Oswald's Junior High Classmate Now In Long Beach -- Lee Was Psychotic
pha...@pcmla.com
That's the current home of 65 - year - old Peggy Caserta, a rock & roll
club operator.
Though her 1973 book is best known for detailing raunchy sex scenes in the
life of rock singer Janis Joplin, it also contains Ms. Caserta's claim
that she was a classmate of Lee Oswald's at Covington Junior High School
in Covington, Louisiana.
This would have been the 1951 - 52 school year just before Lee and his
mother moved to Bronx, New York.
In the 1973 book Going Down With Janis, out of print but available online,
Ms. Caserta makes a startling claim. She says Oswald locked the Covington
JHS woodworking teacher in a closet on a Friday afternoon where he
remained until Monday.
School officials never punished the culprit though they did investigate.
The young Peggy asked Lee if he had done it, whereupon he laughed wickedly
and walked away. She believes he did it, and so do some of her
classmates.
This is the second time I've posted this. A reminder is in order now that
the "intelius" web site places Peggy Caserta in Long Beach, California.
teleco...@yahoo.ca
does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
of who he is.
Ben Holmes
teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
anti-military might think.
Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The *evidence*
clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being down on
the 1st & 2nd floors), as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
didn't fire a rifle that day (so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
buried this evidence).
The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to frame
LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene, the 'auto
dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal with. Particularly
when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the report
worth the paper it's written on?
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>
>>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>>of who he is.
>
>
> LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
> allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
> anti-military might think.
>
The US Marine Corps is the perfect place for psychotics. Look at how
many mass murderers and serial killers have been Marines. We even have
one here.
> Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The *evidence*
> clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being down on
> the 1st & 2nd floors), as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
> didn't fire a rifle that day (so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
> buried this evidence).
>
> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to frame
> LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene, the 'auto
> dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal with. Particularly
> when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
>
> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the report
> worth the paper it's written on?
>
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
> >
> >Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
> >does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
> >there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
> >incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
> >of who he is.
>
> LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
> allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
> anti-military might think.
>
> Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The *evidence*
> clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being down on
> the 1st & 2nd floors),
Someone saw Oz on the first or second floor at the time of the
assassination?
> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
> didn't fire a rifle that day
This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
a jury.
>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
> buried this evidence).
>
> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to frame
> LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene, the 'auto
> dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal with. Particularly
> when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the report
> worth the paper it's written on?
Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
> >
> >>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
> >>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
> >>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
> >>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
> >>of who he is.
> >
> >
> > LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
> > allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
> > anti-military might think.
> >
>
> The US Marine Corps is the perfect place for psychotics. Look at how
> many mass murderers and serial killers have been Marines. We even have
> one here.
We have a mass murderer or serial killer here? You aren`t the new
Boston Strangler, are you Tony?
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1130198009.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>> >
>> >Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>> >does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>> >there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>> >incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>> >of who he is.
>>
>> LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit
>> of
>> allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who
>> are
>> anti-military might think.
>>
>> Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The
>> *evidence*
>> clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being
>> down on
>> the 1st & 2nd floors),
>
> Someone saw Oz on the first or second floor at the time of the
> assassination?
=====================================================================
>> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
>> didn't fire a rifle that day
>
> This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
> a jury.
APPARENTLY BUD DOESN'T ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE SHOWN IN 26 VOLUMES.
================================================================
>>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
>> buried this evidence).
>>
>> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
>> frame
>> LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene, the
>> 'auto
>> dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal with.
>> Particularly
>> when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
===================================================================
> What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
>> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
>> report
>> worth the paper it's written on?
>
> Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
> of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
The 26 Volumes Prove the Authoroitieas destroyed Evidence. Thats a Felony.
Do You Support Felons?
====================================================================
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>>
>>>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>>>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>>>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>>>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>>>of who he is.
>>
>>
>> LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
>> allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
>> anti-military might think.
>>
>
>The US Marine Corps is the perfect place for psychotics. Look at how
>many mass murderers and serial killers have been Marines.
Name them. Give total numbers of those who've been Marines, put your "mass
murderers and serial killers" as a percentage, then let's compare to any other
well-defined group of people.
Of course, I really don't expect you to support your silly assertions.
>We even have one here.
I *did* specify "irrespective of what those who are anti-military might think."
I did that for a reason.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>> >
>> >Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>> >does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>> >there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>> >incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>> >of who he is.
>>
>> LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
>> allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
>> anti-military might think.
>>
>> Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The *evidence*
>> clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being down
>> on the 1st & 2nd floors),
>
> Someone saw Oz on the first or second floor at the time of the
>assassination?
Both before (at 11:50 and 12:15), and immediately afterward.
>> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
>> didn't fire a rifle that day
>
> This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
>a jury.
This fails to explain why the WC covered this up - and why it took a court case
to release this information.
Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
>>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
>> buried this evidence).
>>
>> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
>> frame LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene,
>> the 'auto dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal
>> with. Particularly when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
>
> What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
What did the WC fail to uncover? What, precisely, was the WC's method of
dealing with contrary evidence? If you don't admit that they simply ignored it,
you'd be lying.
Why are you afraid to deal with the actual evidence, as given in the 26 volumes?
>> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
>> report worth the paper it's written on?
>
> Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
>of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
The facts (as examined by the WC) CONTRADICT the WC's explanation. Can you
explain why?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1130198009.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
> >> >
> >> >Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
> >> >does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
> >> >there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
> >> >incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
> >> >of who he is.
> >>
> >> LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
> >> allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
> >> anti-military might think.
> >>
> >> Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The *evidence*
> >> clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being down
> >> on the 1st & 2nd floors),
> >
> > Someone saw Oz on the first or second floor at the time of the
> >assassination?
>
>
> Both before (at 11:50 and 12:15), and immediately afterward.
And what time did Givens say he saw Oz on the 6th floor?
> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
> >> didn't fire a rifle that day
> >
> > This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
> >a jury.
>
>
> This fails to explain why the WC covered this up - and why it took a court case
> to release this information.
It fails because no attempt was made to explain any actions by the
WC, My observation was that the weight, validity, strength and
reliability of this evidence would need to be determined by a jury
under adversarial conditions, not assigned by kooks in newsgroups.
> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
considerations.
> >>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
> >> buried this evidence).
> >>
> >> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
> >> frame LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene,
> >> the 'auto dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal
> >> with. Particularly when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
> >
> > What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
>
>
> What did the WC fail to uncover? What, precisely, was the WC's method of
> dealing with contrary evidence? If you don't admit that they simply ignored it,
> you'd be lying.
Conspiracy kooks haven`t ignored these things they claim were
neglected by the WC. Where have they gone with them?
> Why are you afraid to deal with the actual evidence, as given in the 26 volumes?
No fear, Their findings make sense. Nothing the kooks produce does.
> >> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
> >> report worth the paper it's written on?
> >
> > Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
> >of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
>
> The facts (as examined by the WC) CONTRADICT the WC's explanation. Can you
> explain why?
What would be the point of that? If you don`t what the WC did, the
conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever. They
haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere for them to go. Since
the conspiracy kooks are stuck critiqueing what others have done
without producing a viable alternative, I`m stuck with the only
explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1130198009.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>> >> >does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>> >> >there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>> >> >incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>> >> >of who he is.
>> >>
>> >> LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the
>> >> habit of allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of
>> >> what those who are anti-military might think.
>> >>
>> >> Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The
>> >> *evidence* clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a
>> >> rifle (being down on the 1st & 2nd floors),
>> >
>> > Someone saw Oz on the first or second floor at the time of the
>> >assassination?
>>
>>
>> Both before (at 11:50 and 12:15), and immediately afterward.
>
> And what time did Givens say he saw Oz on the 6th floor?
Does this change the facts as I've listed them? Are you *really* aware of what
he testified to?
>> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
>> >> didn't fire a rifle that day
>> >
>> > This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
>> >a jury.
>>
>>
>> This fails to explain why the WC covered this up - and why it took a court
>> case to release this information.
>
> It fails because no attempt was made to explain any actions by the
>WC, My observation was that the weight, validity, strength and
>reliability of this evidence would need to be determined by a jury
>under adversarial conditions, not assigned by kooks in newsgroups.
I *realize* that you've made no attempt to explain the actions of the WC - when
they buried this evidence.
Why don't you give it a try?
>> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
>
> Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
>considerations.
This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest police
eyewitness, it's simply impossible to explain why the WC didn't include it.
So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
>> >>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
>> >> buried this evidence).
>> >>
>> >> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
>> >> frame LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene,
>> >> the 'auto dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal
>> >> with. Particularly when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
>> >
>> > What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
>>
>>
>> What did the WC fail to uncover? What, precisely, was the WC's method of
>> dealing with contrary evidence? If you don't admit that they simply
>> ignored it, you'd be lying.
>
> Conspiracy kooks haven`t ignored these things they claim were
>neglected by the WC. Where have they gone with them?
Where did the WC go with the evidence? Why is the evidence that they've
collected in their 26 volumes contradictory to their conclusions?
>> Why are you afraid to deal with the actual evidence, as given in the 26
>> volumes?
>
> No fear, Their findings make sense. Nothing the kooks produce does.
When you refuse to face the facts, you merely look stupid...
>> >> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
>> >> report worth the paper it's written on?
>> >
>> > Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
>> >of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
>>
>> The facts (as examined by the WC) CONTRADICT the WC's explanation. Can you
>> explain why?
>
> What would be the point of that?
To prove that you're so ignorant as to be unable to even try. Looks like I made
my point.
>If you don`t what the WC did, the
>conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
>alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever.
We have. You ignore it, because you can't allow the facts to blow up your
beliefs.
>They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere for them to go.
This undoubtably explains both why you refuse to discuss the facts, and why as
much as 90% of America disagrees with you.
>Since
>the conspiracy kooks are stuck critiqueing what others have done
>without producing a viable alternative,
Untrue, of course...
>I`m stuck with the only
>explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend. As this thread so
eloquently illustrates...
Anthony Marsh
> In article <Yie7f.1514$0V6.447@trndny06>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>>>>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>>>>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>>>>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>>>>of who he is.
>>>
>>>
>>>LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
>>>allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
>>>anti-military might think.
>>>
>>
>>The US Marine Corps is the perfect place for psychotics. Look at how
>>many mass murderers and serial killers have been Marines.
>
>
> Name them. Give total numbers of those who've been Marines, put your "mass
> murderers and serial killers" as a percentage, then let's compare to any other
> well-defined group of people.
>
Another strawman argument. I never said all. I refuted you notion of
none. I never even said majority.
Charles Ng, Leonard Lake, Gerald Parker, Donald Evans, Andrew Urdiales,
Charles Whitman, Jerry Brudos.
> Of course, I really don't expect you to support your silly assertions.
>
Silly boy.
>
>
>>We even have one here.
>
>
>
> I *did* specify "irrespective of what those who are anti-military might think."
>
> I did that for a reason.
>
>
>
>>>Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The *evidence*
>>>clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being down on
>>>the 1st & 2nd floors), as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
>>>didn't fire a rifle that day (so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
>>>buried this evidence).
>>>
>>>The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to frame
>>>LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene, the 'auto
>>>dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal with. Particularly
>>>when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
>>>
>>>When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the report
>>>worth the paper it's written on?
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>>>>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>>>>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>>>>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>>>>of who he is.
>>>
>>>
>>>LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
>>>allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
>>>anti-military might think.
>>>
>>
>>The US Marine Corps is the perfect place for psychotics. Look at how
>>many mass murderers and serial killers have been Marines. We even have
>>one here.
>
>
> We have a mass murderer or serial killer here? You aren`t the new
> Boston Strangler, are you Tony?
>
No, I am not a serial killer or a mass murderer. My point was that we
have a former Marine right here in the newsgroup.
We also have a former soldier who claims to have killed thousands.
Anthony Marsh
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>>In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>>
>>>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>>>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>>>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>>>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>>>of who he is.
>>
>>LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
>>allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
>>anti-military might think.
>>
>>Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The *evidence*
>>clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being down on
>>the 1st & 2nd floors),
>
>
> Someone saw Oz on the first or second floor at the time of the
> assassination?
>
I am not sure that someone in the Domino room could even know for sure
that shots were being fired. Maybe. But we have people who saw Oswald
there very shortly before the assassination. He'd be cutting it very
close to wait until 12:20 to go up to the sixth floor as the motorcade
was due at 12:25.
>
>>as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
>>didn't fire a rifle that day
>
>
> This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
> a jury.
>
Might have been withheld from the jury. Cause for a retrial or dismissal.
>
>>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
>>buried this evidence).
>>
>>The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to frame
>>LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene, the 'auto
>>dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal with. Particularly
>>when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
>
>
> What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
>
>
>>When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the report
>>worth the paper it's written on?
>
>
> Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
> of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
>
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> >>In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
> >>
> >>>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
> >>>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
> >>>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
> >>>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
> >>>of who he is.
> >>
> >>LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
> >>allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
> >>anti-military might think.
> >>
> >>Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The *evidence*
> >>clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a rifle (being down on
> >>the 1st & 2nd floors),
> >
> >
> > Someone saw Oz on the first or second floor at the time of the
> > assassination?
> >
>
> I am not sure that someone in the Domino room could even know for sure
> that shots were being fired. Maybe. But we have people who saw Oswald
> there very shortly before the assassination.
Who saw Oz in the Domino room shortly before the assassination?
> He'd be cutting it very
> close to wait until 12:20 to go up to the sixth floor as the motorcade
> was due at 12:25.
As usual, kook musings do nothing to preclude Oz from being on the
sixth floor shooting at the President.
> >>as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
> >>didn't fire a rifle that day
> >
> >
> > This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
> > a jury.
> >
>
> Might have been withheld from the jury. Cause for a retrial or dismissal.
Cause for disbarment for a prosecutor to withhold evidence like this
in a criminal truial. You can say that maybe the prosecutor would have
stabbed Oz in the eye with a pen just as easily.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1130267897....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1130198009.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
> >> >> >does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
> >> >> >there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
> >> >> >incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
> >> >> >of who he is.
> >> >>
> >> >> LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the
> >> >> habit of allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of
> >> >> what those who are anti-military might think.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nor does this even matter, as LHO wasn't a shooter that day. The
> >> >> *evidence* clearly shows him to not be in a position to be firing a
> >> >> rifle (being down on the 1st & 2nd floors),
> >> >
> >> > Someone saw Oz on the first or second floor at the time of the
> >> >assassination?
> >>
> >>
> >> Both before (at 11:50 and 12:15), and immediately afterward.
> >
> > And what time did Givens say he saw Oz on the 6th floor?
>
>
> Does this change the facts as I've listed them?
Are the times of those Oz sightings you mentioned "fact"?
> Are you *really* aware of what
> he testified to?
Yah, somewhat. Said Oz was on the fifth floor when the flooring crew
broke for lunch. Said Oz was on the sixth floor when he returned to get
his cigarettes.
> >> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
> >> >> didn't fire a rifle that day
> >> >
> >> > This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
> >> >a jury.
> >>
> >>
> >> This fails to explain why the WC covered this up - and why it took a court
> >> case to release this information.
> >
> > It fails because no attempt was made to explain any actions by the
> >WC. My observation was that the weight, validity, strength and
> >reliability of this evidence would need to be determined by a jury
> >under adversarial conditions, not assigned by kooks in newsgroups.
>
>
> I *realize* that you've made no attempt to explain the actions of the WC - when
> they buried this evidence.
I thought you might if I clearly declared it.
> Why don't you give it a try?
Because that is a kook hobby, bitching about an investigation that
has been done over 40 years ago.
> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
> >
> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
> >considerations.
>
>
> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest police
> eyewitness, it's simply impossible to explain why the WC didn't include it.
Is endlessless CT carping about the WC supposed to in some way show
there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Ever wonder why Oz denied owning a
rifle?
> So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
Those have nothing to do with. CT kooks want to focus, and endlessly
bitch about, the investigation. Granted, attacking the investigation
got OJ off the hook, but it only served to obscure the truth about
Nicole Brown`s murder.
> >> >>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
> >> >> buried this evidence).
> >> >>
> >> >> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
> >> >> frame LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene,
> >> >> the 'auto dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal
> >> >> with. Particularly when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
> >> >
> >> > What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
> >>
> >>
> >> What did the WC fail to uncover? What, precisely, was the WC's method of
> >> dealing with contrary evidence? If you don't admit that they simply
> >> ignored it, you'd be lying.
> >
> > Conspiracy kooks haven`t ignored these things they claim were
> >neglected by the WC. Where have they gone with them?
>
>
> Where did the WC go with the evidence?
You are unaware of their findings?
> Why is the evidence that they've
> collected in their 26 volumes contradictory to their conclusions?
They didn`t find it so. Kook reading of the evidence does, but look
how they reinvented Oswald.
> >> Why are you afraid to deal with the actual evidence, as given in the 26
> >> volumes?
> >
> > No fear, Their findings make sense. Nothing the kooks produce does.
>
>
> When you refuse to face the facts, you merely look stupid...
I`ll take that risk. Speak the ruth and shame the kooks...
> >> >> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
> >> >> report worth the paper it's written on?
> >> >
> >> > Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
> >> >of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
> >>
> >> The facts (as examined by the WC) CONTRADICT the WC's explanation. Can you
> >> explain why?
> >
> > What would be the point of that?
>
>
> To prove that you're so ignorant as to be unable to even try.
I am knowledgeable about that process here in kookville.
> Looks like I made
> my point.
You find some of the WC evidence contrary to their findings. Likely
because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that evidence.
Should I care?
> >If you don`t what the WC did, the
> >conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
> >alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever.
>
> We have. You ignore it, because you can't allow the facts to blow up your
> beliefs.
Where did they lead? To who, what incriminating evidence has been
gathered linking them to the assasination? You have shit. You have
things to cause a buzz amongst the kooks, but nothing even within
lightyears of taking to a courtroom. You have nothing because there is
nothing to have. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept.
> >They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere for them to go.
>
>
> This undoubtably explains both why you refuse to discuss the facts, and why as
> much as 90% of America disagrees with you.
What does either of those things have to do with what I said? CT
haven`t gone anywhere with the concept of conspiracy because there is
nowhere to go. If the goal was to provide decades worth of talking
points, or convince a lot of people something fishy went on with the
assassination, well done. But as far as reaching a destination, you
kooks haven`t left the station.
> >Since
> >the conspiracy kooks are stuck critiqueing what others have done
> >without producing a viable alternative,
>
> Untrue, of course...
What I see is constant complaining about the investigation. What I
don`t see is an alternative explaination that can be put on the table
and be able to withstand the scrutiny the WC findings have for 40 plus
years.
> >I`m stuck with the only
> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
>
> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
out how the fire started.
> As this thread so
> eloquently illustrates...
Illustrates kooks are still unhappy with the WC, even after all
these years. It ain`t getting any better.
pha...@pcmla.com
teleco...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Why is this important?
He locked somebody in a closet for three days without food. That's longer
than the grown - up Lee spent in a locked cell, and he got food.
If actual violence on another person is all that matters, then what does
Patty Hearst have to complain about? She was locked in a closet for a
long time, but so what? For that matter, every black man who ever was
arrested on charges that got dropped has nothing to complain about.
A single incident (assuming that it is true)
> does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word.
Then don't judge Cin - que of the SLA for the single incident of locking
Patty Hearst in a closet. I'm tired of people picking on Cin - que.
He's been dead for 30 years.
I am sure that
> there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
> incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
> of who he is.
People have said nice things about the adolescent Jeffrey Dahmer.
pha...@pcmla.com
How would you like to be locked in a closet for three days without food?
If some people wouldn't mind that, maybe others would mind getting shot as
JFK was.
Duh!
lazu...@webtv.net
there is no conspiracy- he was a communist nutjob wth latent homosexual
tendencies, and damned if
theneuromuscularwhatchamacallitjeteffect isn't true, so who needs
evidence, or eyewitnesses- they are so unelegant really, and confusing.
Let's just do some armchair psychology- We know it was Oswald because he
was psychotic!
Also- we have no PROOF it is even true- if a teacher was locked 3 days
in a room, don't you think the principal is going to get to the bottom
of it and take appropriate disciplinary action like a long suspension?
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Ben Holmes
Then you know that Givens doesn't contradict the two eyewitness accounts I
referred to.... next?
>> >> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
>> >> >> didn't fire a rifle that day
>> >> >
>> >> > This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
>> >> >a jury.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This fails to explain why the WC covered this up - and why it took a court
>> >> case to release this information.
>> >
>> > It fails because no attempt was made to explain any actions by the
>> >WC. My observation was that the weight, validity, strength and
>> >reliability of this evidence would need to be determined by a jury
>> >under adversarial conditions, not assigned by kooks in newsgroups.
>>
>>
>> I *realize* that you've made no attempt to explain the actions of the WC -
>> when they buried this evidence.
>
> I thought you might if I clearly declared it.
Yep... I can explain it quite concisely... they lied about the evidence.
>> Why don't you give it a try?
>
> Because that is a kook hobby, bitching about an investigation that
>has been done over 40 years ago.
More likely - you're merely afraid to admit that the WC lied about the evidence,
and constructed a conclusion that is not founded upon the evidence.
>> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
>> >
>> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
>> >considerations.
>>
>>
>> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
>
> It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the WC... and
refuse to even try.
>> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest police
>> eyewitness, it's simply impossible to explain why the WC didn't include it.
>
> Is endlessless CT carping about the WC supposed to in some way show
>there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Ever wonder why Oz denied owning a
>rifle?
Wouldn't know... I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
lied to accept that LHO actually said that. And with no context to judge his
answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
>> So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
>
> Those have nothing to do with. CT kooks want to focus, and endlessly
>bitch about, the investigation.
Yep... the facts, evidence, eyewitness reports, stuff like that... stuff that
scares you.
>Granted, attacking the investigation
>got OJ off the hook, but it only served to obscure the truth about
>Nicole Brown`s murder.
Bad analogy... OJ didn't have a wealth of evidence showing that someone else
committed the crime.
This is why you refuse to discuss the evidence.
>> >> >>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
>> >> >> buried this evidence).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
>> >> >> frame LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene,
>> >> >> the 'auto dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal
>>>> >> with. Particularly when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
>> >> >
>> >> > What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What did the WC fail to uncover? What, precisely, was the WC's method of
>> >> dealing with contrary evidence? If you don't admit that they simply
>> >> ignored it, you'd be lying.
>> >
>> > Conspiracy kooks haven`t ignored these things they claim were
>> >neglected by the WC. Where have they gone with them?
>>
>>
>> Where did the WC go with the evidence?
>
> You are unaware of their findings?
Their findings aren't supported by their own evidence... care to try again?
>> Why is the evidence that they've
>> collected in their 26 volumes contradictory to their conclusions?
>
> They didn`t find it so. Kook reading of the evidence does, but look
>how they reinvented Oswald.
Then why are you unwilling to defend it?
>> >> Why are you afraid to deal with the actual evidence, as given in the 26
>> >> volumes?
>> >
>> > No fear, Their findings make sense. Nothing the kooks produce does.
>>
>>
>> When you refuse to face the facts, you merely look stupid...
>
> I`ll take that risk. Speak the ruth and shame the kooks...
>
>> >> >> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
>> >> >> report worth the paper it's written on?
>> >> >
>> >> > Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
>> >> >of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
>> >>
>>>> The facts (as examined by the WC) CONTRADICT the WC's explanation. Can you
>> >> explain why?
>> >
>> > What would be the point of that?
>>
>>
>> To prove that you're so ignorant as to be unable to even try.
>
> I am knowledgeable about that process here in kookville.
And afraid of the evidence.
>> Looks like I made my point.
>
> You find some of the WC evidence contrary to their findings.
Merely a fact. Same, in fact, with the HSCA, in an even more blantant manner.
>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that evidence.
>Should I care?
About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
If you want the truth, that is...
>> >If you don`t what the WC did, the
>> >conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
>> >alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever.
>>
>> We have. You ignore it, because you can't allow the facts to blow up your
>> beliefs.
>
> Where did they lead? To who, what incriminating evidence has been
>gathered linking them to the assasination? You have shit. You have
>things to cause a buzz amongst the kooks, but nothing even within
>lightyears of taking to a courtroom. You have nothing because there is
>nothing to have. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept.
Merely denying that the evidence exists is all you can do. :)
>> >They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere for them to go.
>>
>>
>> This undoubtably explains both why you refuse to discuss the facts, and
>> why as much as 90% of America disagrees with you.
>
> What does either of those things have to do with what I said?
Take your blinders off, and you'll understand.
>CT haven`t gone anywhere with the concept of conspiracy because there is
>nowhere to go.
Conspiracy is as proven as it can be without an actual court hearing.
>If the goal was to provide decades worth of talking
>points, or convince a lot of people something fishy went on with the
>assassination, well done.
Yep... up to 90% of the American people think so...
>But as far as reaching a destination, you
>kooks haven`t left the station.
Only when you refuse to look at the evidence.
>> >Since
>> >the conspiracy kooks are stuck critiqueing what others have done
>> >without producing a viable alternative,
>>
>> Untrue, of course...
>
> What I see is constant complaining about the investigation. What I
>don`t see is an alternative explaination that can be put on the table
>and be able to withstand the scrutiny the WC findings have for 40 plus
>years.
What did the closest police eyewitness to the murder say?
And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
>> >I`m stuck with the only
>> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
>>
>> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
>
> Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
>devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
>Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
>out how the fire started.
The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there, because it
makes you look the fool.
>> As this thread so
>> eloquently illustrates...
>
> Illustrates kooks are still unhappy with the WC, even after all
>these years. It ain`t getting any better.
The WC did the world a great favor... they documented the proof of what happened
that day.
Bud
Did the encounters that you are refering to before Givens
sightinging of Oz on the sixth floor, or after. Are you sure?
> >> >> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
> >> >> >> didn't fire a rifle that day
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
> >> >> >a jury.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This fails to explain why the WC covered this up - and why it took a court
> >> >> case to release this information.
> >> >
> >> > It fails because no attempt was made to explain any actions by the
> >> >WC. My observation was that the weight, validity, strength and
> >> >reliability of this evidence would need to be determined by a jury
> >> >under adversarial conditions, not assigned by kooks in newsgroups.
> >>
> >>
> >> I *realize* that you've made no attempt to explain the actions of the WC -
> >> when they buried this evidence.
> >
> > I thought you might if I clearly declared it.
>
>
> Yep... I can explain it quite concisely... they lied about the evidence.
So you say. How much consideration did they give that particular
piece of evidence when they arrived at their conclusions? Are you sure?
> >> Why don't you give it a try?
> >
> > Because that is a kook hobby, bitching about an investigation that
> >has been done over 40 years ago.
>
>
> More likely -
I gave the reason. You can reject my reasons in favor of ones you
supply yourself, as you do with the WC. Like I said, it`s a kook hobby.
> you're merely afraid to admit that the WC lied about the evidence,
> and constructed a conclusion that is not founded upon the evidence.
So you say. Bitch about what the WC did for the next forty years,
why don`t you? It is easier than presenting an explaination to knock
their findings out of contention.
> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
> >> >
> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
> >> >considerations.
> >>
> >>
> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
> >
> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
>
>
> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the WC... and
> refuse to even try.
It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
Because he used it to commit a murder. Do CT have an explaination that
makes better sense than that?
> >> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest police
> >> eyewitness, it's simply impossible to explain why the WC didn't include it.
> >
> > Is endlessless CT carping about the WC supposed to in some way show
> >there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Ever wonder why Oz denied owning a
> >rifle?
>
>
> Wouldn't know...
Of course not, why would you look at the person who owned the murder
weapon? How do you solve a crime like that?
> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
not Oz. It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
coordination. Show someone before the assassination or right after
giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
omit, ect. You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
Have fun.
> And with no context to judge his
> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
interogating room lied as it is that Oz did. Even though the
investigators notes show him denying ownership, written when he was
alive and could have contested it. So, do you think the cops didn`t ask
him about the rifle, or he said "Hell yes, thats my rifle", and they
just wrote he denied owning it, hoping at trial he`d forget what he
said? This is why you kooks haven`t a shred of credibility, you
disregard pertinent evidence on a whim, with to consideration to it.
And I`m supposed to reject the WC because they considered things that
kooks decide are beneath consideration?
> >> So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
> >
> > Those have nothing to do with. CT kooks want to focus, and endlessly
> >bitch about, the investigation.
>
>
> Yep... the facts, evidence, eyewitness reports, stuff like that... stuff that
> scares you.
Kook focus everywhere but on the killer.
> >Granted, attacking the investigation
> >got OJ off the hook, but it only served to obscure the truth about
> >Nicole Brown`s murder.
>
>
> Bad analogy... OJ didn't have a wealth of evidence showing that someone else
> committed the crime.
Great analogy. Attacking the investigation got OJ off the hook. CT
try the same tactic on Oz`s behalf. Ask them why Oz denied owning the
murder weapon, and it`s "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".
Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not. It`s a kook
game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
evidence. Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
> This is why you refuse to discuss the evidence.
Why did Oz claim not to own the murder weapon?
> >> >> >>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
> >> >> >> buried this evidence).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
> >> >> >> frame LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene,
> >> >> >> the 'auto dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal
> >>>> >> with. Particularly when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be LHO.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What did the WC fail to uncover? What, precisely, was the WC's method of
> >> >> dealing with contrary evidence? If you don't admit that they simply
> >> >> ignored it, you'd be lying.
> >> >
> >> > Conspiracy kooks haven`t ignored these things they claim were
> >> >neglected by the WC. Where have they gone with them?
> >>
> >>
> >> Where did the WC go with the evidence?
> >
> > You are unaware of their findings?
>
>
> Their findings aren't supported by their own evidence... care to try again?
No, thats where the went, they considered the evidence and came to a
conclusion, the correct one. Care to do better than they did yourself?
> >> Why is the evidence that they've
> >> collected in their 26 volumes contradictory to their conclusions?
> >
> > They didn`t find it so. Kook reading of the evidence does, but look
> >how they reinvented Oswald.
>
>
> Then why are you unwilling to defend it?
What don`t you understand? The problems are largely created by kook
reading of the evidence. That is never going to change.
> >> >> Why are you afraid to deal with the actual evidence, as given in the 26
> >> >> volumes?
> >> >
> >> > No fear, Their findings make sense. Nothing the kooks produce does.
> >>
> >>
> >> When you refuse to face the facts, you merely look stupid...
> >
> > I`ll take that risk. Speak the truth and shame the kooks...
> >
> >> >> >> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
> >> >> >> report worth the paper it's written on?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
> >> >> >of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
> >> >>
> >>>> The facts (as examined by the WC) CONTRADICT the WC's explanation. Can you
> >> >> explain why?
> >> >
> >> > What would be the point of that?
> >>
> >>
> >> To prove that you're so ignorant as to be unable to even try.
> >
> > I am knowledgeable about that process here in kookville.
>
>
> And afraid of the evidence.
Like what Oz said o the police during questioning? In any case, I
see nothing to be gained by endlessly gnawing on the bones of the CT
talking points. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept, it has nowhere to go,
because there is nowhere for it to go. Kooks must content themselves
with endless chatter about 40 year old investigations.
> >> Looks like I made my point.
> >
> > You find some of the WC evidence contrary to their findings.
>
>
> Merely a fact. Same, in fact, with the HSCA, in an even more blantant manner.
In matters of perception, it is always easy to disagree. Obviously,
since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
> >Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that evidence.
> >Should I care?
>
>
> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
>
> If you want the truth, that is...
Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
evidence incriminating Oz on the first day, instead of putting all
their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
> >> >If you don`t what the WC did, the
> >> >conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
> >> >alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever.
> >>
> >> We have. You ignore it, because you can't allow the facts to blow up your
> >> beliefs.
> >
> > Where did they lead? To who, what incriminating evidence has been
> >gathered linking them to the assasination? You have shit. You have
> >things to cause a buzz amongst the kooks, but nothing even within
> >lightyears of taking to a courtroom. You have nothing because there is
> >nothing to have. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept.
>
>
> Merely denying that the evidence exists is all you can do. :)
Like you did when you admitted giving no thought to Oz denying
ownership of the assassination rifle? Any investigation must take this
evidence at face value, yet kooks feel it should be chucked out on
their whim.
> >> >They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere for them to go.
> >>
> >>
> >> This undoubtably explains both why you refuse to discuss the facts, and
> >> why as much as 90% of America disagrees with you.
> >
> > What does either of those things have to do with what I said?
>
>
> Take your blinders off, and you'll understand.
I said "They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere to go".
Speak to that concept, it certainly has nothing to do with polls, or
endless chatter about CT talking points.
> >CT haven`t gone anywhere with the concept of conspiracy because there is
> >nowhere to go.
>
>
> Conspiracy is as proven as it can be without an actual court hearing.
This is a variation of the old quick draw routine ("Want to see it
again"?) Your finish line looks stranglely like the middle of nowhere.
> >If the goal was to provide decades worth of talking
> >points, or convince a lot of people something fishy went on with the
> >assassination, well done.
>
>
> Yep... up to 90% of the American people think so...
Well, you kooks were offering a hundred flavors, and the LN only had
vanilla to offer.
