistic section in the WCR
> > or in the 26 volumes, why?
>
> Because you are an idiot. Both contain ballistic information.
Really??? Show us where it is located? I mean a report of the tests
they ran Bud, not a mention of it.
> > > There are bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the VERY CAR in
> > > which JFK was slain.
>
> > Do you chain of custody for them? Can you prove they were in JFK or
> > JBC? Can you prove LHO fired them? I think NO is the answer for all
> > of the questions.
>
> Do you think your objections to this evidence matter? I think not.
> It is there for people who are really intersted in the truth, idiots
> will deny everything that points to their precious patsy.
So you are left out as the TRUTH is the LAST thing you are interested
in. They always use the same "stock" answer when they CAN'T prove
anything. They CAN'T prove what they claim, but it is our fault
somehow.
> > > There's CE399 (from Oswald's gun) found in the VERY SAME hospital to
> > > which the victims were taken.
>
> > Have you proved it was LHO's gun? Have you proved it was inside JFK
> > or JBC? Have you proved LHO fired the bullet? Again NO is the answer
> > to all questions.
>
> The only reasonable conclusions are yes to all. Kooks go into
> contortions to reach other, stupider conclusions.
Good, give us this PROOF then.
> > > There are three bullets shells from Oswald's gun found in the VERY
> > > SAME building and Sniper's Nest from which the assassin (IDed as LHO)
> > > fired three shots at the motorcade.
>
> > Again, where is your proof LHO ever owned CE-139? Where is your proof
> > he fired the three shots? Where is your proof the bullets from the
> > shell casings went inside JFK or JBC?
>
> Again, the only reasonable conclusions to draw are the ones the WC
> made. Retards want to make other conclusions, but what can that
> matter?
More games by Bud as he knows darn well the WC NEVER proved a thing
they claimed. That is why this is still being discussed nearly 45
years later.
> > > And the gun that links to all of the above items is found on the VERY
> > > SAME sixth floor from which the sniper (Oswald) fired that weapon.
>
> > Where is your proof for this claim?
>
> Like what, a photo of Oz firing? Wouldn`t you only claim that was
> faked as well? Perhaps an Oswald confession. No, wait, kooks would
> claim he was drugged. Fact is, only one conclusion is reasonable and
> possible, that Oz committed these crimes.
Poor Bud, it is really a wonder the police ever solve a crime based on
what Bud claims is hard to get. How do the police ever convict anyone
since evidence is so difficult to gather according to Bud? Again, he
blames CTers because the WC couldn't find any real evidence.
> > > But, per James H. Fetzer (a mega-kook of the First Order, without
> > > question), all of this stuff is to be tossed out the window....merely
> > > because Fetzer tells us that the wounds inflicted upon President
> > > Kennedy could not possibly have been caused by Oswald's MC C2766
> > > rifle. Even though all of the people who looked into this case on an
> > > "official" level agreed that Oswald and Oswald's gun positively DID
> > > kill the President.
>
> > Of course they did since the parts of the government were involved.
>
> Yah, either Oswald did it alone, or thousands of people were in
> cahoots to make it look like he did it alone.
I never said thousands.
> > > Listening to Fetzer take total control of Len Osanic's "BlackOp"
> > > interview with David Mantik on 10/9/08, as he spouted one piece of
> > > conspiracy-related tripe after another (with Mantik sitting there in
> > > total, or near-total, agreement with this kook named James), was
> > > almost enough to make me lose my lunch.
>
> > The truth causes some to get sick, especially when they are used to
> > spreading lies all the time.
>
> > > The word "pathetic" came to mind about 50 times as I listened to
> > > Fetzer's and Mantik's garbage. I guess it's akin to a car wreck,
> > > though....you know you shouldn't look and should not slow down to
> > > impede the traffic flow on the highway, but you do it anyway.
>
> > Ante up some proof and Fetzer will go away, it is funny that it is
> > that simple yet the LNers have been unable to do this for nearly 45
> > years now.
>
> We have had the only explanation on the table for 45 years.
It is a THEORY, NOT fact, thus you have one version, a totally
unbelievable one, but still one version of what could have happened.
> > > Same way with listening to some of these kooks like Fetzer....I know
> > > he's going to say things that are so 100% wrong, it'll want to make a
> > > reasonable person scream, but you keep on listening
> > > anyway....sometimes just for the many laughs that result from hearing
> > > the kook regurgitate the same worn-out crap that has been debunked a
> > > million times before.
>
> > Dave thinks he is a "reasonable person", now I think I will be sick.
>
> > > So, for a nice combination of laughs and outrage, go here:
>
> > >www.blackopradio.com/black395b.ram
>
> > The truth is there and that is like garlic to a Vampire, thus DVP is
> > sick.
>
> Retards are still pretending Oswald was innocent.
No pretending about it, it is what the EVIDENCE shows!
Bud
It only shows that the NCC has to line of sight to the TSBD, and
that Carr could not se what he claimed to have seen.
> You say 30 feet off Houston for the
> NCC, and you don't count that the west end of the TSBD goes down
> almost a city block.
Thats where the overhead maps you don`t think are relevant come in,
idiot. You can plot lines of sight from the maps using anything as a
straight edge (like a piece of paper).
> It's just too dumb to make any more comment on.
So you make dumb comments on it. You can`t refute it, the evidence
is clear, Carr could not see what he claimed.
> > > Try another small point to make a larger point invalid,
> > > like disinfo people do.
>
> > <snicker> It`s a small point if the witness coundn`t see what he
> > claimed to see?
>
> Better go find another cameraman, you're one short <chort chort>j.
Better go find another "corroborating witness", Carr can`t
corroborate what he can`t see.
curtjester1
Bud
Maybe this will help....
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/feb/08/jfk-assassination-window-auction-ebay/
Of course, Walt wants a photo of them taking out the window.
Bud
wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:59 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 1:27 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 5:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > RE: THE "NASH RAMBLER" STORY........
>
> > > > I have little doubt that SOMEBODY probably did get into a "Rambler"
> > > > type station wagon in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination.
> > > > But even if this is true (and, again, it probably is) -- so what?
>
> > > > The person who entered that Rambler could not POSSIBLY have been Lee
> > > > Harvey Oswald. There isn't even the SLIMMEST of chances it could have
> > > > been Oswald, because Oswald was getting on McWatters' bus several
> > > > blocks east of the TSBD at that time (or was very close to getting on
> > > > the bus at any rate; either way, LHO was several blocks away from
> > > > Dealey Plaza by the time the "Rambler man" was spotted by anyone).
>
> > > You CAN'T prove this as the the bus driver FAILED to ID LHO in anyway,
>
> > Kook logic; You can`t have been on a bus if the driver can`t
> > identify you.
>
> Well since you PAY the driver and request a transfer from HIM is it
> too much to ask for the driver to remember you?