> >But as far as reaching a destination, you
> >kooks haven`t left the station.
>
>
> Only when you refuse to look at the evidence.
You mean engage kooks over their favorite talking points. I`m
talking about building a case through the evidence that leads to a
superior explaination to the one presented by the WC. I`d imagine that
kooks have an hour for every minute the WC spent investigating this
event. Surely you can put all of that work into a cohesive package and
present it for consideration. You can`t, and I know the reason why.
Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept. You can`t go anywhere because there
is nowhere to go. But, by all means feel free to claim you completed
the trip.
> >> >Since
> >> >the conspiracy kooks are stuck critiqueing what others have done
> >> >without producing a viable alternative,
> >>
> >> Untrue, of course...
> >
> > What I see is constant complaining about the investigation. What I
> >don`t see is an alternative explaination that can be put on the table
> >and be able to withstand the scrutiny the WC findings have for 40 plus
> >years.
>
>
> What did the closest police eyewitness to the murder say?
Well, Chaney said the shots came from behind him.
> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
> >> >I`m stuck with the only
> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
> >>
> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
> >
> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
> >out how the fire started.
>
>
> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there, because it
> makes you look the fool.
Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
yourself it is progress you are making. Seem like standing still to me.
> >> As this thread so
> >> eloquently illustrates...
> >
> > Illustrates kooks are still unhappy with the WC, even after all
> >these years. It ain`t getting any better.
>
> The WC did the world a great favor... they documented the proof of what happened
> that day.
Well, they showed who killed JFK, anyway. Of course, what was in the
papers the first day should have been enough to determine that.
tomnln
If you continue to refer to ALL who believe in Conspiracy as "kooks", I
WILL Retaliate.
Honor the teachings of your Parents and address us with Civility.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1130361849.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Just a Forewarning Bud;
>
> If you continue to refer to ALL who believe in Conspiracy as "kooks",
You`re a grown man who believes in crazy shit like guardian angels.
You are a fucking kook, Tom.
> I
> WILL Retaliate.
Who gives a fuck? You still haven`t answered my question.
> Honor the teachings of your Parents and address us with Civility.
I was taught to call a spade a spade. Kook.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> In article <Yie7f.1514$0V6.447@trndny06>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>>>>>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>>>>>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>>>>>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>>>>>of who he is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
>>>>allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
>>>>anti-military might think.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The US Marine Corps is the perfect place for psychotics. Look at how
>>>many mass murderers and serial killers have been Marines.
>>
>>
>> Name them. Give total numbers of those who've been Marines, put your "mass
>> murderers and serial killers" as a percentage, then let's compare to any
>> other well-defined group of people.
>>
>
>Another strawman argument. I never said all.
No, you distinctly implied that Marines have more psychotics than other places.
I challenged you to prove it, or even support it.
It's clear that you refuse to do so.
>I refuted you notion of none.
Liar, aren't you?
As easy as it can be to refute what was never said, you have to be a liar to do
so.
>I never even said majority.
>Charles Ng, Leonard Lake, Gerald Parker, Donald Evans, Andrew Urdiales,
>Charles Whitman, Jerry Brudos.
Why did you stop? Coward, as usual...
>> Of course, I really don't expect you to support your silly assertions.
>>
>
>Silly boy.
Clearly not... as you *failed* to support your silly allegation.
Just as you've continued to fail to support other allegations of yours that I've
challenged. Dr. Humes actions on Saturday morning were just one of several...
How many more years will you duck that one?
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1130382187.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Just a Forewarning Bud;
>>
>> If you continue to refer to ALL who believe in Conspiracy as "kooks",
>
> You`re a grown man who believes in crazy shit like guardian angels.
> You are a fucking kook, Tom.
>
>> I
>> WILL Retaliate.
>
> Who gives a fuck? You still haven`t answered my question.
>
>> Honor the teachings of your Parents and address us with Civility.
>
> I was taught to call a spade a spade. Kook.
**********************
Not taught by your Parents my friend.
Your dad was a Guard at Dachau.
Your Mom was a Cheerleader at Auschwitz.
Thats how they produced a Nazi like you.
Then, they Died of AIDS you foul mouthed Pervert.
***************************
This is FUN, Wanna Continue?
Ben Holmes
I've read the eyewitness statements. They *don't* contradict each other.
You're a coward, Bud. Support any contradiction, or admit that I'm correct yet
again.
>> >> >> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
>> >> >> >> didn't fire a rifle that day
>> >> >> >
>>>> >> > This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
>> >> >> >a jury.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>>> >> This fails to explain why the WC covered this up - and why it took a court
>> >> >> case to release this information.
>> >> >
>> >> > It fails because no attempt was made to explain any actions by the
>> >> >WC. My observation was that the weight, validity, strength and
>> >> >reliability of this evidence would need to be determined by a jury
>> >> >under adversarial conditions, not assigned by kooks in newsgroups.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I *realize* that you've made no attempt to explain the actions of the WC -
>> >> when they buried this evidence.
>> >
>> > I thought you might if I clearly declared it.
>>
>>
>> Yep... I can explain it quite concisely... they lied about the evidence.
>
> So you say.
It's not disputable. Of course, if you refuse to *look* at the evidence, then
you can dispute it to your hearts content... and even feel noble doing so.
>How much consideration did they give that particular
>piece of evidence when they arrived at their conclusions? Are you sure?
It's quite simple, Bud. They had evidence that disputed and contradicted their
"theory" of the case... and they knew it.
>> >> Why don't you give it a try?
>> >
>> > Because that is a kook hobby, bitching about an investigation that
>> >has been done over 40 years ago.
>>
>>
>> More likely -
>
> I gave the reason. You can reject my reasons in favor of ones you
>supply yourself, as you do with the WC. Like I said, it`s a kook hobby.
And you're a coward who refuses to deal with the evidence. Who cares?
>> you're merely afraid to admit that the WC lied about the evidence,
>> and constructed a conclusion that is not founded upon the evidence.
>
> So you say. Bitch about what the WC did for the next forty years,
>why don`t you? It is easier than presenting an explaination to knock
>their findings out of contention.
It's not an "explanation" that will knock their "findings" out of "contention".
The WC collected 26 volumes "knocks" their "findings".
This is really quite simple.
>> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
>> >> >
>> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
>> >> >considerations.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
>> >
>> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
>>
>>
>> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
>> WC... and refuse to even try.
>
> It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
>Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
>you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
Did he?
>Because he used it to commit a murder.
Not according to the evidence.
>Do CT have an explaination that
>makes better sense than that?
I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
evidence.
>> >> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest police
>>>> eyewitness, it's simply impossible to explain why the WC didn't include it.
>> >
>> > Is endlessless CT carping about the WC supposed to in some way show
>> >there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Ever wonder why Oz denied owning a
>> >rifle?
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't know...
>
> Of course not, why would you look at the person who owned the murder
>weapon? How do you solve a crime like that?
Neither, of course, do you know. You're simply too much of a coward to admit
it.
>> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
>> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
>
> There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
>said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
>not Oz.
What does the evidence show? (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
know...)
>It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
>coordination.
Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that occurred
*before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it with a ten foot
pole.
>Show someone before the assassination or right after
>giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
>omit, ect.
Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring *before* the
assassination.
>You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
>Have fun.
And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more blatant
as time went by...
Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
said about the autopsy photos.
You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even try.
>> And with no context to judge his
>> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
>
> There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
>interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
>Even though the
>investigators notes show him denying ownership, written when he was
>alive and could have contested it. So, do you think the cops didn`t ask
>him about the rifle, or he said "Hell yes, thats my rifle", and they
>just wrote he denied owning it, hoping at trial he`d forget what he
>said? This is why you kooks haven`t a shred of credibility, you
>disregard pertinent evidence on a whim, with to consideration to it.
>And I`m supposed to reject the WC because they considered things that
>kooks decide are beneath consideration?
"Pertinent" evidence? You refuse to discuss it.
And I'd consider 90% of America to have more credibility than you, Bud.
>> >> So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
>> >
>> > Those have nothing to do with. CT kooks want to focus, and endlessly
>> >bitch about, the investigation.
>>
>>
>> Yep... the facts, evidence, eyewitness reports, stuff like that... stuff
>> that scares you.
>
> Kook focus everywhere but on the killer.
What does the evidence say about the killers?
>> >Granted, attacking the investigation
>> >got OJ off the hook, but it only served to obscure the truth about
>> >Nicole Brown`s murder.
>>
>>
>> Bad analogy... OJ didn't have a wealth of evidence showing that someone else
>> committed the crime.
>
> Great analogy. Attacking the investigation got OJ off the hook. CT
>try the same tactic on Oz`s behalf. Ask them why Oz denied owning the
>murder weapon, and it`s "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".
Then why don't you believe Officer Chaney?
You're willing to believe police officers? Admit that Chaney saw what he said
he saw.
>Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
>It`s a kook
>game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
>evidence.
Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
eyewitness testimony?
>Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
>> This is why you refuse to discuss the evidence.
>
> Why did Oz claim not to own the murder weapon?
I'll admit that the police officers can be believed in this second hand,
context-free statement, if you'll admit that Chaney's statements to the press
and friends can be equally believed.
>> >> >> >>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
>> >> >> >> buried this evidence).
>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
>>>> >> >> frame LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene,
>>>> >> >> the 'auto dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal
>>>>>> >> with. Particularly when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be
>>LHO.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>>> >> What did the WC fail to uncover? What, precisely, was the WC's method of
>> >> >> dealing with contrary evidence? If you don't admit that they simply
>> >> >> ignored it, you'd be lying.
>> >> >
>> >> > Conspiracy kooks haven`t ignored these things they claim were
>> >> >neglected by the WC. Where have they gone with them?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Where did the WC go with the evidence?
>> >
>> > You are unaware of their findings?
>>
>>
>> Their findings aren't supported by their own evidence... care to try again?
>
> No, thats where the went, they considered the evidence and came to a
>conclusion, the correct one. Care to do better than they did yourself?
Then why did their "conclusions" contradict their own "supporting" evidence?
Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
underpinning of their "conclusions"?
>> >> Why is the evidence that they've
>> >> collected in their 26 volumes contradictory to their conclusions?
>> >
>> > They didn`t find it so. Kook reading of the evidence does, but look
>> >how they reinvented Oswald.
>>
>>
>> Then why are you unwilling to defend it?
>
> What don`t you understand? The problems are largely created by kook
>reading of the evidence. That is never going to change.
I understand quite well... LNT'ers can't defend, and will usually *refuse* to
defend, the official investigations. You can't, and you look stupid when you
try... so I can understand why you don't like to try.
>> >> >> Why are you afraid to deal with the actual evidence, as given in the 26
>> >> >> volumes?
>> >> >
>> >> > No fear, Their findings make sense. Nothing the kooks produce does.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> When you refuse to face the facts, you merely look stupid...
>> >
>> > I`ll take that risk. Speak the truth and shame the kooks...
>> >
>>>> >> >> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
>> >> >> >> report worth the paper it's written on?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
>> >> >> >of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
>> >> >>
>>>>>> The facts (as examined by the WC) CONTRADICT the WC's explanation. Can you
>> >> >> explain why?
>> >> >
>> >> > What would be the point of that?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To prove that you're so ignorant as to be unable to even try.
>> >
>> > I am knowledgeable about that process here in kookville.
>>
>>
>> And afraid of the evidence.
>
> Like what Oz said o the police during questioning?
Like what Chaney said about the sequence of the shooting?
>In any case, I
>see nothing to be gained by endlessly gnawing on the bones of the CT
>talking points. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept, it has nowhere to go,
>because there is nowhere for it to go. Kooks must content themselves
>with endless chatter about 40 year old investigations.
Isn't it sad that you've had 40+ years to convince the American people that LHO
did it, and you can't?
>> >> Looks like I made my point.
>> >
>> > You find some of the WC evidence contrary to their findings.
>>
>>
>> Merely a fact. Same, in fact, with the HSCA, in an even more blantant
>> manner.
>
> In matters of perception, it is always easy to disagree.
It's not a "perception" at all. Feel free to quote what the HSCA *said* the
medical eyewitnesses stated with reference to the autopsy photos... then QUOTE
any medical eyewitness who made *ANY* statement that would support the HSCA
stance.
But you won't.
Cowards never support their assertions.
>Obviously,
>since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
>Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day? Or the multiple
eyewitnesses that place him in a location where shots could *NOT* have been
fired from?
>>>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that evidence.
>> >Should I care?
>>
>>
>> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
>>
>> If you want the truth, that is...
>
> Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
>evidence incriminating Oz on the first day,
Oh? Let's examine that "first" day... can you name anyone else who was detained
as a suspect, and had his rifle confiscated from his home, and subjected to a
lie detector test?
But surely, if all the evidence pointed to LHO, why was anyone else detained?
>instead of putting all
>their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
>> >> >If you don`t what the WC did, the
>> >> >conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
>> >> >alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever.
>> >>
>> >> We have. You ignore it, because you can't allow the facts to blow up your
>> >> beliefs.
>> >
>> > Where did they lead? To who, what incriminating evidence has been
>> >gathered linking them to the assasination? You have shit. You have
>> >things to cause a buzz amongst the kooks, but nothing even within
>> >lightyears of taking to a courtroom. You have nothing because there is
>> >nothing to have. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept.
>>
>>
>> Merely denying that the evidence exists is all you can do. :)
>
> Like you did when you admitted giving no thought to Oz denying
>ownership of the assassination rifle? Any investigation must take this
>evidence at face value,
And what *is* this face value? Will you be honest enough to specify it?
And will you be honest enough to admit that you *refuse* to do so in another,
equal circumstance... Officer Chaney?
>yet kooks feel it should be chucked out on
>their whim.
>
>> >> >They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere for them to go.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This undoubtably explains both why you refuse to discuss the facts, and
>> >> why as much as 90% of America disagrees with you.
>> >
>> > What does either of those things have to do with what I said?
>>
>>
>> Take your blinders off, and you'll understand.
>
> I said "They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere to go".
And, I pointed out the facts that make your assertion a silly statement.
>Speak to that concept, it certainly has nothing to do with polls,
Of course it does. You're attempting to assert that there's "nowhere to go",
yet up to 90% of America feels that we already got there.
>or endless chatter about CT talking points.
>
>> >CT haven`t gone anywhere with the concept of conspiracy because there is
>> >nowhere to go.
>>
>>
>> Conspiracy is as proven as it can be without an actual court hearing.
>
> This is a variation of the old quick draw routine ("Want to see it
>again"?) Your finish line looks stranglely like the middle of nowhere.
Only based on the evidence, Bud.
>> >If the goal was to provide decades worth of talking
>> >points, or convince a lot of people something fishy went on with the
>> >assassination, well done.
>>
>>
>> Yep... up to 90% of the American people think so...
>
> Well, you kooks were offering a hundred flavors, and the LN only had
>vanilla to offer.
And your "vanilla" isn't even real.
>> >But as far as reaching a destination, you
>> >kooks haven`t left the station.
>>
>>
>> Only when you refuse to look at the evidence.
>
> You mean engage kooks over their favorite talking points. I`m
>talking about building a case through the evidence that leads to a
>superior explaination to the one presented by the WC.
Since the WC's own 26 volumes contradicts them... what you ask has already been
accomplished by the WC.
>I`d imagine that
>kooks have an hour for every minute the WC spent investigating this
>event. Surely you can put all of that work into a cohesive package and
>present it for consideration. You can`t, and I know the reason why.
>Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept. You can`t go anywhere because there
>is nowhere to go. But, by all means feel free to claim you completed
>the trip.
We have. As up to 90% of America agrees.
>> >> >Since
>> >> >the conspiracy kooks are stuck critiqueing what others have done
>> >> >without producing a viable alternative,
>> >>
>> >> Untrue, of course...
>> >
>> > What I see is constant complaining about the investigation. What I
>> >don`t see is an alternative explaination that can be put on the table
>> >and be able to withstand the scrutiny the WC findings have for 40 plus
>> >years.
>>
>>
>> What did the closest police eyewitness to the murder say?
>
> Well, Chaney said the shots came from behind him.
Why bother to lie, Bud?
Many people here are quite familiar with Chaney's statements.
>> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
>
> How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would be
able to point out the contradictions.
But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
be able to find any contradictions.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >I`m stuck with the only
>> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
>> >>
>> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
>> >
>> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
>> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
>> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
>> >out how the fire started.
>>
>>
>> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
>> because it makes you look the fool.
>
> Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
>yourself it is progress you are making. Seem like standing still to me.
And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the actual
evidence.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> As this thread so
>> >> eloquently illustrates...
>> >
>> > Illustrates kooks are still unhappy with the WC, even after all
>> >these years. It ain`t getting any better.
>>
>> The WC did the world a great favor... they documented the proof of what
>> happened that day.
>
> Well, they showed who killed JFK, anyway. Of course, what was in the
>papers the first day should have been enough to determine that.
Afraid of the evidence... how sad...
Bud
Do you even read my questions? You sure don`t try to answer them.
> >> >> >> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
> >> >> >> >> didn't fire a rifle that day
> >> >> >> >
> >>>> >> > This convinces kooks who want to be convinced. Might not have swayed
> >> >> >> >a jury.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> This fails to explain why the WC covered this up - and why it took a court
> >> >> >> case to release this information.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It fails because no attempt was made to explain any actions by the
> >> >> >WC. My observation was that the weight, validity, strength and
> >> >> >reliability of this evidence would need to be determined by a jury
> >> >> >under adversarial conditions, not assigned by kooks in newsgroups.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I *realize* that you've made no attempt to explain the actions of the WC -
> >> >> when they buried this evidence.
> >> >
> >> > I thought you might if I clearly declared it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... I can explain it quite concisely... they lied about the evidence.
> >
> > So you say.
>
> It's not disputable. Of course, if you refuse to *look* at the evidence, then
> you can dispute it to your hearts content...
I thought you said it was not disputable.
> and even feel noble doing so.
>
>
> >How much consideration did they give that particular
> >piece of evidence when they arrived at their conclusions? Are you sure?
>
>
> It's quite simple, Bud. They had evidence that disputed and contradicted their
> "theory" of the case... and they knew it.
So? You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence. The
WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
> >> >> Why don't you give it a try?
> >> >
> >> > Because that is a kook hobby, bitching about an investigation that
> >> >has been done over 40 years ago.
> >>
> >>
> >> More likely -
> >
> > I gave the reason. You can reject my reasons in favor of ones you
> >supply yourself, as you do with the WC. Like I said, it`s a kook hobby.
>
>
> And you're a coward who refuses to deal with the evidence. Who cares?
> >> you're merely afraid to admit that the WC lied about the evidence,
> >> and constructed a conclusion that is not founded upon the evidence.
> >
> > So you say. Bitch about what the WC did for the next forty years,
> >why don`t you? It is easier than presenting an explaination to knock
> >their findings out of contention.
>
>
> It's not an "explanation" that will knock their "findings" out of "contention".
> The WC collected 26 volumes "knocks" their "findings".
>
> This is really quite simple.
I know it is. Kooks can`t offer an alternative explaination for the
events of the assassination that knock the WC findings out of
contention because the WC got it right. The CT don`t even try to put up
an alternative, because it would be obviously inferior.
> >> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
> >> >> >considerations.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
> >> >
> >> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
> >> WC... and refuse to even try.
> >
> > It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
> >Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
> >you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
>
> Did he?
See, you can`t figure out the easy ones. When you display such a
deficiency of reasoning ability, what credibility do you think you have
to criticise investigations like the WC that could figure out if that
is what Oz said?
> >Because he used it to commit a murder.
>
> Not according to the evidence.
Kook reading of the evidence. You can`t even figure out if Oz
claimed not to own that rifle.
> >Do CT have an explaination that
> >makes better sense than that?
>
> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
> evidence.
Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
hope for also.
> >> >> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest police
> >>>> eyewitness, it's simply impossible to explain why the WC didn't include it.
> >> >
> >> > Is endlessless CT carping about the WC supposed to in some way show
> >> >there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Ever wonder why Oz denied owning a
> >> >rifle?
> >>
> >>
> >> Wouldn't know...
> >
> > Of course not, why would you look at the person who owned the murder
> >weapon? How do you solve a crime like that?
>
> Neither, of course, do you know. You're simply too much of a coward to admit
> it.
I do know you don`t consider Oz a suspect, you eagerly leap at
anything you think might show his innocence, while disregarding
anything incriminating. You want to trash the interrogations because
they uncovered incriminating information about Oz. You want to
disregard the incriminating information his wife related. You would
think a person who was actually trying to honestly get to the bottom of
these murders to be hungry for this insight and information. Not kooks.
They want to focus all attention on the WC. The WC didn`t even exist
when Oz was killing these people.
> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
> >
> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
> >not Oz.
>
> What does the evidence show?
Nothing to kooks, apparently.
> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
> know...)
>
> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
> >coordination.
>
> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that occurred
> *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it with a ten foot
> pole.
Could you be more specific?
> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
> >omit, ect.
>
> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring *before* the
> assassination.
>
> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
> >Have fun.
>
> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more blatant
> as time went by...
>
> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
> said about the autopsy photos.
>
> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even try.
>
>
> >> And with no context to judge his
> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
> >
> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
>
> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
> >Even though the
> >investigators notes show him denying ownership, written when he was
> >alive and could have contested it. So, do you think the cops didn`t ask
> >him about the rifle, or he said "Hell yes, thats my rifle", and they
> >just wrote he denied owning it, hoping at trial he`d forget what he
> >said? This is why you kooks haven`t a shred of credibility, you
> >disregard pertinent evidence on a whim, with to consideration to it.
> >And I`m supposed to reject the WC because they considered things that
> >kooks decide are beneath consideration?
>
>
> "Pertinent" evidence? You refuse to discuss it.
You haven`t the capabilities to even look into this, I can`t imagine
a person less suited. You say Oz didn`t deny owning the rifle, so did
he A) tell police he did own it, and they wrote in their reports he
denied it, or b) The cops didn`t even ask him if he owned the rifle?
> And I'd consider 90% of America to have more credibility than you, Bud.
And you think reality is somehow dictated by opinion polls?
> >> >> So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
> >> >
> >> > Those have nothing to do with. CT kooks want to focus, and endlessly
> >> >bitch about, the investigation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... the facts, evidence, eyewitness reports, stuff like that... stuff
> >> that scares you.
> >
> > Kook focus everywhere but on the killer.
>
>
> What does the evidence say about the killers?
What do kooks say about the killer? Not much, except to invent
reasons to disregard the incriminating evidence against him. It ruins
this game they`ve devised if Oz is considered a suspect.
> >> >Granted, attacking the investigation
> >> >got OJ off the hook, but it only served to obscure the truth about
> >> >Nicole Brown`s murder.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bad analogy... OJ didn't have a wealth of evidence showing that someone else
> >> committed the crime.
> >
> > Great analogy. Attacking the investigation got OJ off the hook. CT
> >try the same tactic on Oz`s behalf. Ask them why Oz denied owning the
> >murder weapon, and it`s "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".
>
>
> Then why don't you believe Officer Chaney?
>
> You're willing to believe police officers? Admit that Chaney saw what he said
> he saw.
If you have a point to make with something Chaney said, make it.
> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
>
> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
> >It`s a kook
> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
> >evidence.
>
> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
> eyewitness testimony?
>
> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
>
> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
> >> This is why you refuse to discuss the evidence.
> >
> > Why did Oz claim not to own the murder weapon?
>
> I'll admit that the police officers can be believed in this second hand,
> context-free statement, if you'll admit that Chaney's statements to the press
> and friends can be equally believed.
I`d say it is likely tht the police in both cases conveyed the
information in a manner they felt truthful. The circumstances and
conditions that this information was collected differed greatly,
though.
> >> >> >> >>(so devastating to the WC conclusions, that they
> >> >> >> >> buried this evidence).
> >> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> The evidence clearly shows a pattern in advance of the assassination to
> >>>> >> >> frame LHO - the 'rifle range' scene, the 'mounting of the scope' scene,
> >>>> >> >> the 'auto dealer' scene... topics that the WC was ill equipped to deal
> >>>>>> >> with. Particularly when they *knew* that these imposters couldn't be
> >>LHO.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What have conspiracy kooks uncovered by looking into these things?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> What did the WC fail to uncover? What, precisely, was the WC's method of
> >> >> >> dealing with contrary evidence? If you don't admit that they simply
> >> >> >> ignored it, you'd be lying.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Conspiracy kooks haven`t ignored these things they claim were
> >> >> >neglected by the WC. Where have they gone with them?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did the WC go with the evidence?
> >> >
> >> > You are unaware of their findings?
> >>
> >>
> >> Their findings aren't supported by their own evidence... care to try again?
> >
> > No, thats where the went, they considered the evidence and came to a
> >conclusion, the correct one. Care to do better than they did yourself?
>
>
> Then why did their "conclusions" contradict their own "supporting" evidence?
Because they gave differing weight to information than kooks do.
> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
Months after Oz killed those people.
> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
the shots at that limo?
> >> >> Why is the evidence that they've
> >> >> collected in their 26 volumes contradictory to their conclusions?
> >> >
> >> > They didn`t find it so. Kook reading of the evidence does, but look
> >> >how they reinvented Oswald.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then why are you unwilling to defend it?
> >
> > What don`t you understand? The problems are largely created by kook
> >reading of the evidence. That is never going to change.
>
>
> I understand quite well... LNT'ers can't defend, and will usually *refuse* to
> defend, the official investigations. You can't, and you look stupid when you
> try... so I can understand why you don't like to try.
More fool you to try and solve a murder after dismissing the
murderer as a suspect.
> >> >> >> Why are you afraid to deal with the actual evidence, as given in the 26
> >> >> >> volumes?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No fear, Their findings make sense. Nothing the kooks produce does.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> When you refuse to face the facts, you merely look stupid...
> >> >
> >> > I`ll take that risk. Speak the truth and shame the kooks...
> >> >
> >>>> >> >> When it's necessary to lie about the evidence to write a report, is the
> >> >> >> >> report worth the paper it's written on?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Go forth and do better. Produce a explaination for the known facts
> >> >> >> >of the case which is superior to the WC`s.
> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> The facts (as examined by the WC) CONTRADICT the WC's explanation. Can you
> >> >> >> explain why?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What would be the point of that?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> To prove that you're so ignorant as to be unable to even try.
> >> >
> >> > I am knowledgeable about that process here in kookville.
> >>
> >>
> >> And afraid of the evidence.
> >
> > Like what Oz said to the police during questioning?
>
> Like what Chaney said about the sequence of the shooting?
What claims do you think I make about what he said?
> >In any case, I
> >see nothing to be gained by endlessly gnawing on the bones of the CT
> >talking points. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept, it has nowhere to go,
> >because there is nowhere for it to go. Kooks must content themselves
> >with endless chatter about 40 year old investigations.
>
>
> Isn't it sad that you've had 40+ years to convince the American people that LHO
> did it, and you can't?
It was never my intent to try and convince even one person.
> >> >> Looks like I made my point.
> >> >
> >> > You find some of the WC evidence contrary to their findings.
> >>
> >>
> >> Merely a fact. Same, in fact, with the HSCA, in an even more blantant
> >> manner.
> >
> > In matters of perception, it is always easy to disagree.
>
>
> It's not a "perception" at all. Feel free to quote what the HSCA *said* the
> medical eyewitnesses stated with reference to the autopsy photos... then QUOTE
> any medical eyewitness who made *ANY* statement that would support the HSCA
> stance.
>
> But you won't.
I said something about the medical evidence? I said in matter of
perception it is easy to disagree. When weighing testimony and
evidence, it is easy to disagree about how much weight a particular
piece of evidence or testimony should have.
> Cowards never support their assertions.
>
> >Obviously,
> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
>
> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
There is no such proof, liar.
> Or the multiple
> eyewitnesses that place him in a location where shots could *NOT* have been
> fired from?
At 12:30?
> >>>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that evidence.
> >> >Should I care?
> >>
> >>
> >> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
> >>
> >> If you want the truth, that is...
> >
> > Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
> >evidence incriminating Oz on the first day,
>
>
> Oh? Let's examine that "first" day... can you name anyone else who was detained
> as a suspect, and had his rifle confiscated from his home, and subjected to a
> lie detector test?
>
> But surely, if all the evidence pointed to LHO, why was anyone else detained?
You can`t figure that out either? Likely someone thought it prudent
to go through the motions to positively eliminate Frazier from any
wrongdoing. Is there a stupider reason you would like to cling to?
> >instead of putting all
> >their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
>
> Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
If you take the police interrogation at face value, and what Marina
related at face value, then it is obvious that Oz is guilty. So kooks
decide to disregard this incriminating evidence, as it interferes with
their silly game.
> >> >> >If you don`t what the WC did, the
> >> >> >conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
> >> >> >alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever.
> >> >>
> >> >> We have. You ignore it, because you can't allow the facts to blow up your
> >> >> beliefs.
> >> >
> >> > Where did they lead? To who, what incriminating evidence has been
> >> >gathered linking them to the assasination? You have shit. You have
> >> >things to cause a buzz amongst the kooks, but nothing even within
> >> >lightyears of taking to a courtroom. You have nothing because there is
> >> >nothing to have. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept.
> >>
> >>
> >> Merely denying that the evidence exists is all you can do. :)
> >
> > Like you did when you admitted giving no thought to Oz denying
> >ownership of the assassination rifle? Any investigation must take this
> >evidence at face value,
>
>
> And what *is* this face value? Will you be honest enough to specify it?
The police reports as written.
> And will you be honest enough to admit that you *refuse* to do so in another,
> equal circumstance... Officer Chaney?
Chaney was in on the interview of Oz?
> >yet kooks feel it should be chucked out on
> >their whim.
> >
> >> >> >They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere for them to go.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This undoubtably explains both why you refuse to discuss the facts, and
> >> >> why as much as 90% of America disagrees with you.
> >> >
> >> > What does either of those things have to do with what I said?
> >>
> >>
> >> Take your blinders off, and you'll understand.
> >
> > I said "They haven`t gone anywhere because there is nowhere to go".
>
>
> And, I pointed out the facts that make your assertion a silly statement.
It was more of an observation than a statement.
> >Speak to that concept, it certainly has nothing to do with polls,
>
>
> Of course it does. You're attempting to assert that there's "nowhere to go",
> yet up to 90% of America feels that we already got there.
Ah, I see, the intent was never to determine the truth about the
assassination, the intent was to get a lot of people to believe there
was a conspiracy. Well done, you certainly seem to have succeeded then.
> >or endless chatter about CT talking points.
> >
> >> >CT haven`t gone anywhere with the concept of conspiracy because there is
> >> >nowhere to go.
> >>
> >>
> >> Conspiracy is as proven as it can be without an actual court hearing.
> >
> > This is a variation of the old quick draw routine ("Want to see it
> >again"?) Your finish line looks stranglely like the middle of nowhere.
>
>
> Only based on the evidence, Bud.
You disregard whole chunks of the evidence that tell who the real
murderer was. Which is why you kooks will never get anywhere.
>
> >> >If the goal was to provide decades worth of talking
> >> >points, or convince a lot of people something fishy went on with the
> >> >assassination, well done.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... up to 90% of the American people think so...
> >
> > Well, you kooks were offering a hundred flavors, and the LN only had
> >vanilla to offer.
>
>
> And your "vanilla" isn't even real.
Maybe if we put a cherry on top, like Oz was a lone gunman, but he
was possessed or something, maybe then we could have competed with the
kooks for the American imagination. Granted, just offering one smirking
weasal isn`t much, I can see how people would think he was only bait,
when they wanted a trophy fish.
> >> >But as far as reaching a destination, you
> >> >kooks haven`t left the station.
> >>
> >>
> >> Only when you refuse to look at the evidence.
> >
> > You mean engage kooks over their favorite talking points. I`m
> >talking about building a case through the evidence that leads to a
> >superior explaination to the one presented by the WC.
>
> Since the WC's own 26 volumes contradicts them... what you ask has already been
> accomplished by the WC.
More "quick draw" routine. Want to see it again. I`d like to see
your superior explaination once.
> >I`d imagine that
> >kooks have an hour for every minute the WC spent investigating this
> >event. Surely you can put all of that work into a cohesive package and
> >present it for consideration. You can`t, and I know the reason why.
> >Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept. You can`t go anywhere because there
> >is nowhere to go. But, by all means feel free to claim you completed
> >the trip.
>
>
> We have. As up to 90% of America agrees.
90% of America agrees that CT kooks have presented a cohesive
package for consideration?
> >> >> >Since
> >> >> >the conspiracy kooks are stuck critiqueing what others have done
> >> >> >without producing a viable alternative,
> >> >>
> >> >> Untrue, of course...
> >> >
> >> > What I see is constant complaining about the investigation. What I
> >> >don`t see is an alternative explaination that can be put on the table
> >> >and be able to withstand the scrutiny the WC findings have for 40 plus
> >> >years.
> >>
> >>
> >> What did the closest police eyewitness to the murder say?
> >
> > Well, Chaney said the shots came from behind him.
>
>
> Why bother to lie, Bud?
>
> Many people here are quite familiar with Chaney's statements.