Would it be too much to ask you not to be retarded? You implied
that the bus drivers failure to identify Oswald established that he
hadn`t been on the bus.
> > > so there is NO real proof he was ever on the bus.
>
> > Like what, idiot, film?
>
> NO witnesses. To bad you have none that are reliable.
There is a witness, idiot, and she is corroborated by physical
evidence (the transfer and the details about the shirt). She was
acquainted with Oz. All this make her "unreliable" to idiots.
> > > You only witness
> > > was at odds with everyone else on the bus in what she said,
>
> > Who else on the bus knew Oswald by sight?
>
> NOT a matter of knowing him by sight as they were shown pictures of
> him (McWatters saw LHO in a lineup), but NONE of Bledsoe's testimony
> matched anyone else's on the bus.
Produce everyone elses testimony. Names and what they said.
> It is very shaky in regards to LHO
> ever staying at her place in the first place since she couldn't
> provide any proof he did, thus, she would NOT know him from a hole in
> the ground.
What do you want, idiot, photos of him staying there that week?
> > > this most
> > > certainly would not have stood up in a courtroom.
>
> > She IDed him down to the rip in his shirt and missing buttons. The
> > shirt with the rip was found to have a transfer from the bus.
> > Naturally, such evidence gets chucked out in Kook court.
>
> She described the wrong shirt, she mentioned the shirt AFTER he went
> to his boarding house.
How do you know it wasn`t the same shirt? The shirt he was arrested
in had the bus transfer in the pocket, and the tear Bledsoe described.
> Also, no one else described the man in the
> same way as her and this would have been brought up.
She knew him, so she could recognize him. They other patrons on the
bus didn`t know him, so they could not recognize him. To them, he was
just another person on the bus.
>She said his
> shirt was wide open yet she could NOT even remember if he had a t-
> shirt on or not.
But did take note of the missing buttons and tear on his outer
shirt.
> > > When you PROVE LHO
> > > ever took a bus we can move on.
>
> > The only thing we can prove here is that kooks are retarded, and
> > aren`t the least bit interested in what actually occurred in this
> > case. They prefer their own retard rewrite.
>
> Blah, blah, blah....this means we CAN'T expect any proof from Bud.
You want photos of Oz on the bus, idiot? Even if they existed, you`d
find some stupid reason to disregard them.
> > > > But kooks won't accept the rock-solid FACT of LHO being several blocks
> > > > east of the TSBD as of 12:40 PM. No, the kooks WANT Oswald to have
> > > > gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald did get into that
> > > > station wagon.
>
> > > Because NO proof or evidence means it is NOT "rock solid", it is
> > > simply a case of the WC claiming this (that LHO took a bus). There is
> > > more evidence he got into the station wagon than he got on a bus.
>
> > With a transfer from the bus on his person, idiot?
>
> NOT found until he was in custody.
<snicker> You fucking dope. When was he searched?
> What a coincidence. It was in
> perfect condition too, no bends or dog ears despite being jammed into
> his pocket.
This is what kooks do when they are really desperate to disregard a
piece of evidence. they scratch around looking for some justification,
any justification, to go where they want to. And rob wants Oswald in
that Nash Rambler, so he can have the conspiracy he is so desperate to
have. He doesn`t care how retarded he has to be to get there.
> Furthermore, it was good for only fifteen minutes (bus
> transfer) so why did he take it when he allegedly got in a cab? He
> got off at 12:44 PM (but got on at 12:40 PM supposedly) so either time
> means by the time he was back at the bus stop (as seen by Mrs.
> Roberts) his transfer was expired. So why carry it with you?
> Especially when you have just changed shirts?
Don`t hurt your brain coming to the obvious solution that he didn`t
change shirts.
> (This is really all too
> much info for Bud, he doesn't care about common sense, logic or
> details, he just believes what he is told.)
Who saw Oz change his shirt, idiot?
> > > > Kooks ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in
> > > > this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.
>
> > > LOL!!!! You have described the LN position perfectly!
>
> > > > For example, take Jim Fetzer and David Mantik on BlackOpRadio last
> > > > night (October 9th). Especially mega-kook Fetzer, who never met a
> > > > conspiracy theory he didn't love. Fetzer wants to believe that JFK was
> > > > hit by FOUR separate bullets; and that at least two additional
> > > > gunshots were fired on Nov. 22, for a total of at least SIX shots
> > > > (similar to Oliver Stone's fantasy in his movie).
>
> > > This is what the real evidence shows, you know - the stuff you ignore
> > > - so until you can prove otherwise the evidence always wins out.
>
> > That why the WC`s conclusions stand. They have no serious
> > contenders.
>
> ONLY in your world, and your world consists of 10% of the population
> if you are lucky.
You don`t think the general public believes the crap you do, do
you?
> > > > Fetzer will totally ignore the PROVABLE FACT of Kennedy being struck
> > > > by just TWO bullets. The autopsy and the photos/X-rays prove this
> > > > fact, of course. But those things aren't good enough for the mega-
> > > > kooks like Fetzer. No, those things (naturally) are supposed to be
> > > > thrown out the window, because they are "faked" or "manipulated" in
> > > > some way (right down to ALL three autopsists being rotten, worthless
> > > > liars for years on end).
>
> > > When all the personnel who actually saw JFK's body agree with you let
> > > me know and then we can move on. Unfortunately for you the
> > > proponderance of witnesses place more than 2 bullets hitting JFK.
>
> > Only three people conducted the autopsy. Thats the preponderance.
>
> Really? I thought Humes initially agreed with the Siebert and O'Neill
> report? I guess those folks at PH weren't real doctors and nurses in
> Bud's mind.
I don`t think they were performing an autopsy. Kooks seem to.
> > > > And Fetzer wants to believe the incredibly-stupid notion that Oswald's
> > > > Carcano could not have been responsible for the fatal gunshot that hit
> > > > the President in the head, because (per the kook named Fetzer) the
> > > > type of wounds suffered by JFK came from a rifle that was more "high-
> > > > powered" than Oswald's Carcano gun.
>
> > > So Adm. Burkley is a "kook" too then because he put the result of
> > > death down as a "high-velocity" bullet to the head on the death
> > > certificate.
>
> > Burkley was not a wound ballistics expert.
>
> Don't have to be to list the CAUSE OF DEATH!!! He was a doctor and he
> knew what killed his patient.
But you claim was that Burkley knew that the rifle that caused the
JFK`s wounds was more "high powered" than a Carcano, which is the
realm of wound ballistics. Please try to keep track of the stupid
things you say.
> > > > That, folks, is called REAL DENIAL.
>
> > > It sure is and you have a REAL BAD CASE OF IT!
>
> > > > Fetzer totally ignores (or just THROWS OUT) all of the known and
> > > > PROVABLE facts regarding the bullet evidence in the JFK murder case --
> > > > which is bullet evidence that ALL leads to only one single gun,
> > > > Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, of course.
>
> > > What evidence is this? I don't recall a ballistic section in the WCR
> > > or in the 26 volumes, why?
>
> > Because you are an idiot. Both contain ballistic information.
>
> Really??? Show us where it is located? I mean a report of the tests
> they ran Bud, not a mention of it.
The WCR contains ballistic information. But it was an
investigation, not a ballistics report.
> > > > There are bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the VERY CAR in
> > > > which JFK was slain.
>
> > > Do you chain of custody for them? Can you prove they were in JFK or
> > > JBC? Can you prove LHO fired them? I think NO is the answer for all
> > > of the questions.
>
> > Do you think your objections to this evidence matter? I think not.
> > It is there for people who are really intersted in the truth, idiots
> > will deny everything that points to their precious patsy.
>
> So you are left out as the TRUTH is the LAST thing you are interested
> in.
Not true, of course. The kooks are the ones that twist and
misrepresent the evidence and witnesses. There is only one way
possible this thing could have gone down, but you kooks are like a
child being fed brussel spouts trying to avoid it from touching your
lips.
> They always use the same "stock" answer when they CAN'T prove
> anything. They CAN'T prove what they claim, but it is our fault
> somehow.
Its your fault you are an idiot who comes here and says stupid
things. Most of the people in prison are in jail with much, much less
evidence than there is indicating oswald`s guilt in this case. You see
to want a time machine built, so you can go back and have it shown to
you. I have a simpler solution, stop being a purposeful idiot, and you
might be able to figure this simple case out.
> > > > There's CE399 (from Oswald's gun) found in the VERY SAME hospital to
> > > > which the victims were taken.
>
> > > Have you proved it was LHO's gun? Have you proved it was inside JFK
> > > or JBC? Have you proved LHO fired the bullet? Again NO is the answer
> > > to all questions.
>
> > The only reasonable conclusions are yes to all. Kooks go into
> > contortions to reach other, stupider conclusions.
>
> Good, give us this PROOF then.
I can only prove you are an idiot. And you deserve all the credit
there.
> > > > There are three bullets shells from Oswald's gun found in the VERY
> > > > SAME building and Sniper's Nest from which the assassin (IDed as LHO)
> > > > fired three shots at the motorcade.
>
> > > Again, where is your proof LHO ever owned CE-139? Where is your proof
> > > he fired the three shots? Where is your proof the bullets from the
> > > shell casings went inside JFK or JBC?
>
> > Again, the only reasonable conclusions to draw are the ones the WC
> > made. Retards want to make other conclusions, but what can that
> > matter?
>
> More games by Bud as he knows darn well the WC NEVER proved a thing
> they claimed. That is why this is still being discussed nearly 45
> years later.
But the WC`s finding are still the only explanation on the table
after all this time. I`d love to see you kooks write your version up.
Why did Markham say she saw oswald kill Tippit? Put it in your vesrion
of events. Why did Brennan say it was Oz he saw? Include your reason?
Incluse the kook explanation for everything, and then we can view the
two side by side, and see which is superior. Get to work on that,
kooks.
> > > > And the gun that links to all of the above items is found on the VERY
> > > > SAME sixth floor from which the sniper (Oswald) fired that weapon.
>
> > > Where is your proof for this claim?
>
> > Like what, a photo of Oz firing? Wouldn`t you only claim that was
> > faked as well? Perhaps an Oswald confession. No, wait, kooks would
> > claim he was drugged. Fact is, only one conclusion is reasonable and
> > possible, that Oz committed these crimes.
>
> Poor Bud, it is really a wonder the police ever solve a crime based on
> what Bud claims is hard to get.
The jails would be empty using the standards you want to employ on
behalf of your precious patsy.
> How do the police ever convict anyone
> since evidence is so difficult to gather according to Bud? Again, he
> blames CTers because the WC couldn't find any real evidence.
People are routinely convicted with less evidence against them than
Oz has indicating his guilt. In most cases I`ve seen, there is 2 or
three major pieces of evidence against a defendant. Oswald has dozens.
> > > > But, per James H. Fetzer (a mega-kook of the First Order, without
> > > > question), all of this stuff is to be tossed out the window....merely
> > > > because Fetzer tells us that the wounds inflicted upon President
> > > > Kennedy could not possibly have been caused by Oswald's MC C2766
> > > > rifle. Even though all of the people who looked into this case on an
> > > > "official" level agreed that Oswald and Oswald's gun positively DID
> > > > kill the President.
>
> > > Of course they did since the parts of the government were involved.
>
> > Yah, either Oswald did it alone, or thousands of people were in
> > cahoots to make it look like he did it alone.
>
> I never said thousands.
I did. It is a low estimate of the number of people who would need
to be working against Oz for the conspiracy myth to be true.
> > > > Listening to Fetzer take total control of Len Osanic's "BlackOp"
> > > > interview with David Mantik on 10/9/08, as he spouted one piece of
> > > > conspiracy-related tripe after another (with Mantik sitting there in
> > > > total, or near-total, agreement with this kook named James), was
> > > > almost enough to make me lose my lunch.
>
> > > The truth causes some to get sick, especially when they are used to
> > > spreading lies all the time.
>
> > > > The word "pathetic" came to mind about 50 times as I listened to
> > > > Fetzer's and Mantik's garbage. I guess it's akin to a car wreck,
> > > > though....you know you shouldn't look and should not slow down to
> > > > impede the traffic flow on the highway, but you do it anyway.
>
> > > Ante up some proof and Fetzer will go away, it is funny that it is
> > > that simple yet the LNers have been unable to do this for nearly 45
> > > years now.
>
> > We have had the only explanation on the table for 45 years.
>
> It is a THEORY, NOT fact, thus you have one version, a totally
> unbelievable one, but still one version of what could have happened.
The only one available for consideration.
> > > > Same way with listening to some of these kooks like Fetzer....I know
> > > > he's going to say things that are so 100% wrong, it'll want to make a
> > > > reasonable person scream, but you keep on listening
> > > > anyway....sometimes just for the many laughs that result from hearing
> > > > the kook regurgitate the same worn-out crap that has been debunked a
> > > > million times before.
>
> > > Dave thinks he is a "reasonable person", now I think I will be sick.
>
> > > > So, for a nice combination of laughs and outrage, go here:
>
> > > >www.blackopradio.com/black395b.ram
>
> > > The truth is there and that is like garlic to a Vampire, thus DVP is
> > > sick.
>
> > Retards are still pretending Oswald was innocent.
>
> No pretending about it, it is what the EVIDENCE shows!
<snicker> You seem unaware there is any evidence.
curtjester1
You are only looking through the most eastern part of the TSBD.
> > You say 30 feet off Houston for the
> > NCC, and you don't count that the west end of the TSBD goes down
> > almost a city block.
>
> Thats where the overhead maps you don`t think are relevant come in,
> idiot. You can plot lines of sight from the maps using anything as a
> straight edge (like a piece of paper).