Then they know that shortly after the assassination Chaney told the
BBC that the shot came from back over his right shoulder.
> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
> >
> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
>
>
> If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would be
> able to point out the contradictions.
If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
to.
> But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
> be able to find any contradictions.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
he did.
> >> >> >I`m stuck with the only
> >> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
> >> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
> >> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
> >> >out how the fire started.
> >>
> >>
> >> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
> >> because it makes you look the fool.
> >
> > Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
> >yourself it is progress you are making. Seems like standing still to me.
>
>
> And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the actual
> evidence.
What exactly did you quote Chaney as having said?
Anthony Marsh
> In article <rWx7f.18286$U2.17696@trndny04>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <Yie7f.1514$0V6.447@trndny06>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <1130077950.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>teleco...@yahoo.ca says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is this important? A single incident (assuming that it is true)
>>>>>>does not make LHO a psychotic in any sense of the word. I am sure that
>>>>>>there are many people from LHO's youth who would could tell us of
>>>>>>incidents in his life that would paint a completely diffferent picture
>>>>>>of who he is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>LHO was provably *not* psychotic... The Marine Corps is not in the habit of
>>>>>allowing psychotics to join their ranks, irrespective of what those who are
>>>>>anti-military might think.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The US Marine Corps is the perfect place for psychotics. Look at how
>>>>many mass murderers and serial killers have been Marines.
>>>
>>>
>>>Name them. Give total numbers of those who've been Marines, put your "mass
>>>murderers and serial killers" as a percentage, then let's compare to any
>>>other well-defined group of people.
>>>
>>
>>Another strawman argument. I never said all.
>
>
> No, you distinctly implied that Marines have more psychotics than other places.
> I challenged you to prove it, or even support it.
>
I said no such thing. You made it up.
Ben Holmes
I *did* answer your question. I see that you refuse to attempt to assert that
Givens contradicts the statements I mentioned.
You've attempted to pit Givens against my cites... now you won't back it up, no
doubt because you went back and actually *read* his words, and realize that it
doesn't say what you thought it did.
In their method of *handling* such evidence, they illustrate their dishonesty.
For example, the location of the back wound - they *KNEW* it was in the back,
and not in the neck. You can read this in the executive session transcripts.
>You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence.
Which piece is that? There's a *multitude* of evidence I'm referring to... the
fact that only two cartridge cases were found at the SN, the location of the
back wound, the multitude of earwitness accounts for the GN, the failure to
include obvious evidence, such as the death certificate, and critical eyewitness
accounts, the tests done at Oak Ridge which prove that LHO never fired a rifle,
the actual tests done to attempt to duplicate LHO's alleged firing speed... I
can go on, but this merely highlights your ignorance of the case.
>The
>WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
>this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
No, they were *NOT* tapped to "investigate". I've covered this before in
detail. The investigation was given to the FBI.
And the WC knew that they were 'stuck' with the FBI, and realized early on that
the FBI had a preconceived theory that they were going to be stuck with. Again,
read the executive session transcripts.
>> >> >> Why don't you give it a try?
>> >> >
>> >> > Because that is a kook hobby, bitching about an investigation that
>> >> >has been done over 40 years ago.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> More likely -
>> >
>> > I gave the reason. You can reject my reasons in favor of ones you
>> >supply yourself, as you do with the WC. Like I said, it`s a kook hobby.
>>
>>
>> And you're a coward who refuses to deal with the evidence. Who cares?
>
>> >> you're merely afraid to admit that the WC lied about the evidence,
>> >> and constructed a conclusion that is not founded upon the evidence.
>> >
>> > So you say. Bitch about what the WC did for the next forty years,
>> >why don`t you? It is easier than presenting an explaination to knock
>> >their findings out of contention.
>>
>>
>> It's not an "explanation" that will knock their "findings" out
>> of "contention". The WC collected 26 volumes "knocks" their "findings".
>>
>> This is really quite simple.
>
> I know it is. Kooks can`t offer an alternative explaination for the
>events of the assassination that knock the WC findings out of
>contention because the WC got it right. The CT don`t even try to put up
>an alternative, because it would be obviously inferior.
Repeating a silly statement doesn't make it any less silly.
The WC itself contradicts their "conclusions".
>> >> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
>> >> >> >
>>>> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
>> >> >> >considerations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
>> >> WC... and refuse to even try.
>> >
>> > It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
>> >Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
>> >you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
>>
>> Did he?
>
> See, you can`t figure out the easy ones. When you display such a
>deficiency of reasoning ability, what credibility do you think you have
>to criticise investigations like the WC that could figure out if that
>is what Oz said?
Again, your ignorance of the case is showing. The physical evidence of
ownership of *that* rifle is disconnected... no doubt purposely so.
If you've got it "figured out", why not attempt to show everyone here? Go ahead
and list the evidence...
>> >Because he used it to commit a murder.
>>
>> Not according to the evidence.
>
> Kook reading of the evidence. You can`t even figure out if Oz
>claimed not to own that rifle.
Ah! So you *DO* believe Chaney!
For if you unhesitately accept what the police said, then when Chaney pointed
out that separate bullets hit JFK and Connally, it broke the SBT. And without
the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins, hence, a conspiracy.
Good of you to join the right side...
>> >Do CT have an explaination that
>> >makes better sense than that?
>>
>> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
>> evidence.
>
> Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
>was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
>hope for also.
And for you to accept the evidence is too much to hope for... you're a coward.
>>>> >> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest police
>>>>>> eyewitness, it's simply impossible to explain why the WC didn't include it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is endlessless CT carping about the WC supposed to in some way show
>> >> >there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Ever wonder why Oz denied owning a
>> >> >rifle?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Wouldn't know...
>> >
>> > Of course not, why would you look at the person who owned the murder
>> >weapon? How do you solve a crime like that?
>>
>> Neither, of course, do you know. You're simply too much of a coward to
>> admit it.
>
> I do know you don`t consider Oz a suspect, you eagerly leap at
>anything you think might show his innocence, while disregarding
>anything incriminating. You want to trash the interrogations because
>they uncovered incriminating information about Oz. You want to
>disregard the incriminating information his wife related. You would
>think a person who was actually trying to honestly get to the bottom of
>these murders to be hungry for this insight and information. Not kooks.
>They want to focus all attention on the WC. The WC didn`t even exist
>when Oz was killing these people.
What does the evidence show, Bud?
>> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
>> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
>> >
>> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
>> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
>> >not Oz.
>>
>> What does the evidence show?
>
> Nothing to kooks, apparently.
Are you attempting to imply that you follow the evidence?
>> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
>> know...)
>>
>> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
>> >coordination.
>>
>> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that
>> occurred *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it
>> with a ten foot pole.
>
> Could you be more specific?
The 'appearance' of LHO at a rifle range, or the car dealership, or the shop
where a scope was mounted... among others.
>> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
>> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
>> >omit, ect.
>>
>> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring
>> *before* the assassination.
>>
>> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
>> >Have fun.
>>
>> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more
>> blatant as time went by...
>>
>> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
>> said about the autopsy photos.
>>
>> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even
>> try.
You see? Dead silence...
>> >> And with no context to judge his
>> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
>> >
>> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
>> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
>>
>> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
>
> See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
Coward, aren't you? Tell everyone here what that location was. You say you
have it figured out, yet you cowardly refuse to specify it.
>> >Even though the
>> >investigators notes show him denying ownership, written when he was
>> >alive and could have contested it. So, do you think the cops didn`t ask
>> >him about the rifle, or he said "Hell yes, thats my rifle", and they
>> >just wrote he denied owning it, hoping at trial he`d forget what he
>> >said? This is why you kooks haven`t a shred of credibility, you
>> >disregard pertinent evidence on a whim, with to consideration to it.
>> >And I`m supposed to reject the WC because they considered things that
>> >kooks decide are beneath consideration?
>>
>>
>> "Pertinent" evidence? You refuse to discuss it.
>
> You haven`t the capabilities to even look into this, I can`t imagine
>a person less suited. You say Oz didn`t deny owning the rifle,
Why lie, Bud?
>so did
>he A) tell police he did own it, and they wrote in their reports he
>denied it, or b) The cops didn`t even ask him if he owned the rifle?
>
>> And I'd consider 90% of America to have more credibility than you, Bud.
>
> And you think reality is somehow dictated by opinion polls?
>
>> >> >> So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
>> >> >
>> >> > Those have nothing to do with. CT kooks want to focus, and endlessly
>> >> >bitch about, the investigation.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep... the facts, evidence, eyewitness reports, stuff like that... stuff
>> >> that scares you.
>> >
>> > Kook focus everywhere but on the killer.
>>
>>
>> What does the evidence say about the killers?
>
> What do kooks say about the killer? Not much,
And this is your basic problem... you're simply too ignorant of the evidence to
make an argument.
>except to invent
>reasons to disregard the incriminating evidence against him.
What incriminating evidence? Does it place him at the scene, and prove that he
fired a rifle?
Nope. In fact, the *evidence* shows that he *wasn't* there, and did *not* fire
a rifle that day. But, you merely ignore the evidence, just as the WC did.
>It ruins
>this game they`ve devised if Oz is considered a suspect.
>
>> >> >Granted, attacking the investigation
>> >> >got OJ off the hook, but it only served to obscure the truth about
>> >> >Nicole Brown`s murder.
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Bad analogy... OJ didn't have a wealth of evidence showing that someone else
>> >> committed the crime.
>> >
>> > Great analogy. Attacking the investigation got OJ off the hook. CT
>> >try the same tactic on Oz`s behalf. Ask them why Oz denied owning the
>> >murder weapon, and it`s "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".
>>
>>
>> Then why don't you believe Officer Chaney?
>>
>> You're willing to believe police officers? Admit that Chaney saw what he
>> said he saw.
>
> If you have a point to make with something Chaney said, make it.
Other than you lied about what he said - and giving what he *actually* said
above, that's about it.
Since you're willing to believe the police with regards to LHO's statements, you
must *EQUALLY* be willing to accept Chaney's statements...
How do you support the WC theory with the SBT knocked out of it?
>> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
>>
>> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
>
> You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
>supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
It's mentioned above. What do you want to bet that I'm right?
You *CAN'T* believe Chaney. For if you do, the WC's theory becomes moot.
>> >It`s a kook
>> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
>> >evidence.
>>
>> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
>> eyewitness testimony?
>>
>> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
>>
>> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
>
> Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
>"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
It's been given many times. There's a number of good books that detail it.
When you have to lie to 'support' the 'truth', is it really the truth?
This is a point that you refuse to debate. The WC provably lied. Why?
>> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
>
> Months after Oz killed those people.
Non Sequitur...
>> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
>> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
>
> Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
>the shots at that limo?
What don't you understand about "fundamental underpinning of their conclusions"?
Do you even know what it is?
You didn't. You, in fact, *lied* about what Chaney said.
>> >In any case, I
>> >see nothing to be gained by endlessly gnawing on the bones of the CT
>> >talking points. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept, it has nowhere to go,
>> >because there is nowhere for it to go. Kooks must content themselves
>> >with endless chatter about 40 year old investigations.
>>
>>
>>Isn't it sad that you've had 40+ years to convince the American people that LHO
>> did it, and you can't?
>
> It was never my intent to try and convince even one person.
>
>> >> >> Looks like I made my point.
>> >> >
>> >> > You find some of the WC evidence contrary to their findings.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Merely a fact. Same, in fact, with the HSCA, in an even more blantant
>> >> manner.
>> >
>> > In matters of perception, it is always easy to disagree.
>>
>>
>> It's not a "perception" at all. Feel free to quote what the HSCA *said* the
>>medical eyewitnesses stated with reference to the autopsy photos... then QUOTE
>> any medical eyewitness who made *ANY* statement that would support the HSCA
>> stance.
>>
>> But you won't.
>
> I said something about the medical evidence? I said in matter of
>perception it is easy to disagree. When weighing testimony and
>evidence, it is easy to disagree about how much weight a particular
>piece of evidence or testimony should have.
"But you won't"
>> Cowards never support their assertions.
>>
>> >Obviously,
>> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
>> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
>>
>> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
>
> There is no such proof, liar.
Oak Ridge did the tests on the paraffin casts of LHO's cheek. Once again, your
ignorance of the evidence is showing...
>> Or the multiple
>> eyewitnesses that place him in a location where shots could *NOT* have been
>> fired from?
>
> At 12:30?
11:50 and 12:15.
>>>>>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that
>>evidence.
>> >> >Should I care?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
>> >>
>> >> If you want the truth, that is...
>> >
>> > Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
>> >evidence incriminating Oz on the first day,
>>
>>
>>Oh? Let's examine that "first" day... can you name anyone else who was detained
>> as a suspect, and had his rifle confiscated from his home, and subjected to a
>> lie detector test?
>>
>> But surely, if all the evidence pointed to LHO, why was anyone else detained?
>
> You can`t figure that out either? Likely someone thought it prudent
>to go through the motions to positively eliminate Frazier from any
>wrongdoing. Is there a stupider reason you would like to cling to?
Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
>> >instead of putting all
>> >their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
>>
>> Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
>
> If you take the police interrogation at face value, and what Marina
>related at face value, then it is obvious that Oz is guilty. So kooks
>decide to disregard this incriminating evidence, as it interferes with
>their silly game.
If you take *ALL* the evidence at face value.... but you won't.
>> >> >> >If you don`t what the WC did, the
>> >> >> >conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
>> >> >> >alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever.
>> >> >>
>>>> >> We have. You ignore it, because you can't allow the facts to blow up your
>> >> >> beliefs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Where did they lead? To who, what incriminating evidence has been
>> >> >gathered linking them to the assasination? You have shit. You have
>> >> >things to cause a buzz amongst the kooks, but nothing even within
>> >> >lightyears of taking to a courtroom. You have nothing because there is
>> >> >nothing to have. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Merely denying that the evidence exists is all you can do. :)
>> >
>> > Like you did when you admitted giving no thought to Oz denying
>> >ownership of the assassination rifle? Any investigation must take this
>> >evidence at face value,
>>
>>
>> And what *is* this face value? Will you be honest enough to specify it?
>
> The police reports as written.
>
>> And will you be honest enough to admit that you *refuse* to do so in another,
>> equal circumstance... Officer Chaney?
>
> Chaney was in on the interview of Oz?
Yep... coward....
Why not show how 'your' explanation fits the facts?
Mine does...
>> >I`d imagine that
>> >kooks have an hour for every minute the WC spent investigating this
>> >event. Surely you can put all of that work into a cohesive package and
>> >present it for consideration. You can`t, and I know the reason why.
>> >Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept. You can`t go anywhere because there
>> >is nowhere to go. But, by all means feel free to claim you completed
>> >the trip.
>>
>>
>> We have. As up to 90% of America agrees.
>
> 90% of America agrees that CT kooks have presented a cohesive
>package for consideration?
>
>> >> >> >Since
>> >> >> >the conspiracy kooks are stuck critiqueing what others have done
>> >> >> >without producing a viable alternative,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Untrue, of course...
>> >> >
>> >> > What I see is constant complaining about the investigation. What I
>> >> >don`t see is an alternative explaination that can be put on the table
>> >> >and be able to withstand the scrutiny the WC findings have for 40 plus
>> >> >years.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What did the closest police eyewitness to the murder say?
>> >
>> > Well, Chaney said the shots came from behind him.
>>
>>
>> Why bother to lie, Bud?
>>
>> Many people here are quite familiar with Chaney's statements.
>
> Then they know that shortly after the assassination Chaney told the
>BBC that the shot came from back over his right shoulder.
Once again, you're a liar.
Waiting for a citation...
>> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
>> >
>> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
>>
>>
>>If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would be
>> able to point out the contradictions.
>
> If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
>trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
>to.
>
>>But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
>> be able to find any contradictions.
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
> All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
>he did.
Your ignorance about what Chaney *actually* said is amusing...
>> >> >> >I`m stuck with the only
>> >> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
>> >> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
>> >> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
>> >> >out how the fire started.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
>> >> because it makes you look the fool.
>> >
>> > Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
>> >yourself it is progress you are making. Seems like standing still to me.
>>
>>
>> And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the actual
>> evidence.
>
> What exactly did you quote Chaney as having said?
I *haven't* quoted him in this thread.
Ben Holmes
Once again, Tony 'No Cite' Marsh is proven a liar...
Bud
You gave times that you say people saw Oz, not who those people
were, or the statements they made. I only asked why you are sure about
the times of those sightings, and if you can establish whether they
occurred before the encounter with Givens on the 6th floor.
> You've attempted to pit Givens against my cites... now you won't back it up, no
> doubt because you went back and actually *read* his words, and realize that it
> doesn't say what you thought it did.
My point was that you are always trying to make information that is
not precisely established, such as the times of the sightings you
mentioned, and pretend it is carved in stone. Because only if these
things are rock solid can you makes the leaps you wish to take from
this information.
As you illustrate yours by disregarding that Oz denied owning the
rifle. If you really were looking to get to the bottom of this, you
would look long and hard at the person who`s rifle was found where the
shots were fired. Instead of complaining about how illegal it was
geting information from Oz`s wife, if you really were interested in
getting to the truth you would happily welcome this information and
insight, as Oz was a closed individual that not many had contact with.
But you aren`t interested in getting to the bottom of this, because
that is where Oz is. It would ruin this silly game you kooks have
devided to scrutinize Oz honestly.
> For example, the location of the back wound - they *KNEW* it was in the back,
> and not in the neck. You can read this in the executive session transcripts.
But why did Oz claim that he hadn`t brung a long paper bag into
wotk that morning?
> >You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence.
>
> Which piece is that?
Nitrate tests to Oz`s face.
> There's a *multitude* of evidence I'm referring to... the
> fact that only two cartridge cases were found at the SN,
<snicker> Another excellent example of kook denial.
> the location of the
> back wound, the multitude of earwitness accounts for the GN,
I assume the sounds the witnesses reported were all the same sounds,
correct. So why did witnesses give different accounts of where the
sound originated from?
> the failure to
> include obvious evidence, such as the death certificate, and critical eyewitness
> accounts, the tests done at Oak Ridge which prove that LHO never fired a rifle,
Prove? You can be sure they would have went ahead with a trial even
if Oz`s defense had those test results. BTW, in those Oak Ridge test
you refer to, did they use the iron sights or the scope? Which did Oz
use?
> the actual tests done to attempt to duplicate LHO's alleged firing speed...
Any attempt to recreate Oz`s firing speed is missing the most
important component, wouldn`t you say?
> I
> can go on, but this merely highlights your ignorance of the case.
Only an illustration of typical kook denial.
> >The
> >WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
> >this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
>
> No, they were *NOT* tapped to "investigate". I've covered this before in
> detail. The investigation was given to the FBI.
Yet the WC`s mandate contains that very word. In any case, they were
charged with looking into this matter, and concluded three shots were
fired from the TSBD. Kooks looking into this matter have concluded only
two were fired. What could matter less than what kooks conclude?
> And the WC knew that they were 'stuck' with the FBI, and realized early on that
> the FBI had a preconceived theory that they were going to be stuck with. Again,
> read the executive session transcripts.
Not a bad position to be stuck with the truth. Oz did fire all the
shots at the limo.
> >> >> >> Why don't you give it a try?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because that is a kook hobby, bitching about an investigation that
> >> >> >has been done over 40 years ago.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> More likely -
> >> >
> >> > I gave the reason. You can reject my reasons in favor of ones you
> >> >supply yourself, as you do with the WC. Like I said, it`s a kook hobby.
> >>
> >>
> >> And you're a coward who refuses to deal with the evidence. Who cares?
> >
> >> >> you're merely afraid to admit that the WC lied about the evidence,
> >> >> and constructed a conclusion that is not founded upon the evidence.
> >> >
> >> > So you say. Bitch about what the WC did for the next forty years,
> >> >why don`t you? It is easier than presenting an explaination to knock
> >> >their findings out of contention.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not an "explanation" that will knock their "findings" out
> >> of "contention". The WC collected 26 volumes "knocks" their "findings".
> >>
> >> This is really quite simple.
> >
> > I know it is. Kooks can`t offer an alternative explaination for the
> >events of the assassination that knock the WC findings out of
> >contention because the WC got it right. The CT don`t even try to put up
> >an alternative, because it would be obviously inferior.
>
>
> Repeating a silly statement doesn't make it any less silly.
Tell the truth and shame the kooks. Let me say it again, the kooks
cannot produce an explaination that can be compared with the WC
conclusions and knock them out of contention. All they do is
willy-nilly discard inconvenient evidence that implicates Oz, as you
did with Oz`s denial he owned the rifle. Kooks just decide it has no
validity, and presto, it disappears.
> The WC itself contradicts their "conclusions".
Supply a version that takes into account all the evidence which does
not contradict itself. It should be easy, just use the WC basic
framework, and omit the contradictions. Be sure to explain why the cops
on the 6th floor (and pictures taken) said there was three hulls on the
floor, and you claim two.
> >> >> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
> >> >> >> >
> >>>> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
> >> >> >> >considerations.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
> >> >> WC... and refuse to even try.
> >> >
> >> > It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
> >> >Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
> >> >you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
> >>
> >> Did he?
> >
> > See, you can`t figure out the easy ones. When you display such a
> >deficiency of reasoning ability, what credibility do you think you have
> >to criticise investigations like the WC that could figure out if that
> >is what Oz said?
>
>
> Again, your ignorance of the case is showing. The physical evidence of
> ownership of *that* rifle is disconnected... no doubt purposely so.
Kooks can`t even determine if Oz owned the rifle. You folks are
definately the wrong people to be looking into this. Lets try this...
was the WC wrong to conclude Oz owned that rifle?
> If you've got it "figured out", why not attempt to show everyone here? Go ahead
> and list the evidence...
So you can do the CT rote-denial thing? I`m not here to play the
silly game of arguing against all the silly amateur defense lawyer crap
you folks have developed for your arsenal. Kooks have invented problems
for all the incriminating evidence against Oz, it`s their hobby. If Oz
claims he didn`t own the rifle, kooks say "I`m not convinced Oz said
that". All it shows is you are incapable of honestly looking at the
evidence against Oz.
> >> >Because he used it to commit a murder.
> >>
> >> Not according to the evidence.
> >
> > Kook reading of the evidence. You can`t even figure out if Oz
> >claimed not to own that rifle.
>
>
> Ah! So you *DO* believe Chaney!
>
> For if you unhesitately accept what the police said, then when Chaney pointed
> out that separate bullets hit JFK and Connally, it broke the SBT. And without
> the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins, hence, a conspiracy.
>
> Good of you to join the right side...
You are such a kook, I can`t even figure out what point you think
you are making with this babbling. I suspect Chaney conveyed what he
thought happened. And of course a cop asking a specific question to get
a suspects answer for recording is the exact same context as a cop
relating the details of a sudden unexpected attack.
> >> >Do CT have an explaination that
> >> >makes better sense than that?
> >>
> >> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
> >> evidence.
> >
> > Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
> >was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
> >hope for also.
>
>
> And for you to accept the evidence is too much to hope for... you're a coward.
I have one fear, that something you say will make sense, and won`t
be the product of the pure desire to see evidence of a conspiracy in
every aspect of the case. So far, that fear has not been realized.
> >>>> >> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest police
> >>>>>> eyewitness, it's simply impossible to explain why the WC didn't include it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is endlessless CT carping about the WC supposed to in some way show
> >> >> >there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? Ever wonder why Oz denied owning a
> >> >> >rifle?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Wouldn't know...
> >> >
> >> > Of course not, why would you look at the person who owned the murder
> >> >weapon? How do you solve a crime like that?
> >>
> >> Neither, of course, do you know. You're simply too much of a coward to
> >> admit it.
> >
> > I do know you don`t consider Oz a suspect, you eagerly leap at
> >anything you think might show his innocence, while disregarding
> >anything incriminating. You want to trash the interrogations because
> >they uncovered incriminating information about Oz. You want to
> >disregard the incriminating information his wife related. You would
> >think a person who was actually trying to honestly get to the bottom of
> >these murders to be hungry for this insight and information. Not kooks.
> >They want to focus all attention on the WC. The WC didn`t even exist
> >when Oz was killing these people.
>
>
> What does the evidence show, Bud?
The point I was making was that kooks are more interested in
mainatining this game they`ve devided then making an actual attempt to
figure out what happened.
Why did Oz try to kill the cops that arrested him, Ben? If these things
didn`t happen, then establish that they didn`t and not just play the
usual game of raising what they claim are troubling in an effort to
disregard this evidence. If you can`t do that, then accept them as
having happened and weigh it as evidence of Oz`s guilt. I know it is
easier to pretend these things didn`t happen than to try and come up
with a reasonable explaination why Oz would try and kill the cops who
arrested him.
> >> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
> >> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
> >> >
> >> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
> >> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
> >> >not Oz.
> >>
> >> What does the evidence show?
> >
> > Nothing to kooks, apparently.
>
>
> Are you attempting to imply that you follow the evidence?
The evidence you love is the most muddled. If we got all the
witnesses to stand and point where they think they heard the shots come
from, where would they point? All over? Where does the evidence clearly
show a shot entering Kennedy`s head? Is there no evidence that disputes
this place?
> >> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
> >> know...)
> >>
> >> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
> >> >coordination.
> >>
> >> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that
> >> occurred *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it
> >> with a ten foot pole.
> >
> > Could you be more specific?
>
>
> The 'appearance' of LHO at a rifle range, or the car dealership, or the shop
> where a scope was mounted... among others.
What have you established with these sightings?
> >> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
> >> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
> >> >omit, ect.
> >>
> >> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring
> >> *before* the assassination.
> >>
> >> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
> >> >Have fun.
> >>
> >> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more
> >> blatant as time went by...
> >>
> >> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
> >> said about the autopsy photos.
> >>
> >> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even
> >> try.
>
>
>
>
> You see? Dead silence...
I`ve answered it numerous times by pointing out that all you do is
bitch about what they did. What did you kooks do besides bitch? Those
that can, do, those that can`t become critics.
> >> >> And with no context to judge his
> >> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
> >> >
> >> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
> >> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
> >>
> >> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
> >
> > See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
>
>
>
> Coward, aren't you? Tell everyone here what that location was. You say you
> have it figured out, yet you cowardly refuse to specify it.
Where did Baker say it had occurred, in a lunchroom? Where did Truly
say? Where did Baker point on a floorplan of the TSBD for the WC that
it occured? Where did Oz tell his interrogators it occurred? If this
isn`t enough information for you to figure out where the encounter took
place, why are you even looking at this, and on what grounds can you
criticize investigations that could?
>
> >> >Even though the
> >> >investigators notes show him denying ownership, written when he was
> >> >alive and could have contested it. So, do you think the cops didn`t ask
> >> >him about the rifle, or he said "Hell yes, thats my rifle", and they
> >> >just wrote he denied owning it, hoping at trial he`d forget what he
> >> >said? This is why you kooks haven`t a shred of credibility, you
> >> >disregard pertinent evidence on a whim, with to consideration to it.
> >> >And I`m supposed to reject the WC because they considered things that
> >> >kooks decide are beneath consideration?
> >>
> >>
> >> "Pertinent" evidence? You refuse to discuss it.
> >
> > You haven`t the capabilities to even look into this, I can`t imagine
> >a person less suited. You say Oz didn`t deny owning the rifle,
>
>
> Why lie, Bud?
Oh, Ok, you decide the information has no weight. It becomes
non-information,
untrustworthy. Such is the fate of all troublesome information about
Oz. Shred, ignore, disregard. Along with any sembelance of credibility
you might have, as you show the game to be the important thing, not
getting to the truth..
> >so did
> >he A) tell police he did own it, and they wrote in their reports he
> >denied it, or b) The cops didn`t even ask him if he owned the rifle?
> >
> >> And I'd consider 90% of America to have more credibility than you, Bud.
> >
> > And you think reality is somehow dictated by opinion polls?
> >
> >> >> >> So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Those have nothing to do with. CT kooks want to focus, and endlessly
> >> >> >bitch about, the investigation.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... the facts, evidence, eyewitness reports, stuff like that... stuff
> >> >> that scares you.
> >> >
> >> > Kook focus everywhere but on the killer.
> >>
> >>
> >> What does the evidence say about the killers?
> >
> > What do kooks say about the killer? Not much,
>
>
> And this is your basic problem... you're simply too ignorant of the evidence to
> make an argument.
I know the kooks. I know even though Oz was seen on the floor the
shots came from and his rifle was found, the kooks don`t think him
worthy of any suspicion. They readily and eagarly supply and accept
anything they can that lessens his participation, so they can continue
this fun hobby they have of endlessly beating their talking points to
death.
> >except to invent
> >reasons to disregard the incriminating evidence against him.
>
>
> What incriminating evidence?
Is this where I`m supposed to list it so you can give the rote
reasons kooks have to disregard it? Is that the game?
> Does it place him at the scene, and prove that he
> fired a rifle?
I`d take a jury to prove those things.
> Nope. In fact, the *evidence* shows that he *wasn't* there,
Somebody saw him at 12:30?
> and did *not* fire
> a rifle that day. But, you merely ignore the evidence, just as the WC did.
You merely think those test results exonerate Oz.
> >It ruins
> >this game they`ve devised if Oz is considered a suspect.
> >
> >> >> >Granted, attacking the investigation
> >> >> >got OJ off the hook, but it only served to obscure the truth about
> >> >> >Nicole Brown`s murder.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Bad analogy... OJ didn't have a wealth of evidence showing that someone else
> >> >> committed the crime.
> >> >
> >> > Great analogy. Attacking the investigation got OJ off the hook. CT
> >> >try the same tactic on Oz`s behalf. Ask them why Oz denied owning the
> >> >murder weapon, and it`s "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".
> >>
> >>
> >> Then why don't you believe Officer Chaney?
> >>
> >> You're willing to believe police officers? Admit that Chaney saw what he
> >> said he saw.
> >
> > If you have a point to make with something Chaney said, make it.
>
>
> Other than you lied about what he said - and giving what he *actually* said
> above, that's about it.
No, he did say what I said he had. Now, do you have a point about
what Chaney said?
> Since you're willing to believe the police with regards to LHO's statements, you
> must *EQUALLY* be willing to accept Chaney's statements...
Is that what you think?
> How do you support the WC theory with the SBT knocked out of it?
Actually, that Dicovery show confirmed it. You must deny it because
it ruins your game if the SBT is true.
> >> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
> >>
> >> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
> >
> > You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
> >supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
>
>
> It's mentioned above. What do you want to bet that I'm right?
Of course you are, you have correctly anticipated the answer to the
question you haven`t yet posed to me.
> You *CAN'T* believe Chaney. For if you do, the WC's theory becomes moot.
I can believe that Chaney believed what he related, and still
believe the WC`s finding were correct. Can you figure that one out?
> >> >It`s a kook
> >> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
> >> >evidence.
> >>
> >> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
> >> eyewitness testimony?
> >>
> >> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
> >>
> >> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
> >
> > Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
> >"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
>
>
> It's been given many times. There's a number of good books that detail it.
Thats funny. Like the scarecrow pointing out the way to Oz. How do
they explain Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him, lying about
carrying a long bag into work that day, owning a rifle. Do they just
disregard these things without comment, or just chuck them out on
whatever weak grounds they decide are enough?
And kooks would rather spend eternity examining the investigations
instead of any real attempt to figure out what really happened. And
figuring out what really happened requires a close scrutiny of Oz`s
actions, something kooks are loathe to do.
> >> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
> >
> > Months after Oz killed those people.
>
>
> Non Sequitur...
>
> >> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
> >> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
> >
> > Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
> >the shots at that limo?
>
>
> What don't you understand about "fundamental underpinning of their conclusions"?
So you are saying that everyone on the Commission felt that Oz had
actually taken all the shots at the limo? Isn`t this the most important
aspect of the case?
> Do you even know what it is?
What I know is that I`ve never seen a CT make an honesty scrutiny of
Oz`s actions. Since they can not or will not do this, they lack the
credibility to critique people who could do this.
Tell it to the BBC, it what they reported.
> >> >In any case, I
> >> >see nothing to be gained by endlessly gnawing on the bones of the CT
> >> >talking points. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept, it has nowhere to go,
> >> >because there is nowhere for it to go. Kooks must content themselves
> >> >with endless chatter about 40 year old investigations.
> >>
> >>
> >>Isn't it sad that you've had 40+ years to convince the American people that LHO
> >> did it, and you can't?
> >
> > It was never my intent to try and convince even one person.
> >
> >> >> >> Looks like I made my point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You find some of the WC evidence contrary to their findings.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Merely a fact. Same, in fact, with the HSCA, in an even more blantant
> >> >> manner.
> >> >
> >> > In matters of perception, it is always easy to disagree.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not a "perception" at all. Feel free to quote what the HSCA *said* the
> >>medical eyewitnesses stated with reference to the autopsy photos... then QUOTE
> >> any medical eyewitness who made *ANY* statement that would support the HSCA
> >> stance.
> >>
> >> But you won't.
> >
> > I said something about the medical evidence? I said in matter of
> >perception it is easy to disagree. When weighing testimony and
> >evidence, it is easy to disagree about how much weight a particular
> >piece of evidence or testimony should have.
>
>
> "But you won't"
No, I won`t be told by kooks that I have to address their favorite
talking points.