>
Map two shows a line of sight from a half way point of the George
Allen NCC to the SW window of the TSBD.
Map three halfway down shows how close to Houston the NCC actually is.
> > It's just too dumb to make any more comment on.
>
> So you make dumb comments on it. You can`t refute it, the evidence
> is clear, Carr could not see what he claimed.
>
> > > > Try another small point to make a larger point invalid,
> > > > like disinfo people do.
>
> > > <snicker> It`s a small point if the witness coundn`t see what he
> > > claimed to see?
>
> > Better go find another cameraman, you're one short <chort chort>j.
>
> Better go find another "corroborating witness", Carr can`t
> corroborate what he can`t see.
>
Just don't do the disinfo dance and look at the whole side of the TSBD
and the NCC.
CJ
Bud
Carr said the man he saw was on he eastern side, Curt. Two windows
in from Houston.
> > > You say 30 feet off Houston for the
> > > NCC, and you don't count that the west end of the TSBD goes down
> > > almost a city block.
>
> > Thats where the overhead maps you don`t think are relevant come in,
> > idiot. You can plot lines of sight from the maps using anything as a
> > straight edge (like a piece of paper).
>
> Map two shows a line of sight from a half way point of the George
> Allen NCC to the SW window of the TSBD.
So you will admit that Carr could not see the man he claimed to have
seen in the eastern end of the building.
> Map three halfway down shows how close to Houston the NCC actually is.
Even if the Old Red courthouse didn`t exist that day, it would
still be way too far to make out the details Carrs claims to have
seen.
> > > It's just too dumb to make any more comment on.
>
> > So you make dumb comments on it. You can`t refute it, the evidence
> > is clear, Carr could not see what he claimed.
>
> > > > > Try another small point to make a larger point invalid,
> > > > > like disinfo people do.
>
> > > > <snicker> It`s a small point if the witness coundn`t see what he
> > > > claimed to see?
>
> > > Better go find another cameraman, you're one short <chort chort>j.
>
> > Better go find another "corroborating witness", Carr can`t
> > corroborate what he can`t see.
>
> Just don't do the disinfo dance and look at the whole side of the TSBD
> and the NCC.
It doesn`t change the distance, Curt. Did you look at the photo
taken from the TSBD looking down Houston? Did you see the bus? Did
you see the felt hat and heavy-rimmed glasses the bus driver was
wearing ? <snicker>
curtjester1
I see 7th floor majorities, and a third window. Surely you knew that
on your mission, Bud?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcarrR.htm
CJ
Bud
Only people that are wrong have it different than me. As I pointed
out, Carr did not fight at Anzio with the Fifth Ranger Battalion, the
FRB did not fight at Anzio. As I pointed out, Carr was not working in
this building, he went in looking for work. As I pointed out, Carr
told the FBI (twice) that he was on the 6th floor. Three strikes, that
article is out.
> I see 7th floor majorities, and a third window. Surely you knew that
> on your mission, Bud?
What the hell are you talking about? I knew about that article, I
considered linking to it to point out all the errors in it, but didn`t
bother.
curtjester1
And Bud resorts to Psychobabble, and doesn't answer what should have
been in his very first post. Tsk, tsk. Your handler isn't going to
be proud.
CJ
Bud
You still haven`t addressed anything in my initial post.
> Tsk, tsk. Your handler isn't going to
> be proud.
You`ve already admitted Carr couldn`t have seen what he claimed when
you acknowledged that the Old Red Courthouse blocks the view of the
eastern side of the TSBD (where Carr said he saw the man).
>
> CJ
curtjester1
Actually I said or inferred NO such thing. Now, prove that one
couldn't see all what RRC said he saw from the seventh floor over the
OCC and any other building.
Bud
You didn`t admit that the view of the eastern side of the TSBD is
blocked by the Old Red Courthouse?
> Actually I said or inferred NO such thing. Now, prove that one
> couldn't see all what RRC said he saw from the seventh floor over the
> OCC and any other building.
Even a idiot like yourself can look at the photos I linked to of the
two buildings side by side, and see that the 7th floor cannot see over
the Old Red Courthouse. And the fact is, Carr told the FBI he was on
the sixth floor.
And, as I pointed out, even if the Old Red Courthouse did not exist
that day, the distance would prevent Carr from making out the details
he claimed to have seen. Carr is just not a viable witness, despite
kook desperation to pretend he is.
robcap...@netscape.com
This is true, he DID NOT ID LHO as the man who had been on his bus.
> > > > so there is NO real proof he was ever on the bus.
>
> > > Like what, idiot, film?
>
> > NO witnesses. To bad you have none that are reliable.
>
> There is a witness, idiot, and she is corroborated by physical
> evidence (the transfer and the details about the shirt). She was
> acquainted with Oz. All this make her "unreliable" to idiots.
Physical evidence??? LOL!!!! A transfer that was expired is phyiscal
evidence to Bud. Prove she was "acquainted" with LHO. See in cases
where the defendent is dead you have to go even further to show your
claims as he/she can't defend themselves anymore. Thus, people can
make up anything they want, or told to do, so you have to prove your
claims. I have NEVER seen any firm proof LHO stayed at her house.
> > > > You only witness
> > > > was at odds with everyone else on the bus in what she said,
>
> > > Who else on the bus knew Oswald by sight?
>
> > NOT a matter of knowing him by sight as they were shown pictures of
> > him (McWatters saw LHO in a lineup), but NONE of Bledsoe's testimony
> > matched anyone else's on the bus.
>
> Produce everyone elses testimony. Names and what they said.
Already been done, just look up McWatters and Milton Jones on Google.
NOT one person could be found to say what she said, in fact, there is
a good chance she wasn't even on the bus in the first place!!!
> > It is very shaky in regards to LHO
> > ever staying at her place in the first place since she couldn't
> > provide any proof he did, thus, she would NOT know him from a hole in
> > the ground.
>
> What do you want, idiot, photos of him staying there that week?
They would be nice, but in lieu of them some kind of proof would be
helpful. The lame excuse of "my son tore out the week LHO was staying
and sold it" (her check-in log book) doesn't cut it for me. To
convenient.
> > > > this most
> > > > certainly would not have stood up in a courtroom.
>
> > > She IDed him down to the rip in his shirt and missing buttons. The
> > > shirt with the rip was found to have a transfer from the bus.
> > > Naturally, such evidence gets chucked out in Kook court.
>
> > She described the wrong shirt, she mentioned the shirt AFTER he went
> > to his boarding house.
>
> How do you know it wasn`t the same shirt? The shirt he was arrested
> in had the bus transfer in the pocket, and the tear Bledsoe described.
>
> > Also, no one else described the man in the
> > same way as her and this would have been brought up.
>
> She knew him, so she could recognize him. They other patrons on the
> bus didn`t know him, so they could not recognize him. To them, he was
> just another person on the bus.
Since when does "knowing someone" have to do with ID'ing thier face,
and clothing? Hardly any crimes would be solved if this were the
case.
> >She said his
> > shirt was wide open yet she could NOT even remember if he had a t-
> > shirt on or not.
>
> But did take note of the missing buttons and tear on his outer
> shirt.
Yes, so why NOT remember if he had on a t-shirt or not?
Inconsistencies make witnesses suspect in the mind of the jurors.
> > > > When you PROVE LHO
> > > > ever took a bus we can move on.
>
> > > The only thing we can prove here is that kooks are retarded, and
> > > aren`t the least bit interested in what actually occurred in this
> > > case. They prefer their own retard rewrite.
>
> > Blah, blah, blah....this means we CAN'T expect any proof from Bud.
>
> You want photos of Oz on the bus, idiot? Even if they existed, you`d
> find some stupid reason to disregard them.
Nice try, I will settle for one witness that is corroborated and
reliable. Last time I checked you had NONE.
> > > > > But kooks won't accept the rock-solid FACT of LHO being several blocks
> > > > > east of the TSBD as of 12:40 PM. No, the kooks WANT Oswald to have
> > > > > gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald did get into that
> > > > > station wagon.
>
> > > > Because NO proof or evidence means it is NOT "rock solid", it is
> > > > simply a case of the WC claiming this (that LHO took a bus). There is
> > > > more evidence he got into the station wagon than he got on a bus.
>
> > > With a transfer from the bus on his person, idiot?
>
> > NOT found until he was in custody.
>
> <snicker> You fucking dope. When was he searched?
His shirt (his outer one) was taken fairly soon after he came into the
station, so why the long delay in finding the transfer? Why did
McWatters NOT come forward if he really did pick up LHO?
> > What a coincidence. It was in
> > perfect condition too, no bends or dog ears despite being jammed into
> > his pocket.
>
> This is what kooks do when they are really desperate to disregard a
> piece of evidence. they scratch around looking for some justification,
> any justification, to go where they want to. And rob wants Oswald in
> that Nash Rambler, so he can have the conspiracy he is so desperate to
> have. He doesn`t care how retarded he has to be to get there.
NO, "kooks" fail to explain how and why a man would transfer a bus
transfer from one shirt to another when it was EXPIRED!!!! Why would
any person carry an expired transfer with them?
> > Furthermore, it was good for only fifteen minutes (bus
> > transfer) so why did he take it when he allegedly got in a cab? He
> > got off at 12:44 PM (but got on at 12:40 PM supposedly) so either time
> > means by the time he was back at the bus stop (as seen by Mrs.
> > Roberts) his transfer was expired. So why carry it with you?
> > Especially when you have just changed shirts?
>
> Don`t hurt your brain coming to the obvious solution that he didn`t
> change shirts.
Sorry, the evidence shows he did. If you want to put stock in Bledsoe
then she proves this for us as she described a shirt different from
the one he wore to the TSBD that morning.
> > (This is really all too
> > much info for Bud, he doesn't care about common sense, logic or
> > details, he just believes what he is told.)
>
> Who saw Oz change his shirt, idiot?
Your witness, Bledsoe, to name one, as she described the shirt he was
ARRESTED in vs. the shirt he wore to work that morning despite seeing
him before he even got to the boarding house. IF you are going to
believe her testimony, then you have to believe it all.
> > > > > Kooks ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in
> > > > > this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.
>
> > > > LOL!!!! You have described the LN position perfectly!
>
> > > > > For example, take Jim Fetzer and David Mantik on BlackOpRadio last
> > > > > night (October 9th). Especially mega-kook Fetzer, who never met a
> > > > > conspiracy theory he didn't love. Fetzer wants to believe that JFK was
> > > > > hit by FOUR separate bullets; and that at least two additional
> > > > > gunshots were fired on Nov. 22, for a total of at least SIX shots
> > > > > (similar to Oliver Stone's fantasy in his movie).
>
> > > > This is what the real evidence shows, you know - the stuff you ignore
> > > > - so until you can prove otherwise the evidence always wins out.
>
> > > That why the WC`s conclusions stand. They have no serious
> > > contenders.
>
> > ONLY in your world, and your world consists of 10% of the population
> > if you are lucky.
>
> You don`t think the general public believes the crap you do, do
> you?
They generally believe in conspiracy, NOT that one man did it. There
are some who learn in school that LHO did it and have NOT studied the
case so they are naive, but I have never met one person who thought it
was one person alone once they were exposed to the actual evidence of
the WC. I should clarigy that I am speaking of an honest person in
terms of this topic.
> > > > > Fetzer will totally ignore the PROVABLE FACT of Kennedy being struck
> > > > > by just TWO bullets. The autopsy and the photos/X-rays prove this
> > > > > fact, of course. But those things aren't good enough for the mega-
> > > > > kooks like Fetzer. No, those things (naturally) are supposed to be
> > > > > thrown out the window, because they are "faked" or "manipulated" in
> > > > > some way (right down to ALL three autopsists being rotten, worthless
> > > > > liars for years on end).
>
> > > > When all the personnel who actually saw JFK's body agree with you let
> > > > me know and then we can move on. Unfortunately for you the
> > > > proponderance of witnesses place more than 2 bullets hitting JFK.
>
> > > Only three people conducted the autopsy. Thats the preponderance.
>
> > Really? I thought Humes initially agreed with the Siebert and O'Neill
> > report? I guess those folks at PH weren't real doctors and nurses in
> > Bud's mind.
>
> I don`t think they were performing an autopsy. Kooks seem to.
Prove you case, if you even know what I'm refering to, by providing us
a probe picture connecting the back and neck wounds.
> > > > > And Fetzer wants to believe the incredibly-stupid notion that Oswald's
> > > > > Carcano could not have been responsible for the fatal gunshot that hit
> > > > > the President in the head, because (per the kook named Fetzer) the
> > > > > type of wounds suffered by JFK came from a rifle that was more "high-
> > > > > powered" than Oswald's Carcano gun.
>
> > > > So Adm. Burkley is a "kook" too then because he put the result of
> > > > death down as a "high-velocity" bullet to the head on the death
> > > > certificate.
>
> > > Burkley was not a wound ballistics expert.
>
> > Don't have to be to list the CAUSE OF DEATH!!! He was a doctor and he
> > knew what killed his patient.
>
> But you claim was that Burkley knew that the rifle that caused the
> JFK`s wounds was more "high powered" than a Carcano, which is the
> realm of wound ballistics. Please try to keep track of the stupid
> things you say.
I never said such a thing, I said the cause of death is listed as a
"high-velocity" bullet, and the Carcano is NOT a high-velocity weapon,
thus it is common sense another weapon was used. I never mentioned
Adm. Burkley making an inference to this fact, he didn't have to, it
is obvious to anyone who is honest.