> >> Cowards never support their assertions.
> >>
> >> >Obviously,
> >> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
> >> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
> >>
> >> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
> >
> > There is no such proof, liar.
>
>
> Oak Ridge did the tests on the paraffin casts of LHO's cheek. Once again, your
> ignorance of the evidence is showing...
Your ignorance in calling this "proof" is showing.
> >> Or the multiple
> >> eyewitnesses that place him in a location where shots could *NOT* have been
> >> fired from?
> >
> > At 12:30?
>
>
> 11:50 and 12:15.
What murders were committed at these times? How were these times
established, did the witnesses just give estimations?
> >>>>>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that
> >>evidence.
> >> >> >Should I care?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you want the truth, that is...
> >> >
> >> > Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
> >> >evidence incriminating Oz on the first day,
> >>
> >>
> >>Oh? Let's examine that "first" day... can you name anyone else who was detained
> >> as a suspect, and had his rifle confiscated from his home, and subjected to a
> >> lie detector test?
> >>
> >> But surely, if all the evidence pointed to LHO, why was anyone else detained?
> >
> > You can`t figure that out either? Likely someone thought it prudent
> >to go through the motions to positively eliminate Frazier from any
> >wrongdoing. Is there a stupider reason you would like to cling to?
>
>
> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
Why, because you can`t figure out why they might think Oz was the
shooter and still handle Frazier in this manner?
> >> >instead of putting all
> >> >their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
> >>
> >> Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
> >
> > If you take the police interrogation at face value, and what Marina
> >related at face value, then it is obvious that Oz is guilty. So kooks
> >decide to disregard this incriminating evidence, as it interferes with
> >their silly game.
>
>
> If you take *ALL* the evidence at face value.... but you won't.
You don`t want to honestly examine what Oz did that day, you want to
examine the investigation into this that occured months later. Its the
kook game.
> >> >> >> >If you don`t what the WC did, the
> >> >> >> >conspiracy mongering industry has had ample time to present an
> >> >> >> >alternative, to follow up leads the WC neglected to, whatever.
> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> We have. You ignore it, because you can't allow the facts to blow up your
> >> >> >> beliefs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Where did they lead? To who, what incriminating evidence has been
> >> >> >gathered linking them to the assasination? You have shit. You have
> >> >> >things to cause a buzz amongst the kooks, but nothing even within
> >> >> >lightyears of taking to a courtroom. You have nothing because there is
> >> >> >nothing to have. Conspiracy is a bankrupt concept.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Merely denying that the evidence exists is all you can do. :)
> >> >
> >> > Like you did when you admitted giving no thought to Oz denying
> >> >ownership of the assassination rifle? Any investigation must take this
> >> >evidence at face value,
> >>
> >>
> >> And what *is* this face value? Will you be honest enough to specify it?
> >
> > The police reports as written.
> >
> >> And will you be honest enough to admit that you *refuse* to do so in another,
> >> equal circumstance... Officer Chaney?
> >
> > Chaney was in on the interview of Oz?
>
>
> Yep... coward....
Then stop with the stupid questions. "equal circumstances"? Are you
joking? Asking questions and recording the answers of a suspect in an
office is equal to Chaney`s impressions and observations under the
conditions out in the street?
Put a cohesive package on the table and let it be subjected to the
scrutiny the WC has. Don`t keep claiming that it has been done,
actually do it.
You`ll have to ask me nicely. Actually I gave it the last time I
said this and you challenged it, months ago.
> >> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
> >> >
> >> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
> >>
> >>
> >>If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would be
> >> able to point out the contradictions.
> >
> > If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
> >trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
> >to.
> >
> >>But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
> >> be able to find any contradictions.
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
> >he did.
>
>
> Your ignorance about what Chaney *actually* said is amusing...
Tell it to Bill Lord of the BBC.
> >> >> >> >I`m stuck with the only
> >> >> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
> >> >> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
> >> >> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
> >> >> >out how the fire started.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
> >> >> because it makes you look the fool.
> >> >
> >> > Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
> >> >yourself it is progress you are making. Seems like standing still to me.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the actual
> >> evidence.
> >
> > What exactly did you quote Chaney as having said?
>
>
> I *haven't* quoted him in this thread.
I didn`t think so. So why are you claiming I am neglecting to deal
with something in regards to Chaney when you haven`t produced one thing
by Chaney for me to deal with?
Ben Holmes
Yep... tis true. Perhaps if you're truly interested, you can research it.
>I only asked why you are sure about
>the times of those sightings, and if you can establish whether they
>occurred before the encounter with Givens on the 6th floor.
My answer stands.
>> You've attempted to pit Givens against my cites... now you won't back it
>> up, no doubt because you went back and actually *read* his words, and
>> realize that it doesn't say what you thought it did.
>
> My point was that you are always trying to make information that is
>not precisely established, such as the times of the sightings you
>mentioned, and pretend it is carved in stone. Because only if these
>things are rock solid can you makes the leaps you wish to take from
>this information.
Go ahead, Bud... try to move the 12:15 sighting back to before noon...
Why lie about it? I don't disregard it... I place it in it's proper place with
regards to all other evidence.
And what, again, was Chaney's *actual* statements? Surely you won't "disregard"
them.
>If you really were looking to get to the bottom of this, you
>would look long and hard at the person who`s rifle was found where the
>shots were fired.
Yep... the single most damning piece of evidence. Unfortunately for you, the
rest of the evidence doesn't support your theory.
>Instead of complaining about how illegal it was
>geting information from Oz`s wife,
It was not illegality that I was worried about. Perhaps you should take the
time to become informed on this matter...
>if you really were interested in
>getting to the truth you would happily welcome this information and
>insight, as Oz was a closed individual that not many had contact with.
>But you aren`t interested in getting to the bottom of this, because
>that is where Oz is. It would ruin this silly game you kooks have
>devided to scrutinize Oz honestly.
I find it funny that someone unfamiliar with the actual evidence is accusing me
of not being interested in the truth... :)
>> For example, the location of the back wound - they *KNEW* it was in the
>> back, and not in the neck. You can read this in the executive session
>> transcripts.
>
> But why did Oz claim that he hadn`t brung a long paper bag into
>wotk that morning?
Did he? Can you quote his words?
And why did the WC lie about the location of the back wound? Why did they feel
it necessary to lie? Surely, as someone interested in the truth, you'd like to
know the answer to this... :)
>> >You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence.
>>
>> Which piece is that?
>
> Nitrate tests to Oz`s face.
It doesn't outweigh the other evidence, it corroborates it.
>> There's a *multitude* of evidence I'm referring to... the
>> fact that only two cartridge cases were found at the SN,
>
> <snicker> Another excellent example of kook denial.
You can look at the photos too. (That is, if you were interested in the truth.)
>> the location of the
>> back wound, the multitude of earwitness accounts for the GN,
>
> I assume the sounds the witnesses reported were all the same sounds,
>correct. So why did witnesses give different accounts of where the
>sound originated from?
If you had a smidgion of truth in you, the obvious answer will jump out at you.
>> the failure to include obvious evidence, such as the death certificate,
>> and critical eyewitness accounts, the tests done at Oak Ridge which prove
>> that LHO never fired a rifle,
>
> Prove?
Yep. That's the correct word. This is undoubtably why the WC locked these
tests up, and it took a court case to pry them from the government.
>You can be sure they would have went ahead with a trial even
>if Oz`s defense had those test results. BTW, in those Oak Ridge test
>you refer to, did they use the iron sights or the scope? Which did Oz
>use?
"Iron sights or scope"??? What does *that* have to do with anything? Surely
you're not so stupid as to suggest that the cheek would be in a different
location on the stock...
>> the actual tests done to attempt to duplicate LHO's alleged firing speed...
>
> Any attempt to recreate Oz`s firing speed is missing the most
>important component, wouldn`t you say?
The tests done without LHO's rifle certainly were...
>> I
>> can go on, but this merely highlights your ignorance of the case.
>
> Only an illustration of typical kook denial.
Who's in denial?
>> >The
>> >WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
>> >this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
>>
>> No, they were *NOT* tapped to "investigate". I've covered this before in
>> detail. The investigation was given to the FBI.
>
> Yet the WC`s mandate contains that very word.
No, IT DOES NOT! You're a liar. I defy you to produce the actual quote. Just
to help you, it's Executive Order 11130, dated 29 November.
But you won't, of course...
>In any case, they were
>charged with looking into this matter, and concluded three shots were
>fired from the TSBD. Kooks looking into this matter have concluded only
>two were fired. What could matter less than what kooks conclude?
When the WC "concluded" that three shots had been fired from the TSBD, they
contradicted their own evidence. But you knew this, right?
>> And the WC knew that they were 'stuck' with the FBI, and realized early
>> on that the FBI had a preconceived theory that they were going to be
>> stuck with. Again, read the executive session transcripts.
>
> Not a bad position to be stuck with the truth.
This wasn't, of course, the WC staff's opinion.
>Oz did fire all the shots at the limo.
>
>> >> >> >> Why don't you give it a try?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Because that is a kook hobby, bitching about an investigation that
>> >> >> >has been done over 40 years ago.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> More likely -
>> >> >
>> >> > I gave the reason. You can reject my reasons in favor of ones you
>> >> >supply yourself, as you do with the WC. Like I said, it`s a kook hobby.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And you're a coward who refuses to deal with the evidence. Who cares?
>> >
>> >> >> you're merely afraid to admit that the WC lied about the evidence,
>> >> >> and constructed a conclusion that is not founded upon the evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you say. Bitch about what the WC did for the next forty years,
>> >> >why don`t you? It is easier than presenting an explaination to knock
>> >> >their findings out of contention.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's not an "explanation" that will knock their "findings" out
>> >> of "contention". The WC collected 26 volumes "knocks" their "findings".
>> >>
>> >> This is really quite simple.
>> >
>> > I know it is. Kooks can`t offer an alternative explaination for the
>> >events of the assassination that knock the WC findings out of
>> >contention because the WC got it right. The CT don`t even try to put up
>> >an alternative, because it would be obviously inferior.
>>
>>
>> Repeating a silly statement doesn't make it any less silly.
>
> Tell the truth and shame the kooks. Let me say it again, the kooks
>cannot produce an explaination that can be compared with the WC
>conclusions and knock them out of contention.
And, I say again, the WC itself printed the volumes of evidence which do
precisely that.
>All they do is
>willy-nilly discard inconvenient evidence that implicates Oz, as you
>did with Oz`s denial he owned the rifle.
Liar, aren't you?
>Kooks just decide it has no
>validity, and presto, it disappears.
>
>> The WC itself contradicts their "conclusions".
>
> Supply a version that takes into account all the evidence which does
>not contradict itself.
The WC couldn't do that. Why would you dishonestly ask someone else to do what
the WC couldn't do?
>It should be easy, just use the WC basic
>framework, and omit the contradictions. Be sure to explain why the cops
>on the 6th floor (and pictures taken) said there was three hulls on the
>floor, and you claim two.
I suggest that you *look* at the photo.
As well as the first day photos of the evidence, showing the two hulls.
>> >> >> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
>> >> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
>> >> >> >> >considerations.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
>> >> >> WC... and refuse to even try.
>> >> >
>> >> > It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
>> >> >Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
>> >> >you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
>> >>
>> >> Did he?
>> >
>> > See, you can`t figure out the easy ones. When you display such a
>> >deficiency of reasoning ability, what credibility do you think you have
>> >to criticise investigations like the WC that could figure out if that
>> >is what Oz said?
>>
>>
>> Again, your ignorance of the case is showing. The physical evidence of
>> ownership of *that* rifle is disconnected... no doubt purposely so.
>
> Kooks can`t even determine if Oz owned the rifle.
Nor, were you honest, can you.
>You folks are
>definately the wrong people to be looking into this. Lets try this...
>was the WC wrong to conclude Oz owned that rifle?
What did the evidence show?
>> If you've got it "figured out", why not attempt to show everyone here?
>> Go ahead and list the evidence...
>
> So you can do the CT rote-denial thing? I`m not here to play the
>silly game of arguing against all the silly amateur defense lawyer crap
>you folks have developed for your arsenal. Kooks have invented problems
>for all the incriminating evidence against Oz, it`s their hobby. If Oz
>claims he didn`t own the rifle, kooks say "I`m not convinced Oz said
>that". All it shows is you are incapable of honestly looking at the
>evidence against Oz.
Yep... can't list the evidence. Quite likely you aren't familiar enough to be
*able* to do so.
>> >> >Because he used it to commit a murder.
>> >>
>> >> Not according to the evidence.
>> >
>> > Kook reading of the evidence. You can`t even figure out if Oz
>> >claimed not to own that rifle.
>>
>>
>> Ah! So you *DO* believe Chaney!
>>
>> For if you unhesitately accept what the police said, then when Chaney
>> pointed out that separate bullets hit JFK and Connally, it broke the SBT.
>> And without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins, hence, a
>> conspiracy.
>>
>> Good of you to join the right side...
>
> You are such a kook, I can`t even figure out what point you think
>you are making with this babbling. I suspect Chaney conveyed what he
>thought happened.
As did the cops interviewing LHO. Why are you willing to uncritically accept
one, and not the other?
>And of course a cop asking a specific question to get
>a suspects answer for recording is the exact same context as a cop
>relating the details of a sudden unexpected attack.
Coward...
>> >> >Do CT have an explaination that
>> >> >makes better sense than that?
>> >>
>>>> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
>> >> evidence.
>> >
>> > Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
>> >was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
>> >hope for also.
>>
>>
>> And for you to accept the evidence is too much to hope for... you're a
>> coward.
>
> I have one fear, that something you say will make sense, and won`t
>be the product of the pure desire to see evidence of a conspiracy in
>every aspect of the case. So far, that fear has not been realized.
Of course not. You aren't honest enough to take a look at the evidence.
Why lie about the evidence, Bud? When you need to invent things to support your
position, does it really support your position?
>If these things
>didn`t happen, then establish that they didn`t and not just play the
>usual game of raising what they claim are troubling in an effort to
>disregard this evidence. If you can`t do that, then accept them as
>having happened and weigh it as evidence of Oz`s guilt. I know it is
>easier to pretend these things didn`t happen than to try and come up
>with a reasonable explaination why Oz would try and kill the cops who
>arrested him.
>
>> >> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
>> >> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
>> >> >
>> >> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
>> >> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
>> >> >not Oz.
>> >>
>> >> What does the evidence show?
>> >
>> > Nothing to kooks, apparently.
>>
>>
>> Are you attempting to imply that you follow the evidence?
>
> The evidence you love is the most muddled. If we got all the
>witnesses to stand and point where they think they heard the shots come
>from, where would they point?
Two locations... the TSBD, and the GN.
>All over? Where does the evidence clearly
>show a shot entering Kennedy`s head?
Slightly above and to the right of the EOP.
>Is there no evidence that disputes this place?
Yep... most of the investigations have disputed this.
>> >> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
>> >> know...)
>> >>
>> >> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
>> >> >coordination.
>> >>
>> >> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that
>> >> occurred *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it
>> >> with a ten foot pole.
>> >
>> > Could you be more specific?
>>
>>
>> The 'appearance' of LHO at a rifle range, or the car dealership, or the shop
>> where a scope was mounted... among others.
>
> What have you established with these sightings?
I'll let *you* make that judgement.
>> >> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
>> >> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
>> >> >omit, ect.
>> >>
>> >> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring
>> >> *before* the assassination.
>> >>
>> >> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
>> >> >Have fun.
>> >>
>> >> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more
>> >> blatant as time went by...
>> >>
>>>> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
>> >> said about the autopsy photos.
>> >>
>> >> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even
>> >> try.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You see? Dead silence...
>
> I`ve answered it numerous times
No, you've *never* been able to answer it. It's a critical question, and one
that undermines all of the government investigations.
That you aren't interested in confronting it is rather understandable, however.
>by pointing out that all you do is
>bitch about what they did. What did you kooks do besides bitch? Those
>that can, do, those that can`t become critics.
>
>> >> >> And with no context to judge his
>> >> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
>> >> >
>> >> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
>> >> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
>> >>
>> >> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
>> >
>> > See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
>>
>>
>>
>> Coward, aren't you? Tell everyone here what that location was. You say you
>> have it figured out, yet you cowardly refuse to specify it.
>
> Where did Baker say it had occurred, in a lunchroom?
Did he? Quote it.
>Where did Truly
>say? Where did Baker point on a floorplan of the TSBD for the WC that
>it occured? Where did Oz tell his interrogators it occurred? If this
>isn`t enough information for you to figure out where the encounter took
>place, why are you even looking at this, and on what grounds can you
>criticize investigations that could?
Since you aren't willing to look at the evidence, I'll merely mention that it's
IMPOSSIBLE to specify the location based on Baker's statements. He gives
different locations.
>> >> >Even though the
>> >> >investigators notes show him denying ownership, written when he was
>> >> >alive and could have contested it. So, do you think the cops didn`t ask
>> >> >him about the rifle, or he said "Hell yes, thats my rifle", and they
>> >> >just wrote he denied owning it, hoping at trial he`d forget what he
>> >> >said? This is why you kooks haven`t a shred of credibility, you
>> >> >disregard pertinent evidence on a whim, with to consideration to it.
>> >> >And I`m supposed to reject the WC because they considered things that
>> >> >kooks decide are beneath consideration?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Pertinent" evidence? You refuse to discuss it.
>> >
>> > You haven`t the capabilities to even look into this, I can`t imagine
>> >a person less suited. You say Oz didn`t deny owning the rifle,
>>
>>
>> Why lie, Bud?
>
> Oh, Ok, you decide the information has no weight. It becomes
>non-information,
>untrustworthy. Such is the fate of all troublesome information about
>Oz. Shred, ignore, disregard.
I hardly disregard it. As you do with Chaney's statements...
>Along with any sembelance of credibility
>you might have, as you show the game to be the important thing, not
>getting to the truth..
>
>> >so did
>> >he A) tell police he did own it, and they wrote in their reports he
>> >denied it, or b) The cops didn`t even ask him if he owned the rifle?
>> >
>> >> And I'd consider 90% of America to have more credibility than you, Bud.
>> >
>> > And you think reality is somehow dictated by opinion polls?
>> >
>> >> >> >> So it's understandable why you'd refuse to even try...
>> >> >> >
>>>> >> > Those have nothing to do with. CT kooks want to focus, and endlessly
>> >> >> >bitch about, the investigation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>>> >> Yep... the facts, evidence, eyewitness reports, stuff like that... stuff
>> >> >> that scares you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Kook focus everywhere but on the killer.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What does the evidence say about the killers?
>> >
>> > What do kooks say about the killer? Not much,
>>
>>
>> And this is your basic problem... you're simply too ignorant of the
>> evidence to make an argument.
>
> I know the kooks. I know even though Oz was seen on the floor the
>shots came from and his rifle was found, the kooks don`t think him
>worthy of any suspicion. They readily and eagarly supply and accept
>anything they can that lessens his participation, so they can continue
>this fun hobby they have of endlessly beating their talking points to
>death.
When you have to lie about the evidence to make a point, is it really worth it?
>> >except to invent
>> >reasons to disregard the incriminating evidence against him.
>>
>>
>> What incriminating evidence?
>
> Is this where I`m supposed to list it so you can give the rote
>reasons kooks have to disregard it? Is that the game?
Just interested in what you can manage to come up with. It would be a good
illustration of your basic dishonesty, I'd suspect.
Cite for it. I'm calling you a liar.
>Now, do you have a point about
>what Chaney said?
Of course... you disregard what he said.
>>Since you're willing to believe the police with regards to LHO's statements, you
>> must *EQUALLY* be willing to accept Chaney's statements...
>
> Is that what you think?
Were you honest, you would.
>> How do you support the WC theory with the SBT knocked out of it?
>
> Actually, that Dicovery show confirmed it.
ROTFLMAO!!!
The very first requirement of an SBT has never been proven, in fact, the
evidence contradicted it ... transit.
>You must deny it because
>it ruins your game if the SBT is true.
No, the SBT could be true - it wouldn't rule out multiple assassins. It's just
that the evidence doesn't support it.
But without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins.
>> >> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
>> >>
>> >> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
>> >
>> > You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
>> >supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
>>
>>
>> It's mentioned above. What do you want to bet that I'm right?
>
> Of course you are, you have correctly anticipated the answer to the
>question you haven`t yet posed to me.
I *DID* pose the question, and you've answered. You disregard Chaney's
statements, yet accept uncritically those of the cops interviewing LHO. That
was the only point I needed to make.
>> You *CAN'T* believe Chaney. For if you do, the WC's theory becomes moot.
>
> I can believe that Chaney believed what he related, and still
>believe the WC`s finding were correct. Can you figure that one out?
Chaney's statement has the benefit of corroboration. But you won't admit that.
>> >> >It`s a kook
>> >> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
>> >> >evidence.
>> >>
>>>> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
>> >> eyewitness testimony?
>> >>
>> >> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
>> >>
>> >> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
>> >
>> > Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
>> >"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
>>
>>
>> It's been given many times. There's a number of good books that detail it.
>
> Thats funny. Like the scarecrow pointing out the way to Oz. How do
>they explain Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him, lying about
>carrying a long bag into work that day, owning a rifle. Do they just
>disregard these things without comment, or just chuck them out on
>whatever weak grounds they decide are enough?
You'll have to study the evidence to know the answer.
How can you explain your relative ignorance of the evidence then?
>And
>figuring out what really happened requires a close scrutiny of Oz`s
>actions, something kooks are loathe to do.
No, it requires a close scrutiny of *THE EVIDENCE*, which you are unwilling to
do.
>> >> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
>> >
>> > Months after Oz killed those people.
>>
>>
>> Non Sequitur...
>
>>
>> >> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
>> >> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
>> >
>> > Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
>> >the shots at that limo?
>>
>>
>> What don't you understand about "fundamental underpinning of their
>> conclusions"?
>
> So you are saying that everyone on the Commission felt that Oz had
>actually taken all the shots at the limo? Isn`t this the most important
>aspect of the case?
Why can't you answer the question, Bud? Once again: Why did a majority of the
commissioners disagree with the fundamental underpinning of their "conclusions"?
And, by the way, since you evidently don't know what this is, it's the SBT.
>> Do you even know what it is?
>
> What I know is that I`ve never seen a CT make an honesty scrutiny of
>Oz`s actions. Since they can not or will not do this, they lack the
>credibility to critique people who could do this.
What you *don't* know is the fundamental underpinning of the WC conclusions that
a majority of the WC commissioners disagreed with... so here it is: the SBT.
Now, care to answer "why?"
It's really a simple thing to do, Bud. Merely cite. Or take your notes from
Tony Marsh, and refuse to do so. Who cares?
"But you won't"...
>> >> Cowards never support their assertions.
>> >>
>> >> >Obviously,
>> >> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
>> >> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
>> >>
>> >> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
>> >
>> > There is no such proof, liar.
>>
>>
>> Oak Ridge did the tests on the paraffin casts of LHO's cheek. Once again,
>> your ignorance of the evidence is showing...
>
> Your ignorance in calling this "proof" is showing.
You argued that there was "no such proof". Ignorant, weren't you?
Can you even describe what the test consisted of? And how it was checked?
>> >> Or the multiple eyewitnesses that place him in a location where
>> >> shots could *NOT* have been fired from?
>> >
>> > At 12:30?
>>
>>
>> 11:50 and 12:15.
>
> What murders were committed at these times? How were these times
>established, did the witnesses just give estimations?
You're theory can't allow for this. Hence, you must deny the eyewitness
testimony.
On the contrary - I'm the one who is actually looking at the eyewitness testmony
as to his locations that day.
They are *both* statements made by Dallas police officers concerning the case.
That you're willing to uncritically accept one, and not the other, illustrates
your biases...
Why bother? I've done as much many times, and you refuse to debate the facts.
Nah... I'll just call you a liar again.
My point has already been made anyway - you expect me to uncritically accept
what the Dallas police said, yet you refuse to do so.
>> >> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
>> >> >
>> >> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
>> >>
>> >>
>>>>If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would
>>be
>> >> able to point out the contradictions.
>> >
>> > If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
>> >trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
>> >to.
>> >
>>>>But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
>> >> be able to find any contradictions.
>> >>
>> >> Coward, aren't you?
>> >
>> > All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
>> >he did.
>>
>>
>> Your ignorance about what Chaney *actually* said is amusing...
>
> Tell it to Bill Lord of the BBC.
Provide a citation, coward...
tomnln
"KOOKS DENIAL"
"KOOKS DENIAL"
"KOOKS DENIAL"
How About.......
"Child Molester" believer
"Child Molester" believer
"Child Molester" believer
Once someone opens the door to Name-Calling, I THANK HIM
Even if his Family is Infested with AIDS
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:dk5sf...@drn.newsguy.com...
Bud
Did that. Even posted the times given by the witnesses who said they
saw Oz around this time period. You chickenshit evaded it, because it
went straight to
your dishonesty. The witnesses are giving their best guesses on the
times, and you want to pretend they are solid and established.
> >I only asked why you are sure about
> >the times of those sightings, and if you can establish whether they
> >occurred before the encounter with Givens on the 6th floor.
>
> My answer stands.
Your chickshit evasion stands. As usual, the weight you give to an
unconfirmed sighting carries more weight than a answer given to
multiple witnesses during questioning. Your crooked and skewed manner
of weighing evidence is designed to to continue this silly game you
enjoy indefinately.
> >> You've attempted to pit Givens against my cites... now you won't back it
> >> up, no doubt because you went back and actually *read* his words, and
> >> realize that it doesn't say what you thought it did.
> >
> > My point was that you are always trying to make information that is
> >not precisely established, such as the times of the sightings you
> >mentioned, and pretend it is carved in stone. Because only if these
> >things are rock solid can you makes the leaps you wish to take from
> >this information.
>
> Go ahead, Bud... try to move the 12:15 sighting back to before noon...
Go ahead Ben, pretend the estimated times supplied by witnesses is
reliable.
You give it no weight at all. Which only shows your desire to
disregard incriminating evidence about Oz. Which shows you are not
actually trying to get to the bottom of this, but are engaged in some
silly gamesmanship.
> I place it in it's proper place with
> regards to all other evidence.
Yah, filed under "Lies the Dallas Police told about what Oz told
them". Your eagerness to disregard this information show you to be
dishonest in your approach. Of course you can`t figure this thing out,
you try so hard *not* to.
> And what, again, was Chaney's *actual* statements? Surely you won't "disregard"
> them.
Why would I expect all the eyewitnesses in Dealy to say the same
thing?
> >If you really were looking to get to the bottom of this, you
> >would look long and hard at the person who`s rifle was found where the
> >shots were fired.
>
> Yep... the single most damning piece of evidence. Unfortunately for you, the
> rest of the evidence doesn't support your theory.
Cowardly evasion which illustrates your reluctance to consider Oz as
a suspect. The game is to find reason to disregard the evidence against
Oz, not consider it.
> >Instead of complaining about how illegal it was
> >geting information from Oz`s wife,
>
> It was not illegality that I was worried about.
Why lie? It was the illegality of it you questioned, going so far
as to cite
statutes you felt were ignored.
> Perhaps you should take the
> time to become informed on this matter...
You inform me about the depths of your dishonesty every post.
> >if you really were interested in
> >getting to the truth you would happily welcome this information and
> >insight, as Oz was a closed individual that not many had contact with.
> >But you aren`t interested in getting to the bottom of this, because
> >that is where Oz is. It would ruin this silly game you kooks have
> >devided to scrutinize Oz honestly.
>
> I find it funny that someone unfamiliar with the actual evidence is accusing me
> of not being interested in the truth... :)
You aren`t interested in the truth. You are interested in
maintaining this silly game. If you honestly considered the evidence,
you would conclude Oz`s culpability, and thus ruin the game for you.
Can you honesty say that Oz`s demeanor in custody of those of a
innocent, scared confused patsy? When his brother came to visit, was he
frantically seeking his help, confused at his situation? If Oz`s
reality is as the kooks say, why doesn`t his demeanor and actions
reflect this? Oz guilty answers all these nagging problems, Oz innocent
begs questions, like why he denied owning a rifle. Kooks work hard to
devise answers, for the sake of their silly game, not the truth.
> >> For example, the location of the back wound - they *KNEW* it was in the
> >> back, and not in the neck. You can read this in the executive session
> >> transcripts.
> >
> > But why did Oz claim that he hadn`t brung a long paper bag into
> >wotk that morning?
>
>
> Did he? Can you quote his words?
Do I need to to conclude that he expressed to the cops that he
didn`t own a rifle? Do I need to be sure that all the quoted dialog on
record is verbatum dialog? The question you need to ask is the question
can`t even work your way up to. Why did Oz tell the cops he didn`t own
a rifle. Play games and pretend he didn`t, it only exposes your
dishonesy and cowardice to address the issues the WC did.
> And why did the WC lie about the location of the back wound? Why did they feel
> it necessary to lie? Surely, as someone interested in the truth, you'd like to
> know the answer to this... :)
How does the location effect Oz shooting those people months
earlier? Start with the event, try to honestly evaluate Oz as a
suspect. You can`t or won`t, whichever it is, the reason is clear. You
have a desire to avoid the truth.
> >> >You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence.
> >>
> >> Which piece is that?
> >
> > Nitrate tests to Oz`s face.
>
>
> It doesn't outweigh the other evidence, it corroborates it.
When you ignore all the parts that incriminate Oz.
> >> There's a *multitude* of evidence I'm referring to... the
> >> fact that only two cartridge cases were found at the SN,
> >
> > <snicker> Another excellent example of kook denial.
>
>
> You can look at the photos too. (That is, if you were interested in the truth.)
I have, there are three shells. Kooks can`t get the basics right.
> >> the location of the
> >> back wound, the multitude of earwitness accounts for the GN,
> >
> > I assume the sounds the witnesses reported were all the same sounds,
> >correct. So why did witnesses give different accounts of where the
> >sound originated from?
>
>
> If you had a smidgion of truth in you, the obvious answer will jump out at you.
Another chickenshit evasion.
> >> the failure to include obvious evidence, such as the death certificate,
> >> and critical eyewitness accounts, the tests done at Oak Ridge which prove
> >> that LHO never fired a rifle,
> >
> > Prove?
>
> Yep. That's the correct word. This is undoubtably why the WC locked these
> tests up, and it took a court case to pry them from the government.
Are you saying there never would have been a trial with Oz as
suspect even had he lived, because of the existance of this piece of
evidence?
> >You can be sure they would have went ahead with a trial even
> >if Oz`s defense had those test results. BTW, in those Oak Ridge test
> >you refer to, did they use the iron sights or the scope? Which did Oz
> >use?
>
> "Iron sights or scope"??? What does *that* have to do with anything? Surely
> you're not so stupid as to suggest that the cheek would be in a different
> location on the stock...
Surely you aren`t so stupid as to put great faith in testing you
don`t know the basic details about. What kind of rifle was used in the
testing? Did it have a scope?
> >> the actual tests done to attempt to duplicate LHO's alleged firing speed...
> >
> > Any attempt to recreate Oz`s firing speed is missing the most
> >important component, wouldn`t you say?
>
>
> The tests done without LHO's rifle certainly were...
>
>
> >> I
> >> can go on, but this merely highlights your ignorance of the case.
> >
> > Only an illustration of typical kook denial.
>
>
> Who's in denial?
Kooks. If Oz is guilty it spoils their game.
>
> >> >The
> >> >WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
> >> >this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
> >>
> >> No, they were *NOT* tapped to "investigate". I've covered this before in
> >> detail. The investigation was given to the FBI.
> >
> > Yet the WC`s mandate contains that very word.
>
> No, IT DOES NOT! You're a liar. I defy you to produce the actual quote. Just
> to help you, it's Executive Order 11130, dated 29 November.
Not there. Look at the first paragragh of the Report, where they
outline what they were tasked to do.
> But you won't, of course...
>
>
> >In any case, they were
> >charged with looking into this matter, and concluded three shots were
> >fired from the TSBD. Kooks looking into this matter have concluded only
> >two were fired. What could matter less than what kooks conclude?
>
> When the WC "concluded" that three shots had been fired from the TSBD, they
> contradicted their own evidence. But you knew this, right?
I know kooks contest just about everything the WC said. As is often
the case, the WC was right, and the kooks wrong.
> >> And the WC knew that they were 'stuck' with the FBI, and realized early
> >> on that the FBI had a preconceived theory that they were going to be
> >> stuck with. Again, read the executive session transcripts.
> >
> > Not a bad position to be stuck with the truth.
>
> This wasn't, of course, the WC staff's opinion.
Are you saying the entire staff felt Oz was innocent?
Which is the usual criticism of the WC, but not a cohesive
alternative presented by those critic to knock the WC conclusions out
of contention.
> >All they do is
> >willy-nilly discard inconvenient evidence that implicates Oz, as you
> >did with Oz`s denial he owned the rifle.
>
> Liar, aren't you?
>
> >Kooks just decide it has no
> >validity, and presto, it disappears.
> >
> >> The WC itself contradicts their "conclusions".
> >
> > Supply a version that takes into account all the evidence which does
> >not contradict itself.