> > > > > That, folks, is called REAL DENIAL.
>
> > > > It sure is and you have a REAL BAD CASE OF IT!
>
> > > > > Fetzer totally ignores (or just THROWS OUT) all of the known and
> > > > > PROVABLE facts regarding the bullet evidence in the JFK murder case --
> > > > > which is bullet evidence that ALL leads to only one single gun,
> > > > > Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano, of course.
>
> > > > What evidence is this? I don't recall a ballistic section in the WCR
> > > > or in the 26 volumes, why?
>
> > > Because you are an idiot. Both contain ballistic information.
>
> > Really??? Show us where it is located? I mean a report of the tests
> > they ran Bud, not a mention of it.
>
> The WCR contains ballistic information. But it was an
> investigation, not a ballistics report.
Part of the "investigation" included ballistics, thus it is normal
procedure to include the reports that helped you reach you
conclusion. To NOT do this is just sloppy, and in this case,
dihonest.
> > > > > There are bullet fragments from Oswald's gun found in the VERY CAR in
> > > > > which JFK was slain.
>
> > > > Do you chain of custody for them? Can you prove they were in JFK or
> > > > JBC? Can you prove LHO fired them? I think NO is the answer for all
> > > > of the questions.
>
> > > Do you think your objections to this evidence matter? I think not.
> > > It is there for people who are really intersted in the truth, idiots
> > > will deny everything that points to their precious patsy.
>
> > So you are left out as the TRUTH is the LAST thing you are interested
> > in.
>
> Not true, of course. The kooks are the ones that twist and
> misrepresent the evidence and witnesses. There is only one way
> possible this thing could have gone down, but you kooks are like a
> child being fed brussel spouts trying to avoid it from touching your
> lips.
This is the process that would have happened in court, so I guess our
whole legal system is "kooky" according to Bud.
> > They always use the same "stock" answer when they CAN'T prove
> > anything. They CAN'T prove what they claim, but it is our fault
> > somehow.
>
> Its your fault you are an idiot who comes here and says stupid
> things. Most of the people in prison are in jail with much, much less
> evidence than there is indicating oswald`s guilt in this case. You see
> to want a time machine built, so you can go back and have it shown to
> you. I have a simpler solution, stop being a purposeful idiot, and you
> might be able to figure this simple case out.
NOT everyone in jail is guilty, we have seen this from the NAA case.
To associate this case with a case that had its day in court and
reached a verdict is dishonest as this case NEVER went to court.
> > > > > There's CE399 (from Oswald's gun) found in the VERY SAME hospital to
> > > > > which the victims were taken.
>
> > > > Have you proved it was LHO's gun? Have you proved it was inside JFK
> > > > or JBC? Have you proved LHO fired the bullet? Again NO is the answer
> > > > to all questions.
>
> > > The only reasonable conclusions are yes to all. Kooks go into
> > > contortions to reach other, stupider conclusions.
>
> > Good, give us this PROOF then.
>
> I can only prove you are an idiot. And you deserve all the credit
> there.
More tap-dancing, you will NEVER see any proof from Bud or any other
LNer because they simply don't have any to give.
> > > > > There are three bullets shells from Oswald's gun found in the VERY
> > > > > SAME building and Sniper's Nest from which the assassin (IDed as LHO)
> > > > > fired three shots at the motorcade.
>
> > > > Again, where is your proof LHO ever owned CE-139? Where is your proof
> > > > he fired the three shots? Where is your proof the bullets from the
> > > > shell casings went inside JFK or JBC?
>
> > > Again, the only reasonable conclusions to draw are the ones the WC
> > > made. Retards want to make other conclusions, but what can that
> > > matter?
>
> > More games by Bud as he knows darn well the WC NEVER proved a thing
> > they claimed. That is why this is still being discussed nearly 45
> > years later.
>
> But the WC`s finding are still the only explanation on the table
> after all this time.
Hardly, as the HSCA, to name one, came to a DIFFERENT conclusion, you
just decide to ignore anything beyond the WC's theory.
> I`d love to see you kooks write your version up.
> Why did Markham say she saw oswald kill Tippit?
She never did, she failed to ID him in a legal fashion.
> Put it in your vesrion
> of events. Why did Brennan say it was Oz he saw?
He NEVER did as he FAILED to ID him at the police station. See, when
you have to LIE about all the evidence you have nothing left to prove
your case, do you?
> Include your reason?
> Incluse the kook explanation for everything, and then we can view the
> two side by side, and see which is superior. Get to work on that,
> kooks.
We have been working on it for nearly 45 years, I guess Bud has just
ingored this stuff too.
> > > > > And the gun that links to all of the above items is found on the VERY
> > > > > SAME sixth floor from which the sniper (Oswald) fired that weapon.
>
> > > > Where is your proof for this claim?
>
> > > Like what, a photo of Oz firing? Wouldn`t you only claim that was
> > > faked as well? Perhaps an Oswald confession. No, wait, kooks would
> > > claim he was drugged. Fact is, only one conclusion is reasonable and
> > > possible, that Oz committed these crimes.
>
> > Poor Bud, it is really a wonder the police ever solve a crime based on
> > what Bud claims is hard to get.
>
> The jails would be empty using the standards you want to employ on
> behalf of your precious patsy.
LOL!!!! Using rules of evidence is silly to Bud. I guess he likes a
Fascist or Communist form of rule better. You accuse someone and
NEVER PROVE IT.
> > How do the police ever convict anyone
> > since evidence is so difficult to gather according to Bud? Again, he
> > blames CTers because the WC couldn't find any real evidence.
>
> People are routinely convicted with less evidence against them than
> Oz has indicating his guilt. In most cases I`ve seen, there is 2 or
> three major pieces of evidence against a defendant. Oswald has dozens.
When will Bud learn there is NO real evidence showing LHO shot anyone?
> > > > > But, per James H. Fetzer (a mega-kook of the First Order, without
> > > > > question), all of this stuff is to be tossed out the window....merely
> > > > > because Fetzer tells us that the wounds inflicted upon President
> > > > > Kennedy could not possibly have been caused by Oswald's MC C2766
> > > > > rifle. Even though all of the people who looked into this case on an
> > > > > "official" level agreed that Oswald and Oswald's gun positively DID
> > > > > kill the President.
>
> > > > Of course they did since the parts of the government were involved.
>
> > > Yah, either Oswald did it alone, or thousands of people were in
> > > cahoots to make it look like he did it alone.
>
> > I never said thousands.
>
> I did. It is a low estimate of the number of people who would need
> to be working against Oz for the conspiracy myth to be true.
When you have people at the very top involved, you don't need
thousands.
> > > > > Listening to Fetzer take total control of Len Osanic's "BlackOp"
> > > > > interview with David Mantik on 10/9/08, as he spouted one piece of
> > > > > conspiracy-related tripe after another (with Mantik sitting there in
> > > > > total, or near-total, agreement with this kook named James), was
> > > > > almost enough to make me lose my lunch.
>
> > > > The truth causes some to get sick, especially when they are used to
> > > > spreading lies all the time.
>
> > > > > The word "pathetic" came to mind about 50 times as I listened to
> > > > > Fetzer's and Mantik's garbage. I guess it's akin to a car wreck,
> > > > > though....you know you shouldn't look and should not slow down to
> > > > > impede the traffic flow on the highway, but you do it anyway.
>
> > > > Ante up some proof and Fetzer will go away, it is funny that it is
> > > > that simple yet the LNers have been unable to do this for nearly 45
> > > > years now.
>
> > > We have had the only explanation on the table for 45 years.
>
> > It is a THEORY, NOT fact, thus you have one version, a totally
> > unbelievable one, but still one version of what could have happened.
>
> The only one available for consideration.
NO, there are many others, you just INGORE them.
> > > > > Same way with listening to some of these kooks like Fetzer....I know
> > > > > he's going to say things that are so 100% wrong, it'll want to make a
> > > > > reasonable person scream, but you keep on listening
> > > > > anyway....sometimes just for the many laughs that result from hearing
> > > > > the kook regurgitate the same worn-out crap that has been debunked a
> > > > > million times before.
>
> > > > Dave thinks he is a "reasonable person", now I think I will be sick.
>
> > > > > So, for a nice combination of laughs and outrage, go here:
>
> > > > >www.blackopradio.com/black395b.ram
>
> > > > The truth is there and that is like garlic to a Vampire, thus DVP is
> > > > sick.
>
> > > Retards are still pretending Oswald was innocent.
>
> > No pretending about it, it is what the EVIDENCE shows!
>
> <snicker> You seem unaware there is any evidence.
The only one "unaware" of the evidence is you Bud, as you can't even
quote what the WC said most of the time.
curtjester1
What about NO do you not understand??
> > Actually I said or inferred NO such thing. Now, prove that one
> > couldn't see all what RRC said he saw from the seventh floor over the
> > OCC and any other building.
>
> Even a idiot like yourself can look at the photos I linked to of the
> two buildings side by side, and see that the 7th floor cannot see over
> the Old Red Courthouse. And the fact is, Carr told the FBI he was on
> the sixth floor.
>
You need to show a pic with the same elevation and better yet directly
behind, than side views or overhead's, Bud, if you even want to start
to make a point.
> And, as I pointed out, even if the Old Red Courthouse did not exist
> that day, the distance would prevent Carr from making out the details
> he claimed to have seen. Carr is just not a viable witness, despite
> kook desperation to pretend he is.> CJ
>
Dark-rim glasses, a sportcoat, and a unique big hat wouldn't be much
to have something stand out at quite a distance. It's only two
blocks.
Bud
Which is a different thing than establishing that Oswald was not
the man on the bus. And why is it you seem to think the busdrive could
PROVE Oswald was on the bus, but Bledsoe can`t?
> > > > > so there is NO real proof he was ever on the bus.
>
> > > > Like what, idiot, film?
>
> > > NO witnesses. To bad you have none that are reliable.
>
> > There is a witness, idiot, and she is corroborated by physical
> > evidence (the transfer and the details about the shirt). She was
> > acquainted with Oz. All this make her "unreliable" to idiots.
>
> Physical evidence??? LOL!!!! A transfer that was expired is phyiscal
> evidence to Bud.
What is it to an idiot?
> Prove she was "acquainted" with LHO. See in cases
> where the defendent is dead you have to go even further to show your
> claims as he/she can't defend themselves anymore. Thus, people can
> make up anything they want, or told to do, so you have to prove your
> claims. I have NEVER seen any firm proof LHO stayed at her house.
Who can prove to an idiot what he doesn`t want to believe?
> > > > > You only witness
> > > > > was at odds with everyone else on the bus in what she said,
>
> > > > Who else on the bus knew Oswald by sight?
>
> > > NOT a matter of knowing him by sight as they were shown pictures of
> > > him (McWatters saw LHO in a lineup), but NONE of Bledsoe's testimony
> > > matched anyone else's on the bus.
>
> > Produce everyone elses testimony. Names and what they said.
>
> Already been done, just look up McWatters and Milton Jones on Google.
Is that everyone on the bus? Surely if you know that they all
concur, you must know their names.
> NOT one person could be found to say what she said, in fact, there is
> a good chance she wasn't even on the bus in the first place!!!
Or even in Dallas, if an idiot doesn`t want to believe it.
> > > It is very shaky in regards to LHO
> > > ever staying at her place in the first place since she couldn't
> > > provide any proof he did, thus, she would NOT know him from a hole in
> > > the ground.
>
> > What do you want, idiot, photos of him staying there that week?
>
> They would be nice,
Can`t they be faked?
> but in lieu of them some kind of proof would be
> helpful. The lame excuse of "my son tore out the week LHO was staying
> and sold it" (her check-in log book) doesn't cut it for me. To
> convenient.
If the page was there, and said what she claimed, you`d only say it
didn`t PROVE anything anyway. Such is the way with kooks.
> > > > > this most
> > > > > certainly would not have stood up in a courtroom.
>
> > > > She IDed him down to the rip in his shirt and missing buttons. The
> > > > shirt with the rip was found to have a transfer from the bus.
> > > > Naturally, such evidence gets chucked out in Kook court.
>
> > > She described the wrong shirt, she mentioned the shirt AFTER he went
> > > to his boarding house.
>
> > How do you know it wasn`t the same shirt? The shirt he was arrested
> > in had the bus transfer in the pocket, and the tear Bledsoe described.
>
> > > Also, no one else described the man in the
> > > same way as her and this would have been brought up.
>
> > She knew him, so she could recognize him. They other patrons on the
> > bus didn`t know him, so they could not recognize him. To them, he was
> > just another person on the bus.
>
> Since when does "knowing someone" have to do with ID'ing thier face,
> and clothing?
Having known him previously, she could recognize him, she knew his
name, she had prior dealings with him, she had reason to take note of
him. All these things set her apart from the other riders. The fact
that she noted details establishes her interest.
> Hardly any crimes would be solved if this were the
> case.
No crimes would be solved if idiots like yourself were
investigating them.
> > >She said his
> > > shirt was wide open yet she could NOT even remember if he had a t-
> > > shirt on or not.
>
> > But did take note of the missing buttons and tear on his outer
> > shirt.
>
> Yes, so why NOT remember if he had on a t-shirt or not?
> Inconsistencies make witnesses suspect in the mind of the jurors.
Only in the minds of idiots desperate to disregard what the witness
did supply.
> > > > > When you PROVE LHO
> > > > > ever took a bus we can move on.
>
> > > > The only thing we can prove here is that kooks are retarded, and
> > > > aren`t the least bit interested in what actually occurred in this
> > > > case. They prefer their own retard rewrite.