>
> The WC couldn't do that. Why would you dishonestly ask someone else to do what
> the WC couldn't do?
Are you saying you can`t do it? Then why look into the case if a
noncontrary alternative is impossible?
> >It should be easy, just use the WC basic
> >framework, and omit the contradictions. Be sure to explain why the cops
> >on the 6th floor (and pictures taken) said there was three hulls on the
> >floor, and you claim two.
>
> I suggest that you *look* at the photo.
Did, theres a blow up on McAdams site that show all three. You
illustrate you total lack of credibility when you dispute issues like
this.
> As well as the first day photos of the evidence, showing the two hulls.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
> >> >> >> >> >considerations.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
> >> >> >> WC... and refuse to even try.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
> >> >> >Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
> >> >> >you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did he?
> >> >
> >> > See, you can`t figure out the easy ones. When you display such a
> >> >deficiency of reasoning ability, what credibility do you think you have
> >> >to criticise investigations like the WC that could figure out if that
> >> >is what Oz said?
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, your ignorance of the case is showing. The physical evidence of
> >> ownership of *that* rifle is disconnected... no doubt purposely so.
> >
> > Kooks can`t even determine if Oz owned the rifle.
>
> Nor, were you honest, can you.
Simple, really, Kooks can`t because kooks don`t want to. As I said,
it does harm to their silly game if they admit Oz owned the rifle.
> >You folks are
> >definately the wrong people to be looking into this. Lets try this...
> >was the WC wrong to conclude Oz owned that rifle?
>
> What did the evidence show?
Another cowardly evasion.
> >> If you've got it "figured out", why not attempt to show everyone here?
> >> Go ahead and list the evidence...
> >
> > So you can do the CT rote-denial thing? I`m not here to play the
> >silly game of arguing against all the silly amateur defense lawyer crap
> >you folks have developed for your arsenal. Kooks have invented problems
> >for all the incriminating evidence against Oz, it`s their hobby. If Oz
> >claims he didn`t own the rifle, kooks say "I`m not convinced Oz said
> >that". All it shows is you are incapable of honestly looking at the
> >evidence against Oz.
>
>
> Yep... can't list the evidence. Quite likely you aren't familiar enough to be
> *able* to do so.
I know all the kook objections to the evidence. And I know the
purpose behind these objections. Honestly considering Oz a suspect
hurts the silly game they`ve devised.
> >> >> >Because he used it to commit a murder.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not according to the evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Kook reading of the evidence. You can`t even figure out if Oz
> >> >claimed not to own that rifle.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! So you *DO* believe Chaney!
> >>
> >> For if you unhesitately accept what the police said, then when Chaney
> >> pointed out that separate bullets hit JFK and Connally, it broke the SBT.
> >> And without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins, hence, a
> >> conspiracy.
> >>
> >> Good of you to join the right side...
> >
> > You are such a kook, I can`t even figure out what point you think
> >you are making with this babbling. I suspect Chaney conveyed what he
> >thought happened.
>
> As did the cops interviewing LHO. Why are you willing to uncritically accept
> one, and not the other?
Seriously, you don`t know? Context. When you ask a question, your
attention is focused on the answer, or why ask? To select one person in
Dealy, cop or otherwise, and decide that whatever that person relates
is an accurate account of what happened is absurd, especially after
sudden violence. There is bound to be confusion early on as the mind
tries to piece information and impressions together to get a picture of
what just happened. Often these impressions are strong, and wrong.
There have been tests done that bear this out. But it suits your silly
game to present these impressions as established and factually correct.
> >And of course a cop asking a specific question to get
> >a suspects answer for recording is the exact same context as a cop
> >relating the details of a sudden unexpected attack.
>
> Coward...
Yah, I was cowardly considering the different contexts. You ignore
them, thus once again illustrating your dishonesty.
> >> >> >Do CT have an explaination that
> >> >> >makes better sense than that?
> >> >>
> >>>> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
> >> >was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
> >> >hope for also.
> >>
> >>
> >> And for you to accept the evidence is too much to hope for... you're a
> >> coward.
> >
> > I have one fear, that something you say will make sense, and won`t
> >be the product of the pure desire to see evidence of a conspiracy in
> >every aspect of the case. So far, that fear has not been realized.
>
>
> Of course not. You aren't honest enough to take a look at the evidence.
I look at Oz and see a guilty man. You rewrite him into something
that better suits your silly game.
See, once again kooks disregard the incriminating evidence against
Oz. Pretend it doesn`t exist and *poof*, out of consoderation.
> >If these things
> >didn`t happen, then establish that they didn`t and not just play the
> >usual game of raising what they claim are troubling in an effort to
> >disregard this evidence. If you can`t do that, then accept them as
> >having happened and weigh it as evidence of Oz`s guilt. I know it is
> >easier to pretend these things didn`t happen than to try and come up
> >with a reasonable explaination why Oz would try and kill the cops who
> >arrested him.
> >
> >> >> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
> >> >> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
> >> >> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
> >> >> >not Oz.
> >> >>
> >> >> What does the evidence show?
> >> >
> >> > Nothing to kooks, apparently.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you attempting to imply that you follow the evidence?
> >
> > The evidence you love is the most muddled. If we got all the
> >witnesses to stand and point where they think they heard the shots come
> >from, where would they point?
>
> Two locations... the TSBD, and the GN.
I`m not sure about that. I think if you got each witness in the
middle of Dealy, and asked them to point in the direction they think is
their best guess for the origin of the sounds, you`d get a wide variety
of pointing, probably in around a 180 degree arc. The fact is that the
sound evidence was tainted on the spot, as people rarely note the exact
direction a sound comes from solely by the sound itself. When an exact
source can`t be determined, people are influenced by the directions
others are looking, or activities that might be unrelated to the sound
heard. Think of if you are in a public place and there is a loud noise,
say in a food court of a mall and a chair falls over, some people who
saw the action or caught it out of the corner of their eye will turn
towards it, influencing other people who looked up and started scanning
for the source of the sound. I doubt people are that good determining
the direction of sound, I`d like to see this test done. Take a
noisemaker that would produce a large sharp sound, and put it in a
case, and put the case next to you while you ate at a food court. Read
a paper, until the sharp noise is heard. I bet polling the results of
people who heard the noise would be vastly different, depending on the
reaction of the person with the case. If the person ignored the sound,
or looked towards the case, or looked away from case towards some other
direction would, I think, have a real noticeable effect on the accuracy
of the people to tell the direction the sound came from. The point is
that in Dealy, not many saw
what was producing the noise, so may have relied on other factors to
determine direction.
> >All over? Where does the evidence clearly
> >show a shot entering Kennedy`s head?
>
> Slightly above and to the right of the EOP.
>
> >Is there no evidence that disputes this place?
>
>
> Yep... most of the investigations have disputed this.
Aspects of the medical evidence can be used to support different
contentions, correct?
> >> >> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
> >> >> know...)
> >> >>
> >> >> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
> >> >> >coordination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that
> >> >> occurred *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it
> >> >> with a ten foot pole.
> >> >
> >> > Could you be more specific?
> >>
> >>
> >> The 'appearance' of LHO at a rifle range, or the car dealership, or the shop
> >> where a scope was mounted... among others.
> >
> > What have you established with these sightings?
>
>
> I'll let *you* make that judgement.
I guess even you admit there is no place to go with this
information.
> >> >> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
> >> >> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
> >> >> >omit, ect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring
> >> >> *before* the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
> >> >> >Have fun.
> >> >>
> >> >> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more
> >> >> blatant as time went by...
> >> >>
> >>>> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
> >> >> said about the autopsy photos.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even
> >> >> try.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You see? Dead silence...
> >
> > I`ve answered it numerous times
>
>
> No, you've *never* been able to answer it. It's a critical question, and one
> that undermines all of the government investigations.
>
> That you aren't interested in confronting it is rather understandable, however.
That you aren`t interested in considering Oz a suspect is
undestandable, also. It ruins your silly game.
> >by pointing out that all you do is
> >bitch about what they did. What did you kooks do besides bitch? Those
> >that can, do, those that can`t become critics.
> >
> >> >> >> And with no context to judge his
> >> >> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
> >> >> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
> >> >
> >> > See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you? Tell everyone here what that location was. You say you
> >> have it figured out, yet you cowardly refuse to specify it.
> >
> > Where did Baker say it had occurred, in a lunchroom?
>
> Did he? Quote it.
Why? It`s is pointless to battle kooks on these points. If you don`t
like that the WC concluded this confrontation took place on the second
floor, than present a better case for a different location, and include
that scenario as part of a cohesive package to explain this
assassination. Or nitpick these stupid kook talking points for all
eternity, whichever you perfer.
> >Where did Truly
> >say? Where did Baker point on a floorplan of the TSBD for the WC that
> >it occured? Where did Oz tell his interrogators it occurred? If this
> >isn`t enough information for you to figure out where the encounter took
> >place, why are you even looking at this, and on what grounds can you
> >criticize investigations that could?
>
> Since you aren't willing to look at the evidence, I'll merely mention that it's
> IMPOSSIBLE to specify the location based on Baker's statements. He gives
> different locations.
Who gives a fuck when it is a simple matter to determine where the
confrontation took place? More kook shit to spin their wheels on for no
good reason.
Who gives a fuck? I cited this testimony to you last time you
challenged it. Go find it. Google "Bud-Ben-Chaney-Bill Lord".
> >Now, do you have a point about
> >what Chaney said?
>
> Of course... you disregard what he said.
What kind of idiot would select one person in Dealy to determine
what happened?
> >>Since you're willing to believe the police with regards to LHO's statements, you
> >> must *EQUALLY* be willing to accept Chaney's statements...
> >
> > Is that what you think?
>
>
> Were you honest, you would.
If I was a kook, I might.
> >> How do you support the WC theory with the SBT knocked out of it?
> >
> > Actually, that Discovery show confirmed it.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> The very first requirement of an SBT has never been proven, in fact, the
> evidence contradicted it ... transit.
Lets see your renactment that cause the same wounds with a different
firing scheme.
> >You must deny it because
> >it ruins your game if the SBT is true.
>
>
> No, the SBT could be true - it wouldn't rule out multiple assassins. It's just
> that the evidence doesn't support it.
>
> But without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins.
I`ve seen some LN claim otherwise (Caeruleo and one other, I think.)
I think the SBT is right, I`m not sure what possibilities they see
otherwise. I will say that I suspect the time the FBI required to work
that bolt on Oz`s rifle was too long. I think it quite possible Oz
could work it faster at the time of the assassination. I`ve see a few
recreations with MCs, and have seen times much shorter than the 3
seconds the FBI claimed was necessary. Either Oz had the slowest MC on
the planet, or they just didn`t know the idiosycracies of that rifle.
> >> >> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
> >> >supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's mentioned above. What do you want to bet that I'm right?
> >
> > Of course you are, you have correctly anticipated the answer to the
> >question you haven`t yet posed to me.
>
>
> I *DID* pose the question, and you've answered. You disregard Chaney's
> statements, yet accept uncritically those of the cops interviewing LHO. That
> was the only point I needed to make.
I am unaware of what statements of Chaney`s you are refering to.
It`s hard for me to imagine interogators writing anything other than
what Oz indicated, it`s hard to get "I never owned a rifle" out of
"Hell yes, I have a rifle, it`s in the garage where my wife is
staying".
> >> You *CAN'T* believe Chaney. For if you do, the WC's theory becomes moot.
> >
> > I can believe that Chaney believed what he related, and still
> >believe the WC`s finding were correct. Can you figure that one out?
>
>
> Chaney's statement has the benefit of corroboration. But you won't admit that.
No, I don`t think Chaney is even with Kennedy in Altgens.
> >> >> >It`s a kook
> >> >> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
> >> >> >evidence.
> >> >>
> >>>> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
> >> >> eyewitness testimony?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
> >> >>
> >> >> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
> >> >
> >> > Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
> >> >"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's been given many times. There's a number of good books that detail it.
> >
> > Thats funny. Like the scarecrow pointing out the way to Oz. How do
> >they explain Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him, lying about
> >carrying a long bag into work that day, owning a rifle. Do they just
> >disregard these things without comment, or just chuck them out on
> >whatever weak grounds they decide are enough?
>
>
> You'll have to study the evidence to know the answer.
If it entails reading kook-books, forget it.
How do you explain you relative piss-poor consideration of the key
aspects of the case I`ve noted?
> >And
> >figuring out what really happened requires a close scrutiny of Oz`s
> >actions, something kooks are loathe to do.
>
>
> No, it requires a close scrutiny of *THE EVIDENCE*, which you are unwilling to
> do.
Beating to death your talking points is not scrutinizing the
evidence. If you
were to honestly scrutinize Oz, and not totally accept as gospel the
knocks against the evidence agaonst Oz kooks have divised over the
years, you might be able to figure this thing out. I would be a blow to
the game you enjoy, so I know you won`t.
> >> >> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
> >> >
> >> > Months after Oz killed those people.
> >>
> >>
> >> Non Sequitur...
> >
> >>
> >> >> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
> >> >> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
> >> >
> >> > Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
> >> >the shots at that limo?
> >>
> >>
> >> What don't you understand about "fundamental underpinning of their
> >> conclusions"?
> >
> > So you are saying that everyone on the Commission felt that Oz had
> >actually taken all the shots at the limo? Isn`t this the most important
> >aspect of the case?
>
>
> Why can't you answer the question, Bud?
Because the focus should be on who killed JFK. Didn`t the Commision
believe that Oz, acting alone, killed JFK? Was that the truth as they
determined it to be?
> Once again: Why did a majority of the
> commissioners disagree with the fundamental underpinning of their "conclusions"?
>
> And, by the way, since you evidently don't know what this is, it's the SBT.
Did the trajectory of every bullet and every fragment need to be
precisely determined to convict the Beltway Sniper?
> >> Do you even know what it is?
> >
> > What I know is that I`ve never seen a CT make an honesty scrutiny of
> >Oz`s actions. Since they can not or will not do this, they lack the
> >credibility to critique people who could do this.
>
>
> What you *don't* know is the fundamental underpinning of the WC conclusions that
> a majority of the WC commissioners disagreed with... so here it is: the SBT.
>
> Now, care to answer "why?"
Why should I care? I`ve seen the shot amazingly recreated.
I have it written on a piece of paper right here in front of me. And
I still won`t produce it.
That is correct, I won`t be told by kooks what I must address.
> >> >> Cowards never support their assertions.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Obviously,
> >> >> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
> >> >> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
> >> >
> >> > There is no such proof, liar.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oak Ridge did the tests on the paraffin casts of LHO's cheek. Once again,
> >> your ignorance of the evidence is showing...
> >
> > Your ignorance in calling this "proof" is showing.
>
>
> You argued that there was "no such proof". Ignorant, weren't you?
No, it isn`t proof. It`s evidence, maybe, and indication, maybe, but
proof. No. Some might have considered the DNA evidence against OJ as
proof he killed Nicole. Yet, we know the results that "proof" had on a
jury.
> Can you even describe what the test consisted of?
Do you know all the details?
> And how it was checked?
I think you said something about 7 test subjects. I wonder how you
have only such limited aspects of the testing, not the whole thing.
Wasn`t it Harold Weisberg, or Wienberg or something much closer, that
tracked this down? Why didn`t he release it in it`s entirety?
> >> >> Or the multiple eyewitnesses that place him in a location where
> >> >> shots could *NOT* have been fired from?
> >> >
> >> > At 12:30?
> >>
> >>
> >> 11:50 and 12:15.
> >
> > What murders were committed at these times? How were these times
> >established, did the witnesses just give estimations?
>
>
> You're theory can't allow for this. Hence, you must deny the eyewitness
> testimony.
To be a kook you must pretend that time estimates are necessarily
accurate.
> >> >>>>>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that
> >> >>evidence.
> >> >> >> >Should I care?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you want the truth, that is...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
> >> >> >evidence incriminating Oz on the first day,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>>Oh? Let's examine that "first" day... can you name anyone else who was
> >>detained
> >>>> as a suspect, and had his rifle confiscated from his home, and subjected to a
> >> >> lie detector test?
> >> >>
> >>>> But surely, if all the evidence pointed to LHO, why was anyone else detained?
> >> >
> >> > You can`t figure that out either? Likely someone thought it prudent
> >> >to go through the motions to positively eliminate Frazier from any
> >> >wrongdoing. Is there a stupider reason you would like to cling to?
> >>
> >>
> >> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
> >
> > Why, because you can`t figure out why they might think Oz was the
> >shooter and still handle Frazier in this manner?
>
>
> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
Why do you say that? Do you think because they processed Frazier in
this manner, that they must have believed he was in on the
assassination? Thats kooky.
> >> >> >instead of putting all
> >> >> >their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
> >> >
> >> > If you take the police interrogation at face value, and what Marina
> >> >related at face value, then it is obvious that Oz is guilty. So kooks
> >> >decide to disregard this incriminating evidence, as it interferes with
> >> >their silly game.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you take *ALL* the evidence at face value.... but you won't.
> >
> > You don`t want to honestly examine what Oz did that day,
>
>
> On the contrary - I'm the one who is actually looking at the eyewitness testmony
> as to his locations that day.
And you pretend witnesses are time clocks. It`s part of the kook
game. Pretend things are carved in stone to draw the conclusions kooks
desire to draw.
<snicker> And they are "equal circumstances"?
> That you're willing to uncritically accept one, and not the other, illustrates
> your biases...
Tell me again who they are "equal circumstances". Typical reality
evasion of kooks.
Blah, blah, blah. Every time I ask for this same thing, you claim it
exists, but never produce it. A cohesive package stringing together all
these things you consider facts, two shells, Oz`s non-ownership of the
rifle (don`t forget to establish why Marina thought he owned a rifle),
just everything from soup to kooks. Never seen it, it don`t exist, and
it never will. Don`t think endlessly jabbering over your talking points
is fooling anyone into thinking you have such a thing to produce. Write
it up, you are a kook scholar, you know this case thoroughly. But,
remember, it must pass muster and be able to withstand the scrutiny the
WC has received. No unsupported claims, if two shells were found,
produce the witnesses that saw only two shells on the TSBD floor, and
establish how and when the third one was introduced into evidence.
Whatever floats your boat.
>
> My point has already been made anyway - you expect me to uncritically accept
> what the Dallas police said, yet you refuse to do so.
Both things are the same to a kook.
> >> >> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>>If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would
> >>be
> >> >> able to point out the contradictions.
> >> >
> >> > If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
> >> >trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
> >> >to.
> >> >
> >>>>But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
> >> >> be able to find any contradictions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
> >> >he did.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your ignorance about what Chaney *actually* said is amusing...
> >
> > Tell it to Bill Lord of the BBC.
>
>
> Provide a citation, coward...
Nah, not me.
> >> >> >> >> >I`m stuck with the only
> >> >> >> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
> >>>> >> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
> >> >> >> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
> >> >> >> >out how the fire started.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
> >> >> >> because it makes you look the fool.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
> >> >> >yourself it is progress you are making. Seems like standing still to me.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the actual
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >
> >> > What exactly did you quote Chaney as having said?
> >>
> >>
> >> I *haven't* quoted him in this thread.
> >
> > I didn`t think so. So why are you claiming I am neglecting to deal
> >with something in regards to Chaney when you haven`t produced one thing
> >by Chaney for me to deal with?
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
I totally agree with everything you have quoted Chaney as having
said in this thread. Better?
Bud
Did that. Even posted the times given by the witnesses who said they
saw Oz around this time period. You chickenshit evaded it, because it
went straight to
your dishonesty. The witnesses are giving their best guesses on the
times, and you want to pretend they are solid and established.
> >I only asked why you are sure about
> >the times of those sightings, and if you can establish whether they
> >occurred before the encounter with Givens on the 6th floor.
>
> My answer stands.
Your chickshit evasion stands. As usual, the weight you give to an
unconfirmed sighting carries more weight than a answer given to
multiple witnesses during questioning. Your crooked and skewed manner
of weighing evidence is designed to to continue this silly game you
enjoy indefinately.
> >> You've attempted to pit Givens against my cites... now you won't back it
> >> up, no doubt because you went back and actually *read* his words, and
> >> realize that it doesn't say what you thought it did.
> >
> > My point was that you are always trying to make information that is
> >not precisely established, such as the times of the sightings you
> >mentioned, and pretend it is carved in stone. Because only if these
> >things are rock solid can you makes the leaps you wish to take from
> >this information.
>
> Go ahead, Bud... try to move the 12:15 sighting back to before noon...
Go ahead Ben, pretend the estimated times supplied by witnesses is
reliable.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
You give it no weight at all. Which only shows your desire to
disregard incriminating evidence about Oz. Which shows you are not
actually trying to get to the bottom of this, but are engaged in some
silly gamesmanship.
> I place it in it's proper place with
> regards to all other evidence.
Yah, filed under "Lies the Dallas Police told about what Oz told
them". Your eagerness to disregard this information show you to be
dishonest in your approach. Of course you can`t figure this thing out,
you try so hard *not* to.
> And what, again, was Chaney's *actual* statements? Surely you won't "disregard"
> them.
Why would I expect all the eyewitnesses in Dealy to say the same
thing?
> >If you really were looking to get to the bottom of this, you
> >would look long and hard at the person who`s rifle was found where the
> >shots were fired.
>
> Yep... the single most damning piece of evidence. Unfortunately for you, the
> rest of the evidence doesn't support your theory.
Cowardly evasion which illustrates your reluctance to consider Oz as
a suspect. The game is to find reason to disregard the evidence against
Oz, not consider it.
> >Instead of complaining about how illegal it was
> >geting information from Oz`s wife,
>
> It was not illegality that I was worried about.
Why lie? It was the illegality of it you questioned, going so far
as to cite
statutes you felt were ignored.
> Perhaps you should take the
> time to become informed on this matter...
You inform me about the depths of your dishonesty every post.
> >if you really were interested in
> >getting to the truth you would happily welcome this information and
> >insight, as Oz was a closed individual that not many had contact with.
> >But you aren`t interested in getting to the bottom of this, because
> >that is where Oz is. It would ruin this silly game you kooks have
> >devided to scrutinize Oz honestly.
>
> I find it funny that someone unfamiliar with the actual evidence is accusing me
> of not being interested in the truth... :)
You aren`t interested in the truth. You are interested in
maintaining this silly game. If you honestly considered the evidence,
you would conclude Oz`s culpability, and thus ruin the game for you.
Can you honesty say that Oz`s demeanor in custody of those of a
innocent, scared confused patsy? When his brother came to visit, was he
frantically seeking his help, confused at his situation? If Oz`s
reality is as the kooks say, why doesn`t his demeanor and actions
reflect this? Oz guilty answers all these nagging problems, Oz innocent
begs questions, like why he denied owning a rifle. Kooks work hard to
devise answers, for the sake of their silly game, not the truth.
> >> For example, the location of the back wound - they *KNEW* it was in the
> >> back, and not in the neck. You can read this in the executive session
> >> transcripts.
> >
> > But why did Oz claim that he hadn`t brung a long paper bag into
> >wotk that morning?
>
>
> Did he? Can you quote his words?
Do I need to to conclude that he expressed to the cops that he
didn`t own a rifle? Do I need to be sure that all the quoted dialog on
record is verbatum dialog? The question you need to ask is the question
can`t even work your way up to. Why did Oz tell the cops he didn`t own
a rifle. Play games and pretend he didn`t, it only exposes your
dishonesy and cowardice to address the issues the WC did.
> And why did the WC lie about the location of the back wound? Why did they feel
> it necessary to lie? Surely, as someone interested in the truth, you'd like to
> know the answer to this... :)
How does the location effect Oz shooting those people months
earlier? Start with the event, try to honestly evaluate Oz as a
suspect. You can`t or won`t, whichever it is, the reason is clear. You
have a desire to avoid the truth.
> >> >You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence.
> >>
> >> Which piece is that?
> >
> > Nitrate tests to Oz`s face.
>
>
> It doesn't outweigh the other evidence, it corroborates it.
When you ignore all the parts that incriminate Oz.
> >> There's a *multitude* of evidence I'm referring to... the
> >> fact that only two cartridge cases were found at the SN,
> >
> > <snicker> Another excellent example of kook denial.
>
>
> You can look at the photos too. (That is, if you were interested in the truth.)
I have, there are three shells. Kooks can`t get the basics right.
> >> the location of the
> >> back wound, the multitude of earwitness accounts for the GN,
> >
> > I assume the sounds the witnesses reported were all the same sounds,
> >correct. So why did witnesses give different accounts of where the
> >sound originated from?
>
>
> If you had a smidgion of truth in you, the obvious answer will jump out at you.
Another chickenshit evasion.
> >> the failure to include obvious evidence, such as the death certificate,
> >> and critical eyewitness accounts, the tests done at Oak Ridge which prove
> >> that LHO never fired a rifle,
> >
> > Prove?
>
> Yep. That's the correct word. This is undoubtably why the WC locked these
> tests up, and it took a court case to pry them from the government.
Are you saying there never would have been a trial with Oz as
suspect even had he lived, because of the existance of this piece of
evidence?
> >You can be sure they would have went ahead with a trial even
> >if Oz`s defense had those test results. BTW, in those Oak Ridge test
> >you refer to, did they use the iron sights or the scope? Which did Oz
> >use?
>
> "Iron sights or scope"??? What does *that* have to do with anything? Surely
> you're not so stupid as to suggest that the cheek would be in a different
> location on the stock...
Surely you aren`t so stupid as to put great faith in testing you
don`t know the basic details about. What kind of rifle was used in the
testing? Did it have a scope?
> >> the actual tests done to attempt to duplicate LHO's alleged firing speed...
> >
> > Any attempt to recreate Oz`s firing speed is missing the most
> >important component, wouldn`t you say?
>
>
> The tests done without LHO's rifle certainly were...
>
>
> >> I
> >> can go on, but this merely highlights your ignorance of the case.
> >
> > Only an illustration of typical kook denial.
>
>
> Who's in denial?
Kooks. If Oz is guilty it spoils their game.
>
> >> >The
> >> >WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
> >> >this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
> >>
> >> No, they were *NOT* tapped to "investigate". I've covered this before in
> >> detail. The investigation was given to the FBI.
> >
> > Yet the WC`s mandate contains that very word.
>
> No, IT DOES NOT! You're a liar. I defy you to produce the actual quote. Just
> to help you, it's Executive Order 11130, dated 29 November.
Not there. Look at the first paragragh of the Report, where they
outline what they were tasked to do.
> But you won't, of course...
>
>
> >In any case, they were
> >charged with looking into this matter, and concluded three shots were
> >fired from the TSBD. Kooks looking into this matter have concluded only
> >two were fired. What could matter less than what kooks conclude?
>
> When the WC "concluded" that three shots had been fired from the TSBD, they
> contradicted their own evidence. But you knew this, right?
I know kooks contest just about everything the WC said. As is often
the case, the WC was right, and the kooks wrong.
> >> And the WC knew that they were 'stuck' with the FBI, and realized early
> >> on that the FBI had a preconceived theory that they were going to be
> >> stuck with. Again, read the executive session transcripts.
> >
> > Not a bad position to be stuck with the truth.
>
> This wasn't, of course, the WC staff's opinion.
Are you saying the entire staff felt Oz was innocent?
> >Oz did fire all the shots at the limo.
Which is the usual criticism of the WC, but not a cohesive
alternative presented by those critic to knock the WC conclusions out
of contention.
> >All they do is
> >willy-nilly discard inconvenient evidence that implicates Oz, as you
> >did with Oz`s denial he owned the rifle.
>
> Liar, aren't you?
>
> >Kooks just decide it has no
> >validity, and presto, it disappears.
> >
> >> The WC itself contradicts their "conclusions".
> >
> > Supply a version that takes into account all the evidence which does
> >not contradict itself.
>
> The WC couldn't do that. Why would you dishonestly ask someone else to do what
> the WC couldn't do?
Are you saying you can`t do it? Then why look into the case if a
noncontrary alternative is impossible?
> >It should be easy, just use the WC basic
> >framework, and omit the contradictions. Be sure to explain why the cops
> >on the 6th floor (and pictures taken) said there was three hulls on the
> >floor, and you claim two.
>
> I suggest that you *look* at the photo.
Did, theres a blow up on McAdams site that show all three. You
illustrate you total lack of credibility when you dispute issues like
this.
> As well as the first day photos of the evidence, showing the two hulls.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
> >> >> >> >> >considerations.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
> >> >> >> WC... and refuse to even try.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
> >> >> >Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
> >> >> >you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did he?
> >> >
> >> > See, you can`t figure out the easy ones. When you display such a
> >> >deficiency of reasoning ability, what credibility do you think you have
> >> >to criticise investigations like the WC that could figure out if that
> >> >is what Oz said?
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, your ignorance of the case is showing. The physical evidence of
> >> ownership of *that* rifle is disconnected... no doubt purposely so.
> >
> > Kooks can`t even determine if Oz owned the rifle.
>
> Nor, were you honest, can you.
Simple, really, Kooks can`t because kooks don`t want to. As I said,
it does harm to their silly game if they admit Oz owned the rifle.
> >You folks are
> >definately the wrong people to be looking into this. Lets try this...
> >was the WC wrong to conclude Oz owned that rifle?
>
> What did the evidence show?
Another cowardly evasion.
> >> If you've got it "figured out", why not attempt to show everyone here?
> >> Go ahead and list the evidence...
> >
> > So you can do the CT rote-denial thing? I`m not here to play the
> >silly game of arguing against all the silly amateur defense lawyer crap
> >you folks have developed for your arsenal. Kooks have invented problems
> >for all the incriminating evidence against Oz, it`s their hobby. If Oz
> >claims he didn`t own the rifle, kooks say "I`m not convinced Oz said
> >that". All it shows is you are incapable of honestly looking at the
> >evidence against Oz.
>
>
> Yep... can't list the evidence. Quite likely you aren't familiar enough to be
> *able* to do so.
I know all the kook objections to the evidence. And I know the
purpose behind these objections. Honestly considering Oz a suspect
hurts the silly game they`ve devised.
> >> >> >Because he used it to commit a murder.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not according to the evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Kook reading of the evidence. You can`t even figure out if Oz
> >> >claimed not to own that rifle.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! So you *DO* believe Chaney!
> >>
> >> For if you unhesitately accept what the police said, then when Chaney
> >> pointed out that separate bullets hit JFK and Connally, it broke the SBT.
> >> And without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins, hence, a
> >> conspiracy.
> >>
> >> Good of you to join the right side...
> >
> > You are such a kook, I can`t even figure out what point you think
> >you are making with this babbling. I suspect Chaney conveyed what he
> >thought happened.
>
> As did the cops interviewing LHO. Why are you willing to uncritically accept
> one, and not the other?
Seriously, you don`t know? Context. When you ask a question, your
attention is focused on the answer, or why ask? To select one person in
Dealy, cop or otherwise, and decide that whatever that person relates
is an accurate account of what happened is absurd, especially after
sudden violence. There is bound to be confusion early on as the mind
tries to piece information and impressions together to get a picture of
what just happened. Often these impressions are strong, and wrong.
There have been tests done that bear this out. But it suits your silly
game to present these impressions as established and factually correct.
> >And of course a cop asking a specific question to get
> >a suspects answer for recording is the exact same context as a cop
> >relating the details of a sudden unexpected attack.
>
> Coward...
Yah, I was cowardly considering the different contexts. You ignore
them, thus once again illustrating your dishonesty.
> >> >> >Do CT have an explaination that
> >> >> >makes better sense than that?
> >> >>
> >>>> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
> >> >was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
> >> >hope for also.
> >>
> >>
> >> And for you to accept the evidence is too much to hope for... you're a
> >> coward.
> >
> > I have one fear, that something you say will make sense, and won`t
> >be the product of the pure desire to see evidence of a conspiracy in
> >every aspect of the case. So far, that fear has not been realized.
>
>
> Of course not. You aren't honest enough to take a look at the evidence.
I look at Oz and see a guilty man. You rewrite him into something
that better suits your silly game.
> >>>>>> >> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest
See, once again kooks disregard the incriminating evidence against
Oz. Pretend it doesn`t exist and *poof*, out of consoderation.
> >If these things
> >didn`t happen, then establish that they didn`t and not just play the
> >usual game of raising what they claim are troubling in an effort to
> >disregard this evidence. If you can`t do that, then accept them as
> >having happened and weigh it as evidence of Oz`s guilt. I know it is
> >easier to pretend these things didn`t happen than to try and come up
> >with a reasonable explaination why Oz would try and kill the cops who
> >arrested him.
> >
> >> >> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
> >> >> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
> >> >> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
> >> >> >not Oz.
> >> >>
> >> >> What does the evidence show?
> >> >
> >> > Nothing to kooks, apparently.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you attempting to imply that you follow the evidence?
> >
> > The evidence you love is the most muddled. If we got all the
> >witnesses to stand and point where they think they heard the shots come
> >from, where would they point?
>
> Two locations... the TSBD, and the GN.
I`m not sure about that. I think if you got each witness in the
> >All over? Where does the evidence clearly
> >show a shot entering Kennedy`s head?
>
> Slightly above and to the right of the EOP.
>
> >Is there no evidence that disputes this place?
>
>
> Yep... most of the investigations have disputed this.
Aspects of the medical evidence can be used to support different
contentions, correct?
> >> >> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
> >> >> know...)
> >> >>
> >> >> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
> >> >> >coordination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that
> >> >> occurred *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it
> >> >> with a ten foot pole.
> >> >
> >> > Could you be more specific?
> >>
> >>
> >> The 'appearance' of LHO at a rifle range, or the car dealership, or the shop
> >> where a scope was mounted... among others.
> >
> > What have you established with these sightings?
>
>
> I'll let *you* make that judgement.
I guess even you admit there is no place to go with this
information.
> >> >> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
> >> >> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
> >> >> >omit, ect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring
> >> >> *before* the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
> >> >> >Have fun.
> >> >>
> >> >> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more
> >> >> blatant as time went by...
> >> >>
> >>>> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
> >> >> said about the autopsy photos.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even
> >> >> try.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You see? Dead silence...
> >
> > I`ve answered it numerous times
>
>
> No, you've *never* been able to answer it. It's a critical question, and one
> that undermines all of the government investigations.
>
> That you aren't interested in confronting it is rather understandable, however.
That you aren`t interested in considering Oz a suspect is
undestandable, also. It ruins your silly game.
> >by pointing out that all you do is
> >bitch about what they did. What did you kooks do besides bitch? Those
> >that can, do, those that can`t become critics.
> >
> >> >> >> And with no context to judge his
> >> >> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
> >> >> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
> >> >
> >> > See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you? Tell everyone here what that location was. You say you
> >> have it figured out, yet you cowardly refuse to specify it.
> >
> > Where did Baker say it had occurred, in a lunchroom?
>
> Did he? Quote it.
Why? It`s is pointless to battle kooks on these points. If you don`t
like that the WC concluded this confrontation took place on the second
floor, than present a better case for a different location, and include
that scenario as part of a cohesive package to explain this
assassination. Or nitpick these stupid kook talking points for all
eternity, whichever you perfer.
> >Where did Truly
> >say? Where did Baker point on a floorplan of the TSBD for the WC that
> >it occured? Where did Oz tell his interrogators it occurred? If this
> >isn`t enough information for you to figure out where the encounter took
> >place, why are you even looking at this, and on what grounds can you
> >criticize investigations that could?
>
> Since you aren't willing to look at the evidence, I'll merely mention that it's
> IMPOSSIBLE to specify the location based on Baker's statements. He gives
> different locations.
Who gives a fuck when it is a simple matter to determine where the
confrontation took place? More kook shit to spin their wheels on for no
good reason.
> >> >> >Even though the
Who gives a fuck? I cited this testimony to you last time you
challenged it. Go find it. Google "Bud-Ben-Chaney-Bill Lord".
> >Now, do you have a point about
> >what Chaney said?
>
> Of course... you disregard what he said.
What kind of idiot would select one person in Dealy to determine
what happened?
> >>Since you're willing to believe the police with regards to LHO's statements, you
> >> must *EQUALLY* be willing to accept Chaney's statements...
> >
> > Is that what you think?
>
>
> Were you honest, you would.
If I was a kook, I might.
> >> How do you support the WC theory with the SBT knocked out of it?
> >
> > Actually, that Discovery show confirmed it.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> The very first requirement of an SBT has never been proven, in fact, the
> evidence contradicted it ... transit.
Lets see your renactment that cause the same wounds with a different
firing scheme.
> >You must deny it because
> >it ruins your game if the SBT is true.
>
>
> No, the SBT could be true - it wouldn't rule out multiple assassins. It's just
> that the evidence doesn't support it.
>
> But without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins.
I`ve seen some LN claim otherwise (Caeruleo and one other, I think.)
I think the SBT is right, I`m not sure what possibilities they see
otherwise. I will say that I suspect the time the FBI required to work
that bolt on Oz`s rifle was too long. I think it quite possible Oz
could work it faster at the time of the assassination. I`ve see a few
recreations with MCs, and have seen times much shorter than the 3
seconds the FBI claimed was necessary. Either Oz had the slowest MC on
the planet, or they just didn`t know the idiosycracies of that rifle.
> >> >> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
> >> >supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's mentioned above. What do you want to bet that I'm right?
> >
> > Of course you are, you have correctly anticipated the answer to the
> >question you haven`t yet posed to me.
>
>
> I *DID* pose the question, and you've answered. You disregard Chaney's
> statements, yet accept uncritically those of the cops interviewing LHO. That
> was the only point I needed to make.
I am unaware of what statements of Chaney`s you are refering to.
It`s hard for me to imagine interogators writing anything other than
what Oz indicated, it`s hard to get "I never owned a rifle" out of
"Hell yes, I have a rifle, it`s in the garage where my wife is
staying".
> >> You *CAN'T* believe Chaney. For if you do, the WC's theory becomes moot.
> >
> > I can believe that Chaney believed what he related, and still
> >believe the WC`s finding were correct. Can you figure that one out?
>
>
> Chaney's statement has the benefit of corroboration. But you won't admit that.
No, I don`t think Chaney is even with Kennedy in Altgens.
> >> >> >It`s a kook
> >> >> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
> >> >> >evidence.
> >> >>
> >>>> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
> >> >> eyewitness testimony?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
> >> >>
> >> >> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
> >> >
> >> > Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
> >> >"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's been given many times. There's a number of good books that detail it.
> >
> > Thats funny. Like the scarecrow pointing out the way to Oz. How do
> >they explain Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him, lying about
> >carrying a long bag into work that day, owning a rifle. Do they just
> >disregard these things without comment, or just chuck them out on
> >whatever weak grounds they decide are enough?
>
>
> You'll have to study the evidence to know the answer.
If it entails reading kook-books, forget it.
> >> >> >> This is why you refuse to discuss the evidence.
How do you explain you relative piss-poor consideration of the key
aspects of the case I`ve noted?
> >And
> >figuring out what really happened requires a close scrutiny of Oz`s
> >actions, something kooks are loathe to do.
>
>
> No, it requires a close scrutiny of *THE EVIDENCE*, which you are unwilling to
> do.
Beating to death your talking points is not scrutinizing the
evidence. If you
were to honestly scrutinize Oz, and not totally accept as gospel the
knocks against the evidence agaonst Oz kooks have divised over the
years, you might be able to figure this thing out. I would be a blow to
the game you enjoy, so I know you won`t.
> >> >> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
> >> >
> >> > Months after Oz killed those people.
> >>
> >>
> >> Non Sequitur...
> >
> >>
> >> >> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
> >> >> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
> >> >
> >> > Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
> >> >the shots at that limo?
> >>
> >>
> >> What don't you understand about "fundamental underpinning of their
> >> conclusions"?
> >
> > So you are saying that everyone on the Commission felt that Oz had
> >actually taken all the shots at the limo? Isn`t this the most important
> >aspect of the case?
>
>
> Why can't you answer the question, Bud?
Because the focus should be on who killed JFK. Didn`t the Commision
believe that Oz, acting alone, killed JFK? Was that the truth as they
determined it to be?
> Once again: Why did a majority of the
> commissioners disagree with the fundamental underpinning of their "conclusions"?
>
> And, by the way, since you evidently don't know what this is, it's the SBT.
Did the trajectory of every bullet and every fragment need to be
precisely determined to convict the Beltway Sniper?
> >> Do you even know what it is?
> >
> > What I know is that I`ve never seen a CT make an honesty scrutiny of
> >Oz`s actions. Since they can not or will not do this, they lack the
> >credibility to critique people who could do this.
>
>
> What you *don't* know is the fundamental underpinning of the WC conclusions that
> a majority of the WC commissioners disagreed with... so here it is: the SBT.
>
> Now, care to answer "why?"
Why should I care? I`ve seen the shot amazingly recreated.
> >> >> >> >> Why is the evidence that they've
I have it written on a piece of paper right here in front of me. And
I still won`t produce it.
> >> >> >In any case, I
That is correct, I won`t be told by kooks what I must address.
> >> >> Cowards never support their assertions.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Obviously,
> >> >> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
> >> >> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
> >> >
> >> > There is no such proof, liar.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oak Ridge did the tests on the paraffin casts of LHO's cheek. Once again,
> >> your ignorance of the evidence is showing...
> >
> > Your ignorance in calling this "proof" is showing.
>
>
> You argued that there was "no such proof". Ignorant, weren't you?
No, it isn`t proof. It`s evidence, maybe, and indication, maybe, but
proof. No. Some might have considered the DNA evidence against OJ as
proof he killed Nicole. Yet, we know the results that "proof" had on a
jury.
> Can you even describe what the test consisted of?
Do you know all the details?
> And how it was checked?
I think you said something about 7 test subjects. I wonder how you
have only such limited aspects of the testing, not the whole thing.
Wasn`t it Harold Weisberg, or Wienberg or something much closer, that
tracked this down? Why didn`t he release it in it`s entirety?
> >> >> Or the multiple eyewitnesses that place him in a location where
> >> >> shots could *NOT* have been fired from?
> >> >
> >> > At 12:30?
> >>
> >>
> >> 11:50 and 12:15.
> >
> > What murders were committed at these times? How were these times
> >established, did the witnesses just give estimations?
>
>
> You're theory can't allow for this. Hence, you must deny the eyewitness
> testimony.
To be a kook you must pretend that time estimates are necessarily
accurate.
> >> >>>>>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that
> >> >>evidence.
> >> >> >> >Should I care?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you want the truth, that is...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
> >> >> >evidence incriminating Oz on the first day,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>>Oh? Let's examine that "first" day... can you name anyone else who was
> >>detained
> >>>> as a suspect, and had his rifle confiscated from his home, and subjected to a
> >> >> lie detector test?
> >> >>
> >>>> But surely, if all the evidence pointed to LHO, why was anyone else detained?
> >> >
> >> > You can`t figure that out either? Likely someone thought it prudent
> >> >to go through the motions to positively eliminate Frazier from any
> >> >wrongdoing. Is there a stupider reason you would like to cling to?
> >>
> >>
> >> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
> >
> > Why, because you can`t figure out why they might think Oz was the
> >shooter and still handle Frazier in this manner?
>
>
> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
Why do you say that? Do you think because they processed Frazier in
this manner, that they must have believed he was in on the
assassination? Thats kooky.
> >> >> >instead of putting all
> >> >> >their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
> >> >
> >> > If you take the police interrogation at face value, and what Marina
> >> >related at face value, then it is obvious that Oz is guilty. So kooks
> >> >decide to disregard this incriminating evidence, as it interferes with
> >> >their silly game.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you take *ALL* the evidence at face value.... but you won't.
> >
> > You don`t want to honestly examine what Oz did that day,
>
>
> On the contrary - I'm the one who is actually looking at the eyewitness testmony
> as to his locations that day.
And you pretend witnesses are time clocks. It`s part of the kook
game. Pretend things are carved in stone to draw the conclusions kooks
desire to draw.
> >you want to examine the investigation into this that occured months later.
<snicker> And they are "equal circumstances"?
> That you're willing to uncritically accept one, and not the other, illustrates
> your biases...
Tell me again who they are "equal circumstances". Typical reality
evasion of kooks.
> >> >> >yet kooks feel it should be chucked out on
Blah, blah, blah. Every time I ask for this same thing, you claim it
exists, but never produce it. A cohesive package stringing together all
these things you consider facts, two shells, Oz`s non-ownership of the
rifle (don`t forget to establish why Marina thought he owned a rifle),
just everything from soup to kooks. Never seen it, it don`t exist, and
it never will. Don`t think endlessly jabbering over your talking points
is fooling anyone into thinking you have such a thing to produce. Write
it up, you are a kook scholar, you know this case thoroughly. But,
remember, it must pass muster and be able to withstand the scrutiny the
WC has received. No unsupported claims, if two shells were found,
produce the witnesses that saw only two shells on the TSBD floor, and
establish how and when the third one was introduced into evidence.
> >> >> >I`d imagine that
Whatever floats your boat.
>
> My point has already been made anyway - you expect me to uncritically accept
> what the Dallas police said, yet you refuse to do so.
Both things are the same to a kook.
> >> >> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>>If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would
> >>be
> >> >> able to point out the contradictions.
> >> >
> >> > If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
> >> >trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
> >> >to.
> >> >
> >>>>But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
> >> >> be able to find any contradictions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
> >> >he did.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your ignorance about what Chaney *actually* said is amusing...
> >
> > Tell it to Bill Lord of the BBC.
>
>
> Provide a citation, coward...
Nah, not me.
> >> >> >> >> >I`m stuck with the only
> >> >> >> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
> >>>> >> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
> >> >> >> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
> >> >> >> >out how the fire started.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
> >> >> >> because it makes you look the fool.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
> >> >> >yourself it is progress you are making. Seems like standing still to me.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the actual
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >
> >> > What exactly did you quote Chaney as having said?
> >>
> >>
> >> I *haven't* quoted him in this thread.
> >
> > I didn`t think so. So why are you claiming I am neglecting to deal
> >with something in regards to Chaney when you haven`t produced one thing
> >by Chaney for me to deal with?
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
I totally agree with everything you have quoted Chaney as having
said in this thread. Better?
>
Bud
Did that. Even posted the times given by the witnesses who said they
saw Oz around this time period. You chickenshit evaded it, because it
went straight to
your dishonesty. The witnesses are giving their best guesses on the
times, and you want to pretend they are solid and established.
> >I only asked why you are sure about
> >the times of those sightings, and if you can establish whether they
> >occurred before the encounter with Givens on the 6th floor.
>
> My answer stands.
Your chickshit evasion stands. As usual, the weight you give to an
unconfirmed sighting carries more weight than a answer given to
multiple witnesses during questioning. Your crooked and skewed manner
of weighing evidence is designed to to continue this silly game you
enjoy indefinately.
> >> You've attempted to pit Givens against my cites... now you won't back it
> >> up, no doubt because you went back and actually *read* his words, and
> >> realize that it doesn't say what you thought it did.
> >
> > My point was that you are always trying to make information that is
> >not precisely established, such as the times of the sightings you
> >mentioned, and pretend it is carved in stone. Because only if these
> >things are rock solid can you makes the leaps you wish to take from
> >this information.
>
> Go ahead, Bud... try to move the 12:15 sighting back to before noon...
Go ahead Ben, pretend the estimated times supplied by witnesses is
reliable.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> as well as the tests done at Oak Ridge showing that he
You give it no weight at all. Which only shows your desire to
disregard incriminating evidence about Oz. Which shows you are not
actually trying to get to the bottom of this, but are engaged in some
silly gamesmanship.
> I place it in it's proper place with
> regards to all other evidence.
Yah, filed under "Lies the Dallas Police told about what Oz told
them". Your eagerness to disregard this information show you to be
dishonest in your approach. Of course you can`t figure this thing out,
you try so hard *not* to.
> And what, again, was Chaney's *actual* statements? Surely you won't "disregard"
> them.
Why would I expect all the eyewitnesses in Dealy to say the same
thing?
> >If you really were looking to get to the bottom of this, you
> >would look long and hard at the person who`s rifle was found where the
> >shots were fired.
>
> Yep... the single most damning piece of evidence. Unfortunately for you, the
> rest of the evidence doesn't support your theory.
Cowardly evasion which illustrates your reluctance to consider Oz as
a suspect. The game is to find reason to disregard the evidence against
Oz, not consider it.
> >Instead of complaining about how illegal it was
> >geting information from Oz`s wife,
>
> It was not illegality that I was worried about.
Why lie? It was the illegality of it you questioned, going so far
as to cite
statutes you felt were ignored.
> Perhaps you should take the
> time to become informed on this matter...
You inform me about the depths of your dishonesty every post.
> >if you really were interested in
> >getting to the truth you would happily welcome this information and
> >insight, as Oz was a closed individual that not many had contact with.
> >But you aren`t interested in getting to the bottom of this, because
> >that is where Oz is. It would ruin this silly game you kooks have
> >devided to scrutinize Oz honestly.
>
> I find it funny that someone unfamiliar with the actual evidence is accusing me
> of not being interested in the truth... :)
You aren`t interested in the truth. You are interested in
maintaining this silly game. If you honestly considered the evidence,
you would conclude Oz`s culpability, and thus ruin the game for you.
Can you honesty say that Oz`s demeanor in custody of those of a
innocent, scared confused patsy? When his brother came to visit, was he
frantically seeking his help, confused at his situation? If Oz`s
reality is as the kooks say, why doesn`t his demeanor and actions
reflect this? Oz guilty answers all these nagging problems, Oz innocent
begs questions, like why he denied owning a rifle. Kooks work hard to
devise answers, for the sake of their silly game, not the truth.
> >> For example, the location of the back wound - they *KNEW* it was in the
> >> back, and not in the neck. You can read this in the executive session
> >> transcripts.
> >
> > But why did Oz claim that he hadn`t brung a long paper bag into
> >wotk that morning?
>
>
> Did he? Can you quote his words?
Do I need to to conclude that he expressed to the cops that he
didn`t own a rifle? Do I need to be sure that all the quoted dialog on
record is verbatum dialog? The question you need to ask is the question
can`t even work your way up to. Why did Oz tell the cops he didn`t own
a rifle. Play games and pretend he didn`t, it only exposes your
dishonesy and cowardice to address the issues the WC did.
> And why did the WC lie about the location of the back wound? Why did they feel
> it necessary to lie? Surely, as someone interested in the truth, you'd like to
> know the answer to this... :)
How does the location effect Oz shooting those people months
earlier? Start with the event, try to honestly evaluate Oz as a
suspect. You can`t or won`t, whichever it is, the reason is clear. You
have a desire to avoid the truth.
> >> >You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence.
> >>
> >> Which piece is that?
> >
> > Nitrate tests to Oz`s face.
>
>
> It doesn't outweigh the other evidence, it corroborates it.
When you ignore all the parts that incriminate Oz.
> >> There's a *multitude* of evidence I'm referring to... the
> >> fact that only two cartridge cases were found at the SN,
> >
> > <snicker> Another excellent example of kook denial.
>
>
> You can look at the photos too. (That is, if you were interested in the truth.)
I have, there are three shells. Kooks can`t get the basics right.
> >> the location of the
> >> back wound, the multitude of earwitness accounts for the GN,
> >
> > I assume the sounds the witnesses reported were all the same sounds,
> >correct. So why did witnesses give different accounts of where the
> >sound originated from?
>
>
> If you had a smidgion of truth in you, the obvious answer will jump out at you.
Another chickenshit evasion.
> >> the failure to include obvious evidence, such as the death certificate,
> >> and critical eyewitness accounts, the tests done at Oak Ridge which prove
> >> that LHO never fired a rifle,
> >
> > Prove?
>
> Yep. That's the correct word. This is undoubtably why the WC locked these
> tests up, and it took a court case to pry them from the government.
Are you saying there never would have been a trial with Oz as
suspect even had he lived, because of the existance of this piece of
evidence?
> >You can be sure they would have went ahead with a trial even
> >if Oz`s defense had those test results. BTW, in those Oak Ridge test
> >you refer to, did they use the iron sights or the scope? Which did Oz
> >use?
>
> "Iron sights or scope"??? What does *that* have to do with anything? Surely
> you're not so stupid as to suggest that the cheek would be in a different
> location on the stock...
Surely you aren`t so stupid as to put great faith in testing you
don`t know the basic details about. What kind of rifle was used in the
testing? Did it have a scope?
> >> the actual tests done to attempt to duplicate LHO's alleged firing speed...
> >
> > Any attempt to recreate Oz`s firing speed is missing the most
> >important component, wouldn`t you say?
>
>
> The tests done without LHO's rifle certainly were...
>
>
> >> I
> >> can go on, but this merely highlights your ignorance of the case.
> >
> > Only an illustration of typical kook denial.
>
>
> Who's in denial?
Kooks. If Oz is guilty it spoils their game.
>
> >> >The
> >> >WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
> >> >this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
> >>
> >> No, they were *NOT* tapped to "investigate". I've covered this before in
> >> detail. The investigation was given to the FBI.
> >
> > Yet the WC`s mandate contains that very word.
>
> No, IT DOES NOT! You're a liar. I defy you to produce the actual quote. Just
> to help you, it's Executive Order 11130, dated 29 November.
Not there. Look at the first paragragh of the Report, where they
outline what they were tasked to do.
> But you won't, of course...
>
>
> >In any case, they were
> >charged with looking into this matter, and concluded three shots were
> >fired from the TSBD. Kooks looking into this matter have concluded only
> >two were fired. What could matter less than what kooks conclude?
>
> When the WC "concluded" that three shots had been fired from the TSBD, they
> contradicted their own evidence. But you knew this, right?
I know kooks contest just about everything the WC said. As is often
the case, the WC was right, and the kooks wrong.
> >> And the WC knew that they were 'stuck' with the FBI, and realized early
> >> on that the FBI had a preconceived theory that they were going to be
> >> stuck with. Again, read the executive session transcripts.
> >
> > Not a bad position to be stuck with the truth.
>
> This wasn't, of course, the WC staff's opinion.
Are you saying the entire staff felt Oz was innocent?
> >Oz did fire all the shots at the limo.
Which is the usual criticism of the WC, but not a cohesive
alternative presented by those critic to knock the WC conclusions out
of contention.
> >All they do is
> >willy-nilly discard inconvenient evidence that implicates Oz, as you
> >did with Oz`s denial he owned the rifle.
>
> Liar, aren't you?
>
> >Kooks just decide it has no
> >validity, and presto, it disappears.
> >
> >> The WC itself contradicts their "conclusions".
> >
> > Supply a version that takes into account all the evidence which does
> >not contradict itself.
>
> The WC couldn't do that. Why would you dishonestly ask someone else to do what
> the WC couldn't do?
Are you saying you can`t do it? Then why look into the case if a
noncontrary alternative is impossible?
> >It should be easy, just use the WC basic
> >framework, and omit the contradictions. Be sure to explain why the cops
> >on the 6th floor (and pictures taken) said there was three hulls on the
> >floor, and you claim two.
>
> I suggest that you *look* at the photo.
Did, theres a blow up on McAdams site that show all three. You
illustrate you total lack of credibility when you dispute issues like
this.
> As well as the first day photos of the evidence, showing the two hulls.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
> >> >> >> >> >considerations.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
> >> >> >> WC... and refuse to even try.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
> >> >> >Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
> >> >> >you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did he?
> >> >
> >> > See, you can`t figure out the easy ones. When you display such a
> >> >deficiency of reasoning ability, what credibility do you think you have
> >> >to criticise investigations like the WC that could figure out if that
> >> >is what Oz said?
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, your ignorance of the case is showing. The physical evidence of
> >> ownership of *that* rifle is disconnected... no doubt purposely so.
> >
> > Kooks can`t even determine if Oz owned the rifle.
>
> Nor, were you honest, can you.
Simple, really, Kooks can`t because kooks don`t want to. As I said,
it does harm to their silly game if they admit Oz owned the rifle.
> >You folks are
> >definately the wrong people to be looking into this. Lets try this...
> >was the WC wrong to conclude Oz owned that rifle?
>
> What did the evidence show?
Another cowardly evasion.
> >> If you've got it "figured out", why not attempt to show everyone here?
> >> Go ahead and list the evidence...
> >
> > So you can do the CT rote-denial thing? I`m not here to play the
> >silly game of arguing against all the silly amateur defense lawyer crap
> >you folks have developed for your arsenal. Kooks have invented problems
> >for all the incriminating evidence against Oz, it`s their hobby. If Oz
> >claims he didn`t own the rifle, kooks say "I`m not convinced Oz said
> >that". All it shows is you are incapable of honestly looking at the
> >evidence against Oz.
>
>
> Yep... can't list the evidence. Quite likely you aren't familiar enough to be
> *able* to do so.
I know all the kook objections to the evidence. And I know the
purpose behind these objections. Honestly considering Oz a suspect
hurts the silly game they`ve devised.
> >> >> >Because he used it to commit a murder.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not according to the evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Kook reading of the evidence. You can`t even figure out if Oz
> >> >claimed not to own that rifle.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! So you *DO* believe Chaney!
> >>
> >> For if you unhesitately accept what the police said, then when Chaney
> >> pointed out that separate bullets hit JFK and Connally, it broke the SBT.
> >> And without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins, hence, a
> >> conspiracy.
> >>
> >> Good of you to join the right side...
> >
> > You are such a kook, I can`t even figure out what point you think
> >you are making with this babbling. I suspect Chaney conveyed what he
> >thought happened.
>
> As did the cops interviewing LHO. Why are you willing to uncritically accept
> one, and not the other?
Seriously, you don`t know? Context. When you ask a question, your
attention is focused on the answer, or why ask? To select one person in
Dealy, cop or otherwise, and decide that whatever that person relates
is an accurate account of what happened is absurd, especially after
sudden violence. There is bound to be confusion early on as the mind
tries to piece information and impressions together to get a picture of
what just happened. Often these impressions are strong, and wrong.
There have been tests done that bear this out. But it suits your silly
game to present these impressions as established and factually correct.
> >And of course a cop asking a specific question to get
> >a suspects answer for recording is the exact same context as a cop
> >relating the details of a sudden unexpected attack.
>
> Coward...
Yah, I was cowardly considering the different contexts. You ignore
them, thus once again illustrating your dishonesty.
> >> >> >Do CT have an explaination that
> >> >> >makes better sense than that?
> >> >>
> >>>> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
> >> >was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
> >> >hope for also.
> >>
> >>
> >> And for you to accept the evidence is too much to hope for... you're a
> >> coward.
> >
> > I have one fear, that something you say will make sense, and won`t
> >be the product of the pure desire to see evidence of a conspiracy in
> >every aspect of the case. So far, that fear has not been realized.
>
>
> Of course not. You aren't honest enough to take a look at the evidence.
I look at Oz and see a guilty man. You rewrite him into something
that better suits your silly game.
> >>>>>> >> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest
See, once again kooks disregard the incriminating evidence against
Oz. Pretend it doesn`t exist and *poof*, out of consoderation.
> >If these things
> >didn`t happen, then establish that they didn`t and not just play the
> >usual game of raising what they claim are troubling in an effort to
> >disregard this evidence. If you can`t do that, then accept them as
> >having happened and weigh it as evidence of Oz`s guilt. I know it is
> >easier to pretend these things didn`t happen than to try and come up
> >with a reasonable explaination why Oz would try and kill the cops who
> >arrested him.
> >
> >> >> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
> >> >> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
> >> >> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
> >> >> >not Oz.
> >> >>
> >> >> What does the evidence show?
> >> >
> >> > Nothing to kooks, apparently.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you attempting to imply that you follow the evidence?
> >
> > The evidence you love is the most muddled. If we got all the
> >witnesses to stand and point where they think they heard the shots come
> >from, where would they point?
>
> Two locations... the TSBD, and the GN.
I`m not sure about that. I think if you got each witness in the
> >All over? Where does the evidence clearly
> >show a shot entering Kennedy`s head?
>
> Slightly above and to the right of the EOP.
>
> >Is there no evidence that disputes this place?
>
>
> Yep... most of the investigations have disputed this.
Aspects of the medical evidence can be used to support different
contentions, correct?
> >> >> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
> >> >> know...)
> >> >>
> >> >> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
> >> >> >coordination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that
> >> >> occurred *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it
> >> >> with a ten foot pole.
> >> >
> >> > Could you be more specific?
> >>
> >>
> >> The 'appearance' of LHO at a rifle range, or the car dealership, or the shop
> >> where a scope was mounted... among others.
> >
> > What have you established with these sightings?
>
>
> I'll let *you* make that judgement.
I guess even you admit there is no place to go with this
information.
> >> >> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
> >> >> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
> >> >> >omit, ect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring
> >> >> *before* the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
> >> >> >Have fun.
> >> >>
> >> >> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more
> >> >> blatant as time went by...
> >> >>
> >>>> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
> >> >> said about the autopsy photos.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even
> >> >> try.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You see? Dead silence...
> >
> > I`ve answered it numerous times
>
>
> No, you've *never* been able to answer it. It's a critical question, and one
> that undermines all of the government investigations.
>
> That you aren't interested in confronting it is rather understandable, however.
That you aren`t interested in considering Oz a suspect is
undestandable, also. It ruins your silly game.
> >by pointing out that all you do is
> >bitch about what they did. What did you kooks do besides bitch? Those
> >that can, do, those that can`t become critics.
> >
> >> >> >> And with no context to judge his
> >> >> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
> >> >> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
> >> >
> >> > See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you? Tell everyone here what that location was. You say you
> >> have it figured out, yet you cowardly refuse to specify it.
> >
> > Where did Baker say it had occurred, in a lunchroom?
>
> Did he? Quote it.
Why? It`s is pointless to battle kooks on these points. If you don`t
like that the WC concluded this confrontation took place on the second
floor, than present a better case for a different location, and include
that scenario as part of a cohesive package to explain this
assassination. Or nitpick these stupid kook talking points for all
eternity, whichever you perfer.
> >Where did Truly
> >say? Where did Baker point on a floorplan of the TSBD for the WC that
> >it occured? Where did Oz tell his interrogators it occurred? If this
> >isn`t enough information for you to figure out where the encounter took
> >place, why are you even looking at this, and on what grounds can you
> >criticize investigations that could?
>
> Since you aren't willing to look at the evidence, I'll merely mention that it's
> IMPOSSIBLE to specify the location based on Baker's statements. He gives
> different locations.
Who gives a fuck when it is a simple matter to determine where the
confrontation took place? More kook shit to spin their wheels on for no
good reason.
> >> >> >Even though the
Who gives a fuck? I cited this testimony to you last time you
challenged it. Go find it. Google "Bud-Ben-Chaney-Bill Lord".
> >Now, do you have a point about
> >what Chaney said?
>
> Of course... you disregard what he said.
What kind of idiot would select one person in Dealy to determine
what happened?
> >>Since you're willing to believe the police with regards to LHO's statements, you
> >> must *EQUALLY* be willing to accept Chaney's statements...
> >
> > Is that what you think?
>
>
> Were you honest, you would.
If I was a kook, I might.
> >> How do you support the WC theory with the SBT knocked out of it?
> >
> > Actually, that Discovery show confirmed it.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> The very first requirement of an SBT has never been proven, in fact, the
> evidence contradicted it ... transit.
Lets see your renactment that cause the same wounds with a different
firing scheme.
> >You must deny it because
> >it ruins your game if the SBT is true.
>
>
> No, the SBT could be true - it wouldn't rule out multiple assassins. It's just
> that the evidence doesn't support it.
>
> But without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins.
I`ve seen some LN claim otherwise (Caeruleo and one other, I think.)
I think the SBT is right, I`m not sure what possibilities they see
otherwise. I will say that I suspect the time the FBI required to work
that bolt on Oz`s rifle was too long. I think it quite possible Oz
could work it faster at the time of the assassination. I`ve see a few
recreations with MCs, and have seen times much shorter than the 3
seconds the FBI claimed was necessary. Either Oz had the slowest MC on
the planet, or they just didn`t know the idiosycracies of that rifle.
> >> >> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
> >> >supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's mentioned above. What do you want to bet that I'm right?
> >
> > Of course you are, you have correctly anticipated the answer to the
> >question you haven`t yet posed to me.
>
>
> I *DID* pose the question, and you've answered. You disregard Chaney's
> statements, yet accept uncritically those of the cops interviewing LHO. That
> was the only point I needed to make.
I am unaware of what statements of Chaney`s you are refering to.
It`s hard for me to imagine interogators writing anything other than
what Oz indicated, it`s hard to get "I never owned a rifle" out of
"Hell yes, I have a rifle, it`s in the garage where my wife is
staying".
> >> You *CAN'T* believe Chaney. For if you do, the WC's theory becomes moot.
> >
> > I can believe that Chaney believed what he related, and still
> >believe the WC`s finding were correct. Can you figure that one out?
>
>
> Chaney's statement has the benefit of corroboration. But you won't admit that.
No, I don`t think Chaney is even with Kennedy in Altgens.
> >> >> >It`s a kook
> >> >> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
> >> >> >evidence.
> >> >>
> >>>> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
> >> >> eyewitness testimony?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
> >> >>
> >> >> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
> >> >
> >> > Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
> >> >"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's been given many times. There's a number of good books that detail it.
> >
> > Thats funny. Like the scarecrow pointing out the way to Oz. How do
> >they explain Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him, lying about
> >carrying a long bag into work that day, owning a rifle. Do they just
> >disregard these things without comment, or just chuck them out on
> >whatever weak grounds they decide are enough?
>
>
> You'll have to study the evidence to know the answer.
If it entails reading kook-books, forget it.
> >> >> >> This is why you refuse to discuss the evidence.
How do you explain you relative piss-poor consideration of the key
aspects of the case I`ve noted?
> >And
> >figuring out what really happened requires a close scrutiny of Oz`s
> >actions, something kooks are loathe to do.
>
>
> No, it requires a close scrutiny of *THE EVIDENCE*, which you are unwilling to
> do.
Beating to death your talking points is not scrutinizing the
evidence. If you
were to honestly scrutinize Oz, and not totally accept as gospel the
knocks against the evidence agaonst Oz kooks have divised over the
years, you might be able to figure this thing out. I would be a blow to
the game you enjoy, so I know you won`t.