>
> > > Blah, blah, blah....this means we CAN'T expect any proof from Bud.
>
> > You want photos of Oz on the bus, idiot? Even if they existed, you`d
> > find some stupid reason to disregard them.
>
> Nice try, I will settle for one witness that is corroborated and
> reliable. Last time I checked you had NONE.
There could be ten, and you`d find none. You are an idiot.
> > > > > > But kooks won't accept the rock-solid FACT of LHO being several blocks
> > > > > > east of the TSBD as of 12:40 PM. No, the kooks WANT Oswald to have
> > > > > > gotten into that station wagon....so, Voila!, Oswald did get into that
> > > > > > station wagon.
>
> > > > > Because NO proof or evidence means it is NOT "rock solid", it is
> > > > > simply a case of the WC claiming this (that LHO took a bus). There is
> > > > > more evidence he got into the station wagon than he got on a bus.
>
> > > > With a transfer from the bus on his person, idiot?
>
> > > NOT found until he was in custody.
>
> > <snicker> You fucking dope. When was he searched?
>
> His shirt (his outer one) was taken fairly soon after he came into the
> station,
>so why the long delay in finding the transfer?
When did they take the shirt, rob? When did they find the transfer,
rob?
> Why did
> McWatters NOT come forward if he really did pick up LHO?
You have evidence that McWatters made a connection between the man
he picked up and the assassination?
> > > What a coincidence. It was in
> > > perfect condition too, no bends or dog ears despite being jammed into
> > > his pocket.
>
> > This is what kooks do when they are really desperate to disregard a
> > piece of evidence. they scratch around looking for some justification,
> > any justification, to go where they want to. And rob wants Oswald in
> > that Nash Rambler, so he can have the conspiracy he is so desperate to
> > have. He doesn`t care how retarded he has to be to get there.
>
> NO, "kooks" fail to explain how and why a man would transfer a bus
> transfer from one shirt to another when it was EXPIRED!!!!
Who said he changed shirts?
>Why would
> any person carry an expired transfer with them?
Why did that person leave work at all?
> > > Furthermore, it was good for only fifteen minutes (bus
> > > transfer) so why did he take it when he allegedly got in a cab? He
> > > got off at 12:44 PM (but got on at 12:40 PM supposedly) so either time
> > > means by the time he was back at the bus stop (as seen by Mrs.
> > > Roberts) his transfer was expired. So why carry it with you?
> > > Especially when you have just changed shirts?
>
> > Don`t hurt your brain coming to the obvious solution that he didn`t
> > change shirts.
>
> Sorry, the evidence shows he did. If you want to put stock in Bledsoe
> then she proves this for us as she described a shirt different from
> the one he wore to the TSBD that morning.
CE150, the shirt Oswald was arrested in, has the tear Bledsoe saw,
idiot.
> > > (This is really all too
>
> > > much info for Bud, he doesn't care about common sense, logic or
> > > details, he just believes what he is told.)
>
> > Who saw Oz change his shirt, idiot?
>
> Your witness, Bledsoe, to name one, as she described the shirt he was
> ARRESTED in vs. the shirt he wore to work that morning despite seeing
> him before he even got to the boarding house. IF you are going to
> believe her testimony, then you have to believe it all.
Of course that isn`t true, but i don`t see you establishing that the
sirt Oswald was arrested in is different than the one he wore to
work.
> > > > > > Kooks ignore and/or distort so many of the known and PROVABLE facts in
> > > > > > this case, it's too funny (and sad) for words.
>
> > > > > LOL!!!! You have described the LN position perfectly!
>
> > > > > > For example, take Jim Fetzer and David Mantik on BlackOpRadio last
> > > > > > night (October 9th). Especially mega-kook Fetzer, who never met a
> > > > > > conspiracy theory he didn't love. Fetzer wants to believe that JFK was
> > > > > > hit by FOUR separate bullets; and that at least two additional
> > > > > > gunshots were fired on Nov. 22, for a total of at least SIX shots
> > > > > > (similar to Oliver Stone's fantasy in his movie).
>
> > > > > This is what the real evidence shows, you know - the stuff you ignore
> > > > > - so until you can prove otherwise the evidence always wins out.
>
> > > > That why the WC`s conclusions stand. They have no serious
> > > > contenders.
>
> > > ONLY in your world, and your world consists of 10% of the population
> > > if you are lucky.
>
> > You don`t think the general public believes the crap you do, do
> > you?
>
> They generally believe in conspiracy, NOT that one man did it.
Polls show the majority believes Oswald was shooting at the limo.
> There
> are some who learn in school that LHO did it and have NOT studied the
> case so they are naive, but I have never met one person who thought it
> was one person alone once they were exposed to the actual evidence of
> the WC.
I never met a person who thought Masons owned the moon.
> I should clarigy that I am speaking of an honest person in
> terms of this topic.
You`ve polled the other inmates in the asylum, have you?
> > > > > > Fetzer will totally ignore the PROVABLE FACT of Kennedy being struck
> > > > > > by just TWO bullets. The autopsy and the photos/X-rays prove this
> > > > > > fact, of course. But those things aren't good enough for the mega-
> > > > > > kooks like Fetzer. No, those things (naturally) are supposed to be
> > > > > > thrown out the window, because they are "faked" or "manipulated" in
> > > > > > some way (right down to ALL three autopsists being rotten, worthless
> > > > > > liars for years on end).
>
> > > > > When all the personnel who actually saw JFK's body agree
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
<snicker> It`s often hard to decipher what you are saying, it seems
you are a random word program sometimes.
> > > Actually I said or inferred NO such thing. Now, prove that one
> > > couldn't see all what RRC said he saw from the seventh floor over the
> > > OCC and any other building.
>
> > Even a idiot like yourself can look at the photos I linked to of the
> > two buildings side by side, and see that the 7th floor cannot see over
> > the Old Red Courthouse. And the fact is, Carr told the FBI he was on
> > the sixth floor.
>
> You need to show a pic with the same elevation and better yet directly
> behind, than side views or overhead's, Bud, if you even want to start
> to make a point.
The buildings are shown side by side in the photos I linked to,
idiot.
> > And, as I pointed out, even if the Old Red Courthouse did not exist
> > that day, the distance would prevent Carr from making out the details
> > he claimed to have seen. Carr is just not a viable witness, despite
> > kook desperation to pretend he is.> CJ
>
> Dark-rim glasses, a sportcoat, and a unique big hat wouldn't be much
> to have something stand out at quite a distance. It's only two
> blocks.
It`s not the blocks, idiot, it`s the distance. It`s around 600
feet, the length of two football fields. Way too far to make out
details such as these, or to recognize such a person when he got to
the street. Of course to kooks, he could be 10 miles away, and if he
said somehing they were desperate to believe, the distance would only
add to the witness`s credibility.
curtjester1
I could make out Dolly Parton's boobs from Ft. Worth.