> >> >> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
> >> >
> >> > Months after Oz killed those people.
> >>
> >>
> >> Non Sequitur...
> >
> >>
> >> >> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
> >> >> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
> >> >
> >> > Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
> >> >the shots at that limo?
> >>
> >>
> >> What don't you understand about "fundamental underpinning of their
> >> conclusions"?
> >
> > So you are saying that everyone on the Commission felt that Oz had
> >actually taken all the shots at the limo? Isn`t this the most important
> >aspect of the case?
>
>
> Why can't you answer the question, Bud?
Because the focus should be on who killed JFK. Didn`t the Commision
believe that Oz, acting alone, killed JFK? Was that the truth as they
determined it to be?
> Once again: Why did a majority of the
> commissioners disagree with the fundamental underpinning of their "conclusions"?
>
> And, by the way, since you evidently don't know what this is, it's the SBT.
Did the trajectory of every bullet and every fragment need to be
precisely determined to convict the Beltway Sniper?
> >> Do you even know what it is?
> >
> > What I know is that I`ve never seen a CT make an honesty scrutiny of
> >Oz`s actions. Since they can not or will not do this, they lack the
> >credibility to critique people who could do this.
>
>
> What you *don't* know is the fundamental underpinning of the WC conclusions that
> a majority of the WC commissioners disagreed with... so here it is: the SBT.
>
> Now, care to answer "why?"
Why should I care? I`ve seen the shot amazingly recreated.
> >> >> >> >> Why is the evidence that they've
I have it written on a piece of paper right here in front of me. And
I still won`t produce it.
> >> >> >In any case, I
That is correct, I won`t be told by kooks what I must address.
> >> >> Cowards never support their assertions.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Obviously,
> >> >> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
> >> >> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
> >> >
> >> > There is no such proof, liar.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oak Ridge did the tests on the paraffin casts of LHO's cheek. Once again,
> >> your ignorance of the evidence is showing...
> >
> > Your ignorance in calling this "proof" is showing.
>
>
> You argued that there was "no such proof". Ignorant, weren't you?
No, it isn`t proof. It`s evidence, maybe, and indication, maybe, but
proof. No. Some might have considered the DNA evidence against OJ as
proof he killed Nicole. Yet, we know the results that "proof" had on a
jury.
> Can you even describe what the test consisted of?
Do you know all the details?
> And how it was checked?
I think you said something about 7 test subjects. I wonder how you
have only such limited aspects of the testing, not the whole thing.
Wasn`t it Harold Weisberg, or Wienberg or something much closer, that
tracked this down? Why didn`t he release it in it`s entirety?
> >> >> Or the multiple eyewitnesses that place him in a location where
> >> >> shots could *NOT* have been fired from?
> >> >
> >> > At 12:30?
> >>
> >>
> >> 11:50 and 12:15.
> >
> > What murders were committed at these times? How were these times
> >established, did the witnesses just give estimations?
>
>
> You're theory can't allow for this. Hence, you must deny the eyewitness
> testimony.
To be a kook you must pretend that time estimates are necessarily
accurate.
> >> >>>>>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that
> >> >>evidence.
> >> >> >> >Should I care?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you want the truth, that is...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
> >> >> >evidence incriminating Oz on the first day,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>>Oh? Let's examine that "first" day... can you name anyone else who was
> >>detained
> >>>> as a suspect, and had his rifle confiscated from his home, and subjected to a
> >> >> lie detector test?
> >> >>
> >>>> But surely, if all the evidence pointed to LHO, why was anyone else detained?
> >> >
> >> > You can`t figure that out either? Likely someone thought it prudent
> >> >to go through the motions to positively eliminate Frazier from any
> >> >wrongdoing. Is there a stupider reason you would like to cling to?
> >>
> >>
> >> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
> >
> > Why, because you can`t figure out why they might think Oz was the
> >shooter and still handle Frazier in this manner?
>
>
> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
Why do you say that? Do you think because they processed Frazier in
this manner, that they must have believed he was in on the
assassination? Thats kooky.
> >> >> >instead of putting all
> >> >> >their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
> >> >
> >> > If you take the police interrogation at face value, and what Marina
> >> >related at face value, then it is obvious that Oz is guilty. So kooks
> >> >decide to disregard this incriminating evidence, as it interferes with
> >> >their silly game.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you take *ALL* the evidence at face value.... but you won't.
> >
> > You don`t want to honestly examine what Oz did that day,
>
>
> On the contrary - I'm the one who is actually looking at the eyewitness testmony
> as to his locations that day.
And you pretend witnesses are time clocks. It`s part of the kook
game. Pretend things are carved in stone to draw the conclusions kooks
desire to draw.
> >you want to examine the investigation into this that occured months later.
<snicker> And they are "equal circumstances"?
> That you're willing to uncritically accept one, and not the other, illustrates
> your biases...
Tell me again who they are "equal circumstances". Typical reality
evasion of kooks.
> >> >> >yet kooks feel it should be chucked out on
Blah, blah, blah. Every time I ask for this same thing, you claim it
exists, but never produce it. A cohesive package stringing together all
these things you consider facts, two shells, Oz`s non-ownership of the
rifle (don`t forget to establish why Marina thought he owned a rifle),
just everything from soup to kooks. Never seen it, it don`t exist, and
it never will. Don`t think endlessly jabbering over your talking points
is fooling anyone into thinking you have such a thing to produce. Write
it up, you are a kook scholar, you know this case thoroughly. But,
remember, it must pass muster and be able to withstand the scrutiny the
WC has received. No unsupported claims, if two shells were found,
produce the witnesses that saw only two shells on the TSBD floor, and
establish how and when the third one was introduced into evidence.
> >> >> >I`d imagine that
Whatever floats your boat.
>
> My point has already been made anyway - you expect me to uncritically accept
> what the Dallas police said, yet you refuse to do so.
Both things are the same to a kook.
> >> >> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>>If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would
> >>be
> >> >> able to point out the contradictions.
> >> >
> >> > If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
> >> >trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
> >> >to.
> >> >
> >>>>But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
> >> >> be able to find any contradictions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
> >> >he did.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your ignorance about what Chaney *actually* said is amusing...
> >
> > Tell it to Bill Lord of the BBC.
>
>
> Provide a citation, coward...
Nah, not me.
> >> >> >> >> >I`m stuck with the only
> >> >> >> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
> >>>> >> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
> >> >> >> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
> >> >> >> >out how the fire started.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
> >> >> >> because it makes you look the fool.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
> >> >> >yourself it is progress you are making. Seems like standing still to me.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the actual
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >
> >> > What exactly did you quote Chaney as having said?
> >>
> >>
> >> I *haven't* quoted him in this thread.
> >
> > I didn`t think so. So why are you claiming I am neglecting to deal
> >with something in regards to Chaney when you haven`t produced one thing
> >by Chaney for me to deal with?
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
I totally agree with everything you have quoted Chaney as having
said in this thread. Better?
>
Bud
<SNIP>
> > As you illustrate yours by disregarding that Oz denied owning the
> >rifle.
>
> Why lie about it? I don't disregard it...
You give it no weight at all. Which only shows your desire to
disregard incriminating evidence about Oz. Which shows you are not
actually trying to get to the bottom of this, but are engaged in some
silly gamesmanship.
> I place it in it's proper place with
> regards to all other evidence.
Yah, filed under "Lies the Dallas Police told about what Oz told
them". Your eagerness to disregard this information show you to be
dishonest in your approach. Of course you can`t figure this thing out,
you try so hard *not* to.
> And what, again, was Chaney's *actual* statements? Surely you won't "disregard"
> them.
Why would I expect all the eyewitnesses in Dealy to say the same
thing?
> >If you really were looking to get to the bottom of this, you
> >would look long and hard at the person who`s rifle was found where the
> >shots were fired.
>
> Yep... the single most damning piece of evidence. Unfortunately for you, the
> rest of the evidence doesn't support your theory.
Cowardly evasion which illustrates your reluctance to consider Oz as
a suspect. The game is to find reason to disregard the evidence against
Oz, not consider it.
> >Instead of complaining about how illegal it was
> >geting information from Oz`s wife,
>
> It was not illegality that I was worried about.
Why lie? It was the illegality of it you questioned, going so far
as to cite
statutes you felt were ignored.
> Perhaps you should take the
> time to become informed on this matter...
You inform me about the depths of your dishonesty every post.
> >if you really were interested in
> >getting to the truth you would happily welcome this information and
> >insight, as Oz was a closed individual that not many had contact with.
> >But you aren`t interested in getting to the bottom of this, because
> >that is where Oz is. It would ruin this silly game you kooks have
> >devided to scrutinize Oz honestly.
>
> I find it funny that someone unfamiliar with the actual evidence is accusing me
> of not being interested in the truth... :)
You aren`t interested in the truth. You are interested in
maintaining this silly game. If you honestly considered the evidence,
you would conclude Oz`s culpability, and thus ruin the game for you.
Can you honesty say that Oz`s demeanor in custody of those of a
innocent, scared confused patsy? When his brother came to visit, was he
frantically seeking his help, confused at his situation? If Oz`s
reality is as the kooks say, why doesn`t his demeanor and actions
reflect this? Oz guilty answers all these nagging problems, Oz innocent
begs questions, like why he denied owning a rifle. Kooks work hard to
devise answers, for the sake of their silly game, not the truth.
> >> For example, the location of the back wound - they *KNEW* it was in the
> >> back, and not in the neck. You can read this in the executive session
> >> transcripts.
> >
> > But why did Oz claim that he hadn`t brung a long paper bag into
> >wotk that morning?
>
>
> Did he? Can you quote his words?
Do I need to to conclude that he expressed to the cops that he
didn`t own a rifle? Do I need to be sure that all the quoted dialog on
record is verbatum dialog? The question you need to ask is the question
can`t even work your way up to. Why did Oz tell the cops he didn`t own
a rifle. Play games and pretend he didn`t, it only exposes your
dishonesy and cowardice to address the issues the WC did.
> And why did the WC lie about the location of the back wound? Why did they feel
> it necessary to lie? Surely, as someone interested in the truth, you'd like to
> know the answer to this... :)
How does the location effect Oz shooting those people months
earlier? Start with the event, try to honestly evaluate Oz as a
suspect. You can`t or won`t, whichever it is, the reason is clear. You
have a desire to avoid the truth.
> >> >You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence.
> >>
> >> Which piece is that?
> >
> > Nitrate tests to Oz`s face.
>
>
> It doesn't outweigh the other evidence, it corroborates it.
When you ignore all the parts that incriminate Oz.
> >> There's a *multitude* of evidence I'm referring to... the
> >> fact that only two cartridge cases were found at the SN,
> >
> > <snicker> Another excellent example of kook denial.
>
>
> You can look at the photos too. (That is, if you were interested in the truth.)
I have, there are three shells. Kooks can`t get the basics right.
> >> the location of the
> >> back wound, the multitude of earwitness accounts for the GN,
> >
> > I assume the sounds the witnesses reported were all the same sounds,
> >correct. So why did witnesses give different accounts of where the
> >sound originated from?
>
>
> If you had a smidgion of truth in you, the obvious answer will jump out at you.
Another chickenshit evasion.
> >> the failure to include obvious evidence, such as the death certificate,
> >> and critical eyewitness accounts, the tests done at Oak Ridge which prove
> >> that LHO never fired a rifle,
> >
> > Prove?
>
> Yep. That's the correct word. This is undoubtably why the WC locked these
> tests up, and it took a court case to pry them from the government.
Are you saying there never would have been a trial with Oz as
suspect even had he lived, because of the existance of this piece of
evidence?
> >You can be sure they would have went ahead with a trial even
> >if Oz`s defense had those test results. BTW, in those Oak Ridge test
> >you refer to, did they use the iron sights or the scope? Which did Oz
> >use?
>
> "Iron sights or scope"??? What does *that* have to do with anything? Surely
> you're not so stupid as to suggest that the cheek would be in a different
> location on the stock...
Surely you aren`t so stupid as to put great faith in testing you
don`t know the basic details about. What kind of rifle was used in the
testing? Did it have a scope?
> >> the actual tests done to attempt to duplicate LHO's alleged firing speed...
> >
> > Any attempt to recreate Oz`s firing speed is missing the most
> >important component, wouldn`t you say?
>
>
> The tests done without LHO's rifle certainly were...
>
>
> >> I
> >> can go on, but this merely highlights your ignorance of the case.
> >
> > Only an illustration of typical kook denial.
>
>
> Who's in denial?
Kooks. If Oz is guilty it spoils their game.
>
> >> >The
> >> >WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
> >> >this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
> >>
> >> No, they were *NOT* tapped to "investigate". I've covered this before in
> >> detail. The investigation was given to the FBI.
> >
> > Yet the WC`s mandate contains that very word.
>
> No, IT DOES NOT! You're a liar. I defy you to produce the actual quote. Just
> to help you, it's Executive Order 11130, dated 29 November.
Not there. Look at the first paragragh of the Report, where they
outline what they were tasked to do.
> But you won't, of course...
>
>
> >In any case, they were
> >charged with looking into this matter, and concluded three shots were
> >fired from the TSBD. Kooks looking into this matter have concluded only
> >two were fired. What could matter less than what kooks conclude?
>
> When the WC "concluded" that three shots had been fired from the TSBD, they
> contradicted their own evidence. But you knew this, right?
I know kooks contest just about everything the WC said. As is often
the case, the WC was right, and the kooks wrong.
> >> And the WC knew that they were 'stuck' with the FBI, and realized early
> >> on that the FBI had a preconceived theory that they were going to be
> >> stuck with. Again, read the executive session transcripts.
> >
> > Not a bad position to be stuck with the truth.
>
> This wasn't, of course, the WC staff's opinion.
Are you saying the entire staff felt Oz was innocent?
> >Oz did fire all the shots at the limo.
Which is the usual criticism of the WC, but not a cohesive
alternative presented by those critic to knock the WC conclusions out
of contention.
> >All they do is
> >willy-nilly discard inconvenient evidence that implicates Oz, as you
> >did with Oz`s denial he owned the rifle.
>
> Liar, aren't you?
>
> >Kooks just decide it has no
> >validity, and presto, it disappears.
> >
> >> The WC itself contradicts their "conclusions".
> >
> > Supply a version that takes into account all the evidence which does
> >not contradict itself.
>
> The WC couldn't do that. Why would you dishonestly ask someone else to do what
> the WC couldn't do?
Are you saying you can`t do it? Then why look into the case if a
noncontrary alternative is impossible?
> >It should be easy, just use the WC basic
> >framework, and omit the contradictions. Be sure to explain why the cops
> >on the 6th floor (and pictures taken) said there was three hulls on the
> >floor, and you claim two.
>
> I suggest that you *look* at the photo.
Did, theres a blow up on McAdams site that show all three. You
illustrate you total lack of credibility when you dispute issues like
this.
> As well as the first day photos of the evidence, showing the two hulls.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps the WC didn't agree with you...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> > Likely the WC determined that the test results didn`t outweigh other
> >> >> >> >> >considerations.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> This does *NOT* explain why they buried this evidence.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It was never meant to be an explaination about that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just pointing out, yet again, that you can't defend the actions of the
> >> >> >> WC... and refuse to even try.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is only a smokescreen to draw attention from the real murderer.
> >> >> >Spin your wheels examing what the WC did for the next forty years if
> >> >> >you like. They explain why Oz lied to the cops about owning that rifle.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did he?
> >> >
> >> > See, you can`t figure out the easy ones. When you display such a
> >> >deficiency of reasoning ability, what credibility do you think you have
> >> >to criticise investigations like the WC that could figure out if that
> >> >is what Oz said?
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, your ignorance of the case is showing. The physical evidence of
> >> ownership of *that* rifle is disconnected... no doubt purposely so.
> >
> > Kooks can`t even determine if Oz owned the rifle.
>
> Nor, were you honest, can you.
Simple, really, Kooks can`t because kooks don`t want to. As I said,
it does harm to their silly game if they admit Oz owned the rifle.
> >You folks are
> >definately the wrong people to be looking into this. Lets try this...
> >was the WC wrong to conclude Oz owned that rifle?
>
> What did the evidence show?
Another cowardly evasion.
> >> If you've got it "figured out", why not attempt to show everyone here?
> >> Go ahead and list the evidence...
> >
> > So you can do the CT rote-denial thing? I`m not here to play the
> >silly game of arguing against all the silly amateur defense lawyer crap
> >you folks have developed for your arsenal. Kooks have invented problems
> >for all the incriminating evidence against Oz, it`s their hobby. If Oz
> >claims he didn`t own the rifle, kooks say "I`m not convinced Oz said
> >that". All it shows is you are incapable of honestly looking at the
> >evidence against Oz.
>
>
> Yep... can't list the evidence. Quite likely you aren't familiar enough to be
> *able* to do so.
I know all the kook objections to the evidence. And I know the
purpose behind these objections. Honestly considering Oz a suspect
hurts the silly game they`ve devised.
> >> >> >Because he used it to commit a murder.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not according to the evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Kook reading of the evidence. You can`t even figure out if Oz
> >> >claimed not to own that rifle.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! So you *DO* believe Chaney!
> >>
> >> For if you unhesitately accept what the police said, then when Chaney
> >> pointed out that separate bullets hit JFK and Connally, it broke the SBT.
> >> And without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins, hence, a
> >> conspiracy.
> >>
> >> Good of you to join the right side...
> >
> > You are such a kook, I can`t even figure out what point you think
> >you are making with this babbling. I suspect Chaney conveyed what he
> >thought happened.
>
> As did the cops interviewing LHO. Why are you willing to uncritically accept
> one, and not the other?
Seriously, you don`t know? Context. When you ask a question, your
attention is focused on the answer, or why ask? To select one person in
Dealy, cop or otherwise, and decide that whatever that person relates
is an accurate account of what happened is absurd, especially after
sudden violence. There is bound to be confusion early on as the mind
tries to piece information and impressions together to get a picture of
what just happened. Often these impressions are strong, and wrong.
There have been tests done that bear this out. But it suits your silly
game to present these impressions as established and factually correct.
> >And of course a cop asking a specific question to get
> >a suspects answer for recording is the exact same context as a cop
> >relating the details of a sudden unexpected attack.
>
> Coward...
Yah, I was cowardly considering the different contexts. You ignore
them, thus once again illustrating your dishonesty.
> >> >> >Do CT have an explaination that
> >> >> >makes better sense than that?
> >> >>
> >>>> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with the
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
> >> >was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
> >> >hope for also.
> >>
> >>
> >> And for you to accept the evidence is too much to hope for... you're a
> >> coward.
> >
> > I have one fear, that something you say will make sense, and won`t
> >be the product of the pure desire to see evidence of a conspiracy in
> >every aspect of the case. So far, that fear has not been realized.
>
>
> Of course not. You aren't honest enough to take a look at the evidence.
I look at Oz and see a guilty man. You rewrite him into something
that better suits your silly game.
> >>>>>> >> Much like the missing death certificate, or questioning the closest
See, once again kooks disregard the incriminating evidence against
Oz. Pretend it doesn`t exist and *poof*, out of consoderation.
> >If these things
> >didn`t happen, then establish that they didn`t and not just play the
> >usual game of raising what they claim are troubling in an effort to
> >disregard this evidence. If you can`t do that, then accept them as
> >having happened and weigh it as evidence of Oz`s guilt. I know it is
> >easier to pretend these things didn`t happen than to try and come up
> >with a reasonable explaination why Oz would try and kill the cops who
> >arrested him.
> >
> >> >> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
> >> >> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
> >> >> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
> >> >> >not Oz.
> >> >>
> >> >> What does the evidence show?
> >> >
> >> > Nothing to kooks, apparently.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you attempting to imply that you follow the evidence?
> >
> > The evidence you love is the most muddled. If we got all the
> >witnesses to stand and point where they think they heard the shots come
> >from, where would they point?
>
> Two locations... the TSBD, and the GN.
I`m not sure about that. I think if you got each witness in the
> >All over? Where does the evidence clearly
> >show a shot entering Kennedy`s head?
>
> Slightly above and to the right of the EOP.
>
> >Is there no evidence that disputes this place?
>
>
> Yep... most of the investigations have disputed this.
Aspects of the medical evidence can be used to support different
contentions, correct?
> >> >> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
> >> >> know...)
> >> >>
> >> >> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
> >> >> >coordination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that
> >> >> occurred *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it
> >> >> with a ten foot pole.
> >> >
> >> > Could you be more specific?
> >>
> >>
> >> The 'appearance' of LHO at a rifle range, or the car dealership, or the shop
> >> where a scope was mounted... among others.
> >
> > What have you established with these sightings?
>
>
> I'll let *you* make that judgement.
I guess even you admit there is no place to go with this
information.
> >> >> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
> >> >> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
> >> >> >omit, ect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring
> >> >> *before* the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
> >> >> >Have fun.
> >> >>
> >> >> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more
> >> >> blatant as time went by...
> >> >>
> >>>> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical eyewitnesses
> >> >> said about the autopsy photos.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even
> >> >> try.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You see? Dead silence...
> >
> > I`ve answered it numerous times
>
>
> No, you've *never* been able to answer it. It's a critical question, and one
> that undermines all of the government investigations.
>
> That you aren't interested in confronting it is rather understandable, however.
That you aren`t interested in considering Oz a suspect is
undestandable, also. It ruins your silly game.
> >by pointing out that all you do is
> >bitch about what they did. What did you kooks do besides bitch? Those
> >that can, do, those that can`t become critics.
> >
> >> >> >> And with no context to judge his
> >> >> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
> >> >> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
> >> >
> >> > See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you? Tell everyone here what that location was. You say you
> >> have it figured out, yet you cowardly refuse to specify it.
> >
> > Where did Baker say it had occurred, in a lunchroom?
>
> Did he? Quote it.
Why? It`s is pointless to battle kooks on these points. If you don`t
like that the WC concluded this confrontation took place on the second
floor, than present a better case for a different location, and include
that scenario as part of a cohesive package to explain this
assassination. Or nitpick these stupid kook talking points for all
eternity, whichever you perfer.
> >Where did Truly
> >say? Where did Baker point on a floorplan of the TSBD for the WC that
> >it occured? Where did Oz tell his interrogators it occurred? If this
> >isn`t enough information for you to figure out where the encounter took
> >place, why are you even looking at this, and on what grounds can you
> >criticize investigations that could?
>
> Since you aren't willing to look at the evidence, I'll merely mention that it's
> IMPOSSIBLE to specify the location based on Baker's statements. He gives
> different locations.
Who gives a fuck when it is a simple matter to determine where the
confrontation took place? More kook shit to spin their wheels on for no
good reason.
> >> >> >Even though the
Who gives a fuck? I cited this testimony to you last time you
challenged it. Go find it. Google "Bud-Ben-Chaney-Bill Lord".
> >Now, do you have a point about
> >what Chaney said?
>
> Of course... you disregard what he said.
What kind of idiot would select one person in Dealy to determine
what happened?
> >>Since you're willing to believe the police with regards to LHO's statements, you
> >> must *EQUALLY* be willing to accept Chaney's statements...
> >
> > Is that what you think?
>
>
> Were you honest, you would.
If I was a kook, I might.
> >> How do you support the WC theory with the SBT knocked out of it?
> >
> > Actually, that Discovery show confirmed it.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> The very first requirement of an SBT has never been proven, in fact, the
> evidence contradicted it ... transit.
Lets see your renactment that cause the same wounds with a different
firing scheme.
> >You must deny it because
> >it ruins your game if the SBT is true.
>
>
> No, the SBT could be true - it wouldn't rule out multiple assassins. It's just
> that the evidence doesn't support it.
>
> But without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins.
I`ve seen some LN claim otherwise (Caeruleo and one other, I think.)
I think the SBT is right, I`m not sure what possibilities they see
otherwise. I will say that I suspect the time the FBI required to work
that bolt on Oz`s rifle was too long. I think it quite possible Oz
could work it faster at the time of the assassination. I`ve see a few
recreations with MCs, and have seen times much shorter than the 3
seconds the FBI claimed was necessary. Either Oz had the slowest MC on
the planet, or they just didn`t know the idiosycracies of that rifle.
> >> >> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
> >> >supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's mentioned above. What do you want to bet that I'm right?
> >
> > Of course you are, you have correctly anticipated the answer to the
> >question you haven`t yet posed to me.
>
>
> I *DID* pose the question, and you've answered. You disregard Chaney's
> statements, yet accept uncritically those of the cops interviewing LHO. That
> was the only point I needed to make.
I am unaware of what statements of Chaney`s you are refering to.
It`s hard for me to imagine interogators writing anything other than
what Oz indicated, it`s hard to get "I never owned a rifle" out of
"Hell yes, I have a rifle, it`s in the garage where my wife is
staying".
> >> You *CAN'T* believe Chaney. For if you do, the WC's theory becomes moot.
> >
> > I can believe that Chaney believed what he related, and still
> >believe the WC`s finding were correct. Can you figure that one out?
>
>
> Chaney's statement has the benefit of corroboration. But you won't admit that.
No, I don`t think Chaney is even with Kennedy in Altgens.
> >> >> >It`s a kook
> >> >> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
> >> >> >evidence.
> >> >>
> >>>> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
> >> >> eyewitness testimony?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
> >> >>
> >> >> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
> >> >
> >> > Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
> >> >"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's been given many times. There's a number of good books that detail it.
> >
> > Thats funny. Like the scarecrow pointing out the way to Oz. How do
> >they explain Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him, lying about
> >carrying a long bag into work that day, owning a rifle. Do they just
> >disregard these things without comment, or just chuck them out on
> >whatever weak grounds they decide are enough?
>
>
> You'll have to study the evidence to know the answer.
If it entails reading kook-books, forget it.
> >> >> >> This is why you refuse to discuss the evidence.
How do you explain you relative piss-poor consideration of the key
aspects of the case I`ve noted?
> >And
> >figuring out what really happened requires a close scrutiny of Oz`s
> >actions, something kooks are loathe to do.
>
>
> No, it requires a close scrutiny of *THE EVIDENCE*, which you are unwilling to
> do.
Beating to death your talking points is not scrutinizing the
evidence. If you
were to honestly scrutinize Oz, and not totally accept as gospel the
knocks against the evidence agaonst Oz kooks have divised over the
years, you might be able to figure this thing out. I would be a blow to
the game you enjoy, so I know you won`t.
> >> >> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
> >> >
> >> > Months after Oz killed those people.
> >>
> >>
> >> Non Sequitur...
> >
> >>
> >> >> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
> >> >> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
> >> >
> >> > Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
> >> >the shots at that limo?
> >>
> >>
> >> What don't you understand about "fundamental underpinning of their
> >> conclusions"?
> >
> > So you are saying that everyone on the Commission felt that Oz had
> >actually taken all the shots at the limo? Isn`t this the most important
> >aspect of the case?
>
>
> Why can't you answer the question, Bud?
Because the focus should be on who killed JFK. Didn`t the Commision
believe that Oz, acting alone, killed JFK? Was that the truth as they
determined it to be?
> Once again: Why did a majority of the
> commissioners disagree with the fundamental underpinning of their "conclusions"?
>
> And, by the way, since you evidently don't know what this is, it's the SBT.
Did the trajectory of every bullet and every fragment need to be
precisely determined to convict the Beltway Sniper?
> >> Do you even know what it is?
> >
> > What I know is that I`ve never seen a CT make an honesty scrutiny of
> >Oz`s actions. Since they can not or will not do this, they lack the
> >credibility to critique people who could do this.
>
>
> What you *don't* know is the fundamental underpinning of the WC conclusions that
> a majority of the WC commissioners disagreed with... so here it is: the SBT.
>
> Now, care to answer "why?"
Why should I care? I`ve seen the shot amazingly recreated.
> >> >> >> >> Why is the evidence that they've
I have it written on a piece of paper right here in front of me. And
I still won`t produce it.
> >> >> >In any case, I
That is correct, I won`t be told by kooks what I must address.
> >> >> Cowards never support their assertions.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Obviously,
> >> >> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
> >> >> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
> >> >
> >> > There is no such proof, liar.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oak Ridge did the tests on the paraffin casts of LHO's cheek. Once again,
> >> your ignorance of the evidence is showing...
> >
> > Your ignorance in calling this "proof" is showing.
>
>
> You argued that there was "no such proof". Ignorant, weren't you?
No, it isn`t proof. It`s evidence, maybe, and indication, maybe, but
proof. No. Some might have considered the DNA evidence against OJ as
proof he killed Nicole. Yet, we know the results that "proof" had on a
jury.
> Can you even describe what the test consisted of?
Do you know all the details?
> And how it was checked?
I think you said something about 7 test subjects. I wonder how you
have only such limited aspects of the testing, not the whole thing.
Wasn`t it Harold Weisberg, or Wienberg or something much closer, that
tracked this down? Why didn`t he release it in it`s entirety?
> >> >> Or the multiple eyewitnesses that place him in a location where
> >> >> shots could *NOT* have been fired from?
> >> >
> >> > At 12:30?
> >>
> >>
> >> 11:50 and 12:15.
> >
> > What murders were committed at these times? How were these times
> >established, did the witnesses just give estimations?
>
>
> You're theory can't allow for this. Hence, you must deny the eyewitness
> testimony.
To be a kook you must pretend that time estimates are necessarily
accurate.
> >> >>>>>Likely because of the skewed manner in which you choose to view that
> >> >>evidence.
> >> >> >> >Should I care?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> About the evidence? Clearly you don't... and yes, you should.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you want the truth, that is...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kooks don`t want the truth. If they did, they would examine the
> >> >> >evidence incriminating Oz on the first day,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>>Oh? Let's examine that "first" day... can you name anyone else who was
> >>detained
> >>>> as a suspect, and had his rifle confiscated from his home, and subjected to a
> >> >> lie detector test?
> >> >>
> >>>> But surely, if all the evidence pointed to LHO, why was anyone else detained?
> >> >
> >> > You can`t figure that out either? Likely someone thought it prudent
> >> >to go through the motions to positively eliminate Frazier from any
> >> >wrongdoing. Is there a stupider reason you would like to cling to?
> >>
> >>
> >> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
> >
> > Why, because you can`t figure out why they might think Oz was the
> >shooter and still handle Frazier in this manner?
>
>
> Makes nonsense of your "first day" theory, doesn't it?
Why do you say that? Do you think because they processed Frazier in
this manner, that they must have believed he was in on the
assassination? Thats kooky.
> >> >> >instead of putting all
> >> >> >their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
> >> >
> >> > If you take the police interrogation at face value, and what Marina
> >> >related at face value, then it is obvious that Oz is guilty. So kooks
> >> >decide to disregard this incriminating evidence, as it interferes with
> >> >their silly game.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you take *ALL* the evidence at face value.... but you won't.
> >
> > You don`t want to honestly examine what Oz did that day,
>
>
> On the contrary - I'm the one who is actually looking at the eyewitness testmony
> as to his locations that day.
And you pretend witnesses are time clocks. It`s part of the kook
game. Pretend things are carved in stone to draw the conclusions kooks
desire to draw.
> >you want to examine the investigation into this that occured months later.
<snicker> And they are "equal circumstances"?
> That you're willing to uncritically accept one, and not the other, illustrates
> your biases...
Tell me again who they are "equal circumstances". Typical reality
evasion of kooks.
> >> >> >yet kooks feel it should be chucked out on
Blah, blah, blah. Every time I ask for this same thing, you claim it
exists, but never produce it. A cohesive package stringing together all
these things you consider facts, two shells, Oz`s non-ownership of the
rifle (don`t forget to establish why Marina thought he owned a rifle),
just everything from soup to kooks. Never seen it, it don`t exist, and
it never will. Don`t think endlessly jabbering over your talking points
is fooling anyone into thinking you have such a thing to produce. Write
it up, you are a kook scholar, you know this case thoroughly. But,
remember, it must pass muster and be able to withstand the scrutiny the
WC has received. No unsupported claims, if two shells were found,
produce the witnesses that saw only two shells on the TSBD floor, and
establish how and when the third one was introduced into evidence.
> >> >> >I`d imagine that
Whatever floats your boat.
>
> My point has already been made anyway - you expect me to uncritically accept
> what the Dallas police said, yet you refuse to do so.
Both things are the same to a kook.
> >> >> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>>If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would
> >>be
> >> >> able to point out the contradictions.
> >> >
> >> > If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
> >> >trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
> >> >to.
> >> >
> >>>>But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you won't
> >> >> be able to find any contradictions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
> >> >he did.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your ignorance about what Chaney *actually* said is amusing...
> >
> > Tell it to Bill Lord of the BBC.
>
>
> Provide a citation, coward...
Nah, not me.
> >> >> >> >> >I`m stuck with the only
> >> >> >> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
> >>>> >> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
> >> >> >> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
> >> >> >> >out how the fire started.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
> >> >> >> because it makes you look the fool.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
> >> >> >yourself it is progress you are making. Seems like standing still to me.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the actual
> >> >> evidence.
> >> >
> >> > What exactly did you quote Chaney as having said?
> >>
> >>
> >> I *haven't* quoted him in this thread.
> >
> > I didn`t think so. So why are you claiming I am neglecting to deal
> >with something in regards to Chaney when you haven`t produced one thing
> >by Chaney for me to deal with?
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
I totally agree with everything you have quoted Chaney as having
said in this thread. Better?
<SNIP>
Ben Holmes
Why lie about it, Bud? I responded directly to your implication that Givens
contradicted the statements I referred to. You refused to support your
implication when directly challenged.
And now you decide to?
As I stated: "Then you know that Givens doesn't contradict the two eyewitness
accounts I referred to.... next?"
>> >I only asked why you are sure about
>> >the times of those sightings, and if you can establish whether they
>> >occurred before the encounter with Givens on the 6th floor.
>>
>> My answer stands.
>
> Your chickshit evasion stands.
Oh? Because I refuse to back off from the eyewitness testimony I referred to,
it's a "chickshit" evasion?
Perhaps you can explain why you refused to support your implication when I
challenged you on it above...
>As usual, the weight you give to an
>unconfirmed sighting carries more weight than a answer given to
>multiple witnesses during questioning.
Givens was corroborated by who?
>Your crooked and skewed manner
>of weighing evidence is designed to to continue this silly game you
>enjoy indefinately.
And yet, we're still back to the very same question I asked you posts ago...
"Then you know that Givens doesn't contradict the two eyewitness accounts I
referred to.... next?"
>> >> You've attempted to pit Givens against my cites... now you won't back it
>> >> up, no doubt because you went back and actually *read* his words, and
>> >> realize that it doesn't say what you thought it did.
>> >
>> > My point was that you are always trying to make information that is
>> >not precisely established, such as the times of the sightings you
>> >mentioned, and pretend it is carved in stone. Because only if these
>> >things are rock solid can you makes the leaps you wish to take from
>> >this information.
>>
>> Go ahead, Bud... try to move the 12:15 sighting back to before noon...
>
> Go ahead Ben, pretend the estimated times supplied by witnesses is
>reliable.
Oh? Are you *really* going to try moving that 12:15 time back before noon?
Funny that you're willing to put words in my mouth, but refuse to answer simple
questions...
But as we all know - when you must lie to support your point... it isn't much of
a point.
>Which only shows your desire to
>disregard incriminating evidence about Oz.
As you've just illustrated your disregard for the incriminating evidence against
Frazier.
>Which shows you are not
>actually trying to get to the bottom of this, but are engaged in some
>silly gamesmanship.
When you're unwilling to view the evidence, you can't be "trying" to get to the
truth.
>> I place it in it's proper place with
>> regards to all other evidence.
>
> Yah, filed under "Lies the Dallas Police told about what Oz told
>them". Your eagerness to disregard this information show you to be
>dishonest in your approach. Of course you can`t figure this thing out,
>you try so hard *not* to.
>
>> And what, again, was Chaney's *actual* statements? Surely you
>> won't "disregard" them.
>
> Why would I expect all the eyewitnesses in Dealy to say the same
>thing?
Come on, Bud... this is really simple. You uncritically accept the Dallas PD's
word, yet hypocritically refuse to believe the Dallas PD's word WHEN IT'S
CORROBORATED!
How cowardly is that?
>> >If you really were looking to get to the bottom of this, you
>> >would look long and hard at the person who`s rifle was found where the
>> >shots were fired.
>>
>> Yep... the single most damning piece of evidence. Unfortunately for you,
>> the rest of the evidence doesn't support your theory.
>
> Cowardly evasion which illustrates your reluctance to consider Oz as
>a suspect. The game is to find reason to disregard the evidence against
>Oz, not consider it.
Why aren't you willing to debate the evidence, Bud?
>> >Instead of complaining about how illegal it was
>> >geting information from Oz`s wife,
>>
>> It was not illegality that I was worried about.
>
> Why lie? It was the illegality of it you questioned, going so far
>as to cite statutes you felt were ignored.
How stupid are you, Bud?
The illegality of the actions were of small import to the *condition* under
which the testimony was being elicited. I pointed this out previously, and you
ignored it then too.
Rather a coward, aren't you? Trying to pretend to be searching for the truth,
but when it's pointed out, you run in the other direction...
>> Perhaps you should take the
>> time to become informed on this matter...
>
> You inform me about the depths of your dishonesty every post.
It wouldn't be hard to locate the previous time when this exact point was being
made before.
You ignored it then, too.
>> >if you really were interested in
>> >getting to the truth you would happily welcome this information and
>> >insight, as Oz was a closed individual that not many had contact with.
>> >But you aren`t interested in getting to the bottom of this, because
>> >that is where Oz is. It would ruin this silly game you kooks have
>> >devided to scrutinize Oz honestly.
>>
>> I find it funny that someone unfamiliar with the actual evidence is
>> accusing me of not being interested in the truth... :)
>
> You aren`t interested in the truth. You are interested in
>maintaining this silly game. If you honestly considered the evidence,
The evidence that I keep citing, and you keep ignoring?
>you would conclude Oz`s culpability, and thus ruin the game for you.
>Can you honesty say that Oz`s demeanor in custody of those of a
>innocent, scared confused patsy? When his brother came to visit, was he
>frantically seeking his help, confused at his situation? If Oz`s
>reality is as the kooks say, why doesn`t his demeanor and actions
>reflect this? Oz guilty answers all these nagging problems, Oz innocent
>begs questions, like why he denied owning a rifle. Kooks work hard to
>devise answers, for the sake of their silly game, not the truth.
This is pure nonsense, of course. Much like LHO's "demeanor" with the taxicab
scene we went over earlier...
>> >> For example, the location of the back wound - they *KNEW* it was in the
>> >> back, and not in the neck. You can read this in the executive session
>> >> transcripts.
>> >
>> > But why did Oz claim that he hadn`t brung a long paper bag into
>> >wotk that morning?
>>
>>
>> Did he? Can you quote his words?
Evidently not...
> Do I need to to conclude that he expressed to the cops that he
>didn`t own a rifle? Do I need to be sure that all the quoted dialog on
>record is verbatum dialog? The question you need to ask is the question
>can`t even work your way up to. Why did Oz tell the cops he didn`t own
>a rifle. Play games and pretend he didn`t, it only exposes your
>dishonesy and cowardice to address the issues the WC did.
>
>> And why did the WC lie about the location of the back wound? Why did
>> they feel it necessary to lie? Surely, as someone interested in the
>> truth, you'd like to know the answer to this... :)
>
> How does the location effect Oz shooting those people months
>earlier?
Quite simple. If the location is where it *actually* is, then there's no SBT,
and that is *proof* of multiple assassins.
>Start with the event, try to honestly evaluate Oz as a
>suspect.
I have. The evidence doesn't support LHO as the assassin. Evidence that you
refuse to directly address. Why is that, Bud?
>You can`t or won`t, whichever it is, the reason is clear. You
>have a desire to avoid the truth.
>
>> >> >You think that one piece outweighs all the other evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Which piece is that?
>> >
>> > Nitrate tests to Oz`s face.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't outweigh the other evidence, it corroborates it.
>
> When you ignore all the parts that incriminate Oz.
Feel free to list these "parts".
>> >> There's a *multitude* of evidence I'm referring to... the
>> >> fact that only two cartridge cases were found at the SN,
>> >
>> > <snicker> Another excellent example of kook denial.
>>
>>
>> You can look at the photos too. (That is, if you were interested in
>> the truth.)
>
> I have, there are three shells. Kooks can`t get the basics right.
When you feel the need to lie to support your "point", it isn't much of a point,
is it?
Jesse Curry's "JFK Assassination File", page 88, is one place you can find one
of these photos.
>> >> the location of the
>> >> back wound, the multitude of earwitness accounts for the GN,
>> >
>> > I assume the sounds the witnesses reported were all the same sounds,
>> >correct. So why did witnesses give different accounts of where the
>> >sound originated from?
>>
>>
>> If you had a smidgion of truth in you, the obvious answer will jump out
>> at you.
>
> Another chickenshit evasion.
Nope... not at all. Intelligent lurkers caught this one right away, I have no
doubt.
My answer was the absolute truth... not an evasion at all.
>> >> the failure to include obvious evidence, such as the death certificate,
>> >> and critical eyewitness accounts, the tests done at Oak Ridge which prove
>> >> that LHO never fired a rifle,
>> >
>> > Prove?
>>
>> Yep. That's the correct word. This is undoubtably why the WC locked these
>> tests up, and it took a court case to pry them from the government.
>
> Are you saying there never would have been a trial with Oz as
>suspect even had he lived, because of the existance of this piece of
>evidence?
Why bother with strawmen?
Why are you unwilling to deal with this evidence? Why was it hidden by the
government, and not dealt with by the WC? They *DID* know about it.
>> >You can be sure they would have went ahead with a trial even
>> >if Oz`s defense had those test results. BTW, in those Oak Ridge test
>> >you refer to, did they use the iron sights or the scope? Which did Oz
>> >use?
>>
>> "Iron sights or scope"??? What does *that* have to do with anything?
>> Surely you're not so stupid as to suggest that the cheek would be in a
>> different location on the stock...
>
> Surely you aren`t so stupid as to put great faith in testing you
>don`t know the basic details about. What kind of rifle was used in the
>testing? Did it have a scope?
Nope... not going to lead you by the hand. Either research it, or ask for help
to locate this information yourself.
Actually, come to think of it, I've listed this information before...
But silly implications about whether the iron sights or scope were used are
simply that... silly.
>>>> the actual tests done to attempt to duplicate LHO's alleged firing speed...
>> >
>> > Any attempt to recreate Oz`s firing speed is missing the most
>> >important component, wouldn`t you say?
>>
>>
>> The tests done without LHO's rifle certainly were...
>>
>>
>> >> I
>> >> can go on, but this merely highlights your ignorance of the case.
>> >
>> > Only an illustration of typical kook denial.
>>
>>
>> Who's in denial?
>
> Kooks. If Oz is guilty it spoils their game.
>>
>> >> >The
>> >> >WC didn`t. Their opinion mattered, as they were tapped to investigate
>> >> >this matter, the opinions of kooks are immaterial.
>> >>
>> >> No, they were *NOT* tapped to "investigate". I've covered this before in
>> >> detail. The investigation was given to the FBI.
>> >
>> > Yet the WC`s mandate contains that very word.
>>
>> No, IT DOES NOT! You're a liar. I defy you to produce the actual quote.
>> Just to help you, it's Executive Order 11130, dated 29 November.
>
> Not there.
How can it not be? THIS IS THE OFFICIAL ORDER GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT, MANDATING
WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.
Do you have problems understanding simple things?
Do you know what a "mandate" is?
You lied, and got caught at it... the word "investigation" does *not* appear in
the mandate given to the Warren Commission.
>Look at the first paragragh of the Report, where they
>outline what they were tasked to do.
>
>> But you won't, of course...
Looks like my crystal ball is still working quite well...
>> >In any case, they were
>> >charged with looking into this matter, and concluded three shots were
>> >fired from the TSBD. Kooks looking into this matter have concluded only
>> >two were fired. What could matter less than what kooks conclude?
>>
>> When the WC "concluded" that three shots had been fired from the TSBD, they
>> contradicted their own evidence. But you knew this, right?
>
> I know kooks contest just about everything the WC said. As is often
>the case, the WC was right, and the kooks wrong.
When the WC "concluded" that three shots had been fired from the TSBD, they
contradicted their own evidence. But you knew this, right?
>> >> And the WC knew that they were 'stuck' with the FBI, and realized early
>> >> on that the FBI had a preconceived theory that they were going to be
>> >> stuck with. Again, read the executive session transcripts.
>> >
>> > Not a bad position to be stuck with the truth.
>>
>> This wasn't, of course, the WC staff's opinion.
>
> Are you saying the entire staff felt Oz was innocent?
I'm stating that the WC knew that the FBI wasn't conducting an honest
investigation. Feel free to read their own words... it's in, as I recall, the
Jan. executive session transcript.
You can argue your own strawmen...
The WC did it quite well enough... their own evidence contradicts their theory
quite well.
>> >All they do is
>> >willy-nilly discard inconvenient evidence that implicates Oz, as you
>> >did with Oz`s denial he owned the rifle.
>>
>> Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >Kooks just decide it has no
>> >validity, and presto, it disappears.
>> >
>> >> The WC itself contradicts their "conclusions".
>> >
>> > Supply a version that takes into account all the evidence which does
>> >not contradict itself.
>>
>> The WC couldn't do that. Why would you dishonestly ask someone else to
>> do what the WC couldn't do?
>
> Are you saying you can`t do it?
Are you saying that you really don't sexually molest little boys?
>Then why look into the case if a
>noncontrary alternative is impossible?
I go where the evidence leads. This is, no doubt, the reason that *you* refuse
to examine the evidence.
>> >It should be easy, just use the WC basic
>> >framework, and omit the contradictions. Be sure to explain why the cops
>> >on the 6th floor (and pictures taken) said there was three hulls on the
>> >floor, and you claim two.
>>
>> I suggest that you *look* at the photo.
>
> Did, theres a blow up on McAdams site that show all three. You
>illustrate you total lack of credibility when you dispute issues like
>this.
Since I've given a rather credible cite earlier in this post, makes you look
like the ignorant fool, doesn't it?
Once again, your ignorance of the evidence shines through...
It's only "cowardly" to those who either don't know the evidence, or who don't
*want* to know the evidence.
And despite the fact that he has corroboration from other eyewitnesses. But
don't let that bother you. You aren't honest enough to let that bother you...
>There is bound to be confusion early on as the mind
>tries to piece information and impressions together to get a picture of
>what just happened. Often these impressions are strong, and wrong.
>There have been tests done that bear this out. But it suits your silly
>game to present these impressions as established and factually correct.
Oh, I suspect that lurkers have well understood the point I was making by now.
You aren't honest with the way you handle the evidence.
>> >And of course a cop asking a specific question to get
>> >a suspects answer for recording is the exact same context as a cop
>> >relating the details of a sudden unexpected attack.
>>
>> Coward...
>
> Yah, I was cowardly considering the different contexts. You ignore
>them, thus once again illustrating your dishonesty.
How can I be dishonest when I'm following the evidence?
And how is it that you don't know of Chaney's corroboration?
>> >> >> >Do CT have an explaination that
>> >> >> >makes better sense than that?
>> >> >>
>>>>>> I could care less about "explanations". That's your forte. I deal with
>>the
>> >> >> evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I knew it would be too much to ask for the CT "findings", so I
>> >> >was willing to accept an explaination. Apparently that is too much to
>> >> >hope for also.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And for you to accept the evidence is too much to hope for... you're a
>> >> coward.
>> >
>> > I have one fear, that something you say will make sense, and won`t
>> >be the product of the pure desire to see evidence of a conspiracy in
>> >every aspect of the case. So far, that fear has not been realized.
>>
>>
>> Of course not. You aren't honest enough to take a look at the evidence.
>
> I look at Oz and see a guilty man.
I look at the evidence, and see a patsy.
Nah, I merely point out that when you have to lie about the evidence, you must
not be trying to seek the truth.
>> >If these things
>> >didn`t happen, then establish that they didn`t and not just play the
>> >usual game of raising what they claim are troubling in an effort to
>> >disregard this evidence. If you can`t do that, then accept them as
>> >having happened and weigh it as evidence of Oz`s guilt. I know it is
>> >easier to pretend these things didn`t happen than to try and come up
>> >with a reasonable explaination why Oz would try and kill the cops who
>> >arrested him.
>> >
>> >> >> >> I'd have to trust the very people who have been proven to have
>> >> >> >> lied to accept that LHO actually said that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There you go, you are a kook. You disregard what the prime suspect
>> >> >> >said to the cops about that rifle, feeling the cops are the liars and
>> >> >> >not Oz.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What does the evidence show?
>> >> >
>> >> > Nothing to kooks, apparently.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Are you attempting to imply that you follow the evidence?
>> >
>> > The evidence you love is the most muddled. If we got all the
>> >witnesses to stand and point where they think they heard the shots come
>> >from, where would they point?
>>
>> Two locations... the TSBD, and the GN.
>
> I`m not sure about that.
Of course you aren't. You probably have never spent the time reading the
eyewitness statements.
I've noted before the tendency of LNT'ers who try to smother the truth with a
massive amount of words. Hoping that if they throw enough of them out there,
they'll make a point.
>> >All over? Where does the evidence clearly
>> >show a shot entering Kennedy`s head?
>>
>> Slightly above and to the right of the EOP.
>>
>> >Is there no evidence that disputes this place?
>>
>>
>> Yep... most of the investigations have disputed this.
>
> Aspects of the medical evidence can be used to support different
>contentions, correct?
Which investigation DID NOT dispute the entry location, Bud?
Let's stick with the facts. Name the *ONLY* investigation not to dispute the
entry location in the head.
>> >> >> (silly asking you such a pertinent question, I
>> >> >> know...)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >It was a coordinated effort against Oz, yet you can`t show the
>> >> >> >coordination.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Untrue. In this very thread I've referred to the framing of LHO that
>> >> >> occurred *before* the assassination. But, as usual, you won't touch it
>> >> >> with a ten foot pole.
>> >> >
>> >> > Could you be more specific?
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> The 'appearance' of LHO at a rifle range, or the car dealership, or the shop
>> >> where a scope was mounted... among others.
>> >
>> > What have you established with these sightings?
>>
>>
>> I'll let *you* make that judgement.
>
> I guess even you admit there is no place to go with this
>information.
Oh, I know *exactly* where to go with this. And one way to use it, is to
illustrate how LNT'ers are afraid to discuss evidence such as this.
It's one of the best illustrations of a frameup, and *PRIOR* to the
assassination.
>> >> >> >Show someone before the assassination or right after
>>>> >> >giving the Dallas Police instructions on how to proceed, what to twist,
>> >> >> >omit, ect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't need to. Already *have* shown efforts to frame LHO occurring
>> >> >> *before* the assassination.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >You have nowhere to go but to continue griping about the WC.
>> >> >> >Have fun.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And all the other "official" investigations. They actually became more
>> >> >> blatant as time went by...
>> >> >>
>>>>>> Take, for example, the way the HSCA lied about what the medical
>>eyewitnesses
>> >> >> said about the autopsy photos.
>> >> >>
>>>> >> You can't explain why they felt it necessary to lie... nor will you even
>> >> >> try.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You see? Dead silence...
>> >
>> > I`ve answered it numerous times
>>
>>
>> No, you've *never* been able to answer it. It's a critical question,
>> and one that undermines all of the government investigations.
>>
>> That you aren't interested in confronting it is rather understandable,
>> however.
>
> That you aren`t interested in considering Oz a suspect is
>undestandable, also. It ruins your silly game.
Ah, but I *did* consider him a suspect. Unfortunately, the evidence shows his
innocence.
>> >by pointing out that all you do is
>> >bitch about what they did. What did you kooks do besides bitch? Those
>> >that can, do, those that can`t become critics.
>> >
>> >> >> >> And with no context to judge his
>>>> >> >> answer, I'd be as foolish as you should I try to base an opinion on it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There you go, it is equal in your mind that all the cops in the
>> >> >> >interogating room lied as it is that Oz did.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where did Baker meet LHO in the TSBD?
>> >> >
>> >> > See, you can`t even figure out the easy ones.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Coward, aren't you? Tell everyone here what that location was. You say you
>> >> have it figured out, yet you cowardly refuse to specify it.
>> >
>> > Where did Baker say it had occurred, in a lunchroom?
>>
>> Did he? Quote it.
>
> Why?
Because you're too gutless to admit that you're simply wrong. And the best way
to prove you wrong is to allow yourself to do it.
But you're too cowardly to research it.
>It`s is pointless to battle kooks on these points.
Impossible, too.
>If you don`t
>like that the WC concluded
Oh? And here, I thought you'd just attempted to assert that *BAKER* was the
authority as to the location.
Rather cowardly of you to try switching to the WC. It seems that perhaps you
*did* look it up, and realize that Baker gave multiple locations.
Illustrating, of course, that once again you didn't know what you were talking
about, and I did.
>this confrontation took place on the second
>floor, than present a better case for a different location, and include
>that scenario as part of a cohesive package to explain this
>assassination. Or nitpick these stupid kook talking points for all
>eternity, whichever you perfer.
>
>> >Where did Truly
>> >say? Where did Baker point on a floorplan of the TSBD for the WC that
>> >it occured? Where did Oz tell his interrogators it occurred? If this
>> >isn`t enough information for you to figure out where the encounter took
>> >place, why are you even looking at this, and on what grounds can you
>> >criticize investigations that could?
>>
>> Since you aren't willing to look at the evidence, I'll merely mention
>> that it's IMPOSSIBLE to specify the location based on Baker's statements.
>> He gives different locations.
>
> Who gives a fuck
People who wish to show how ignorant you are ... after all, it was *you* who
tried to use Baker as the authority for where this meeting took place.
>when it is a simple matter to determine where the
>confrontation took place?
Why lie about it?
Nothing comes up that is a cite. Looks like you're still a liar, Bud.
Now, strangely enough, you can locate statements from Chaney in a *number* of
books... and all of them are the statements *I* was referring to.
Seems that Bud either has no reference library of JFK books, or he's merely
dishonest. (or both...)
>> >Now, do you have a point about
>> >what Chaney said?
>>
>> Of course... you disregard what he said.
>
> What kind of idiot would select one person in Dealy to determine
>what happened?
What kind of idiot would select one Police Officer to determine what LHO said in
an interview?
>>>>Since you're willing to believe the police with regards to LHO's statements,
>>you
>> >> must *EQUALLY* be willing to accept Chaney's statements...
>> >
>> > Is that what you think?
>>
>>
>> Were you honest, you would.
>
> If I was a kook, I might.
Yep... dishonest. As I've stated all along.
>> >> How do you support the WC theory with the SBT knocked out of it?
>> >
>> > Actually, that Discovery show confirmed it.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!
>>
>> The very first requirement of an SBT has never been proven, in fact, the
>> evidence contradicted it ... transit.
>
> Lets see your renactment that cause the same wounds with a different
>firing scheme.
The very first requirement of an SBT has never been proven, in fact, the
evidence contradicted it ... transit.
>> >You must deny it because
>> >it ruins your game if the SBT is true.
>>
>>
>> No, the SBT could be true - it wouldn't rule out multiple assassins.
>> It's just that the evidence doesn't support it.
>>
>> But without the SBT, you *MUST* have multiple assassins.
>
> I`ve seen some LN claim otherwise (Caeruleo and one other, I think.)
>I think the SBT is right, I`m not sure what possibilities they see
>otherwise. I will say that I suspect the time the FBI required to work
>that bolt on Oz`s rifle was too long. I think it quite possible Oz
>could work it faster at the time of the assassination. I`ve see a few
>recreations with MCs, and have seen times much shorter than the 3
>seconds the FBI claimed was necessary. Either Oz had the slowest MC on
>the planet, or they just didn`t know the idiosycracies of that rifle.
If you were *really* interested in the truth, you'd research the statements of
those who actually worked the bolt on the MC.
But I certainly don't expect you to...
>> >> >> >Kooks don`t consider it evidence, therefore it is not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You'll declare the same with Chaney... hypocrite, aren't you?
>> >> >
>> >> > You anticipate my reaction without even making the point I`m
>> >> >supposed to react to. What did Chaney say that makes me a hypocrite?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's mentioned above. What do you want to bet that I'm right?
>> >
>> > Of course you are, you have correctly anticipated the answer to the
>> >question you haven`t yet posed to me.
>>
>>
>> I *DID* pose the question, and you've answered. You disregard Chaney's
>> statements, yet accept uncritically those of the cops interviewing LHO.
>> That was the only point I needed to make.
>
> I am unaware of what statements of Chaney`s you are refering to.
Of 'course' you are... and yet, *EVERY* reference book on the JFK assassination
that mentions Chaney's statements talks about his belief that separate bullets
hit JFK and Connally, AND NOT A SINGLE ONE TALKS ABOUT HIS "BELIEF" THAT THE
SHOTS CAME FROM BEHIND HIM.
Sometimes, a coincidence is merely that... but in this case, I suspect your
dishonesty won out again.
This isn't the first time Chaney has come up for discussion.
>It`s hard for me to imagine interogators writing anything other than
>what Oz indicated, it`s hard to get "I never owned a rifle" out of
>"Hell yes, I have a rifle, it`s in the garage where my wife is
>staying".
Yep... there was a time when most of America felt this way. It wasn't
conceivable that the government or FBI or police would lie.
>> >> You *CAN'T* believe Chaney. For if you do, the WC's theory becomes moot.
>> >
>> > I can believe that Chaney believed what he related, and still
>> >believe the WC`s finding were correct. Can you figure that one out?
>>
>>
>> Chaney's statement has the benefit of corroboration. But you won't admit
>> that.
>
> No, I don`t think Chaney is even with Kennedy in Altgens.
Another illustration of your near total ignorance of this case.
Altgen's has *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with corroborating Chaney's statements.
>> >> >> >It`s a kook
>> >> >> >game, discarding the inconvenient evidence, focusing on the irrelevant
>> >> >> >evidence.
>> >> >>
>>>>>> Such as the death certificate? Such as the medical testimony? Such as the
>> >> >> eyewitness testimony?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Why should I follow kooks, they have no answers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We *do* have the answers... that's what scares you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Will I be seeing the CT finding sometime in my lifetime? Just saying
>> >> >"conspiracy" is a bit scant, could you flesh it out a bit?
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> It's been given many times. There's a number of good books that detail it.
>> >
>> > Thats funny. Like the scarecrow pointing out the way to Oz. How do
>> >they explain Oz trying to kill the cops who arrested him, lying about
>> >carrying a long bag into work that day, owning a rifle. Do they just
>> >disregard these things without comment, or just chuck them out on
>> >whatever weak grounds they decide are enough?
>>
>>
>> You'll have to study the evidence to know the answer.
>
> If it entails reading kook-books, forget it.
The 26 volumes are all you need.
When you have to lie to make a point, have you really said anything?
>> >And
>> >figuring out what really happened requires a close scrutiny of Oz`s
>> >actions, something kooks are loathe to do.
>>
>>
>> No, it requires a close scrutiny of *THE EVIDENCE*, which you are unwilling
>> to do.
>
> Beating to death your talking points is not scrutinizing the
>evidence. If you
>were to honestly scrutinize Oz, and not totally accept as gospel the
>knocks against the evidence agaonst Oz kooks have divised over the
>years, you might be able to figure this thing out. I would be a blow to
>the game you enjoy, so I know you won`t.
I've listed nothing that wasn't known to the Warren Commission.
>> >> >> Why did they feel it necessary to lie to support this conclusion?
>> >> >
>> >> > Months after Oz killed those people.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Non Sequitur...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> Why did a majority of the commissioners disagree with the fundamental
>> >> >> underpinning of their "conclusions"?
>> >> >
>> >> > Who on the Commission didn`t think that Oz, acting alone, took all
>> >> >the shots at that limo?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What don't you understand about "fundamental underpinning of their
>> >> conclusions"?
>> >
>> > So you are saying that everyone on the Commission felt that Oz had
>> >actually taken all the shots at the limo? Isn`t this the most important
>> >aspect of the case?
>>
>>
>> Why can't you answer the question, Bud?
>
> Because the focus should be on who killed JFK. Didn`t the Commision
>believe that Oz, acting alone, killed JFK? Was that the truth as they
>determined it to be?
Can't answer simple questions, can you Bud?
>> Once again: Why did a majority of the
>> commissioners disagree with the fundamental underpinning of
>> their "conclusions"?
>>
>> And, by the way, since you evidently don't know what this is, it's the SBT.
>
> Did the trajectory of every bullet and every fragment need to be
>precisely determined to convict the Beltway Sniper?
Why did a majority of the commissioners refuse to believe the SBT, Bud?
>> >> Do you even know what it is?
>> >
>> > What I know is that I`ve never seen a CT make an honesty scrutiny of
>> >Oz`s actions. Since they can not or will not do this, they lack the
>> >credibility to critique people who could do this.
>>
>>
>> What you *don't* know is the fundamental underpinning of the WC conclusions
>> that a majority of the WC commissioners disagreed with... so here it is:
>> the SBT.
>>
>> Now, care to answer "why?"
>
> Why should I care?'
You would if you were interested in the truth.
>I`ve seen the shot amazingly recreated.
But not, however, in accordance with the evidence.
Of course not. You're a liar. Much like Tony Marsh who still refuses to cite
for his silly allegation of Dr. Humes.
"But you won't..."
>> >> >> Cowards never support their assertions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Obviously,
>>>> >> >since you give no thought to the blatent incriminating evidence against
>> >> >> >Oz, you will come to differing conclusions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Such as the proof that he never fired a rifle that day?
>> >> >
>> >> > There is no such proof, liar.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Oak Ridge did the tests on the paraffin casts of LHO's cheek. Once
>> >> again, your ignorance of the evidence is showing...
>> >
>> > Your ignorance in calling this "proof" is showing.
>>
>>
>> You argued that there was "no such proof". Ignorant, weren't you?
>
> No, it isn`t proof. It`s evidence, maybe,
How would you know? You don't even have a clue about what was done.
Another illustration of your basic dishonesty... denying what you don't even
know anything about.
>and indication, maybe, but
>proof. No. Some might have considered the DNA evidence against OJ as
>proof he killed Nicole. Yet, we know the results that "proof" had on a
>jury.
I don't confuse a jury's opinion with the truth.
>> Can you even describe what the test consisted of?
>
> Do you know all the details?
Can you even describe what the test consisted of?
>> And how it was checked?
>
> I think you said something about 7 test subjects.
Is *this* the extent of your research???
Your ignorance is showing, yet again...
>I wonder how you
>have only such limited aspects of the testing, not the whole thing.
>Wasn`t it Harold Weisberg, or Wienberg or something much closer, that
>tracked this down? Why didn`t he release it in it`s entirety?
Once again, your ignorance is showing. He did.
Yep... they went to his home and confiscated his rifle because they thought he
didn't have his "rifle license" correctly renewed... is that it?
Just how stupid do you think people are, Bud?
>> >> >> >instead of putting all
>> >> >> >their efforts into finding reasons to disregard it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why are you so frightened of the evidence?
>> >> >
>> >> > If you take the police interrogation at face value, and what Marina
>> >> >related at face value, then it is obvious that Oz is guilty. So kooks
>> >> >decide to disregard this incriminating evidence, as it interferes with
>> >> >their silly game.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you take *ALL* the evidence at face value.... but you won't.
>> >
>> > You don`t want to honestly examine what Oz did that day,
>>
>>
>> On the contrary - I'm the one who is actually looking at the eyewitness
>> testmony as to his locations that day.
>
> And you pretend witnesses are time clocks. It`s part of the kook
>game. Pretend things are carved in stone to draw the conclusions kooks
>desire to draw.
You don't have any way to push that 12:15 sighting back before noon, do you?
I suppose that next you'll be asking me if they *both* wore size 12....
My point's been made. You've illustrated your hypocrisy.
The evidence in this case already *does* this.
That you are ignorant of this could have been predicted...
Another Tony Marsh...
>> My point has already been made anyway - you expect me to uncritically accept
>> what the Dallas police said, yet you refuse to do so.
>
> Both things are the same to a kook.
>
>> >> >> >> And how is it contradictory to the WC theory?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How do kooks imagine it to be contradictory? I can only imagine.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>>>>>If you take the time to be truthful about what Chaney said, even *you* would
>> >>be
>> >> >> able to point out the contradictions.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you have a point to make, make it, Ben, don`t be scared. I`m not
>> >> >trying to decipher and quess about what the hell it is you are refering
>> >> >to.
>> >> >
>>>>>>But when you're forced to lie about what Chaney said, then of course you
>>won't
>> >> >> be able to find any contradictions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >
>> >> > All I said is that Chaney said the shots came from behind him. And
>> >> >he did.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your ignorance about what Chaney *actually* said is amusing...
>> >
>> > Tell it to Bill Lord of the BBC.
>>
>>
>> Provide a citation, coward...
>
> Nah, not me.
Liar.
>> >> >> >> >> >I`m stuck with the only
>> >> >> >> >> >explaination put on the table. The WC`s findings.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Which, to complete the circle, you are unwilling to defend.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Ah, poor kooks, I won`t play the game by the rules they have
>>>>>> >> >devised. Put the WC on the defensive, and get Oz off through the smoke.
>>>> >> >> >Keep the focus on the fire trucks, kooks, thats a good way to figure
>> >> >> >> >out how the fire started.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> The focus will always be on the evidence itself. You won't go there,
>> >> >> >> because it makes you look the fool.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Spin on that perpetual motion machine forever. You can convince
>>>> >> >yourself it is progress you are making. Seems like standing still to me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>>>>> And yet... as we see just above with Chaney - you can't deal with the
>>actual
>> >> >> evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > What exactly did you quote Chaney as having said?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I *haven't* quoted him in this thread.
>> >
>> > I didn`t think so. So why are you claiming I am neglecting to deal
>> >with something in regards to Chaney when you haven`t produced one thing
>> >by Chaney for me to deal with?
>>
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
> I totally agree with everything you have quoted Chaney as having
>said in this thread. Better?
Then you can't believe in the SBT. And with no SBT, you *MUST* have multiple
assassins.
Welcome to the CT'er majority...