Why wasn't the MC tested?
NoKetch
shooting. The cops had the rifle. Why didn't they follow basic procedure and
check whether the rifle had been fired by testing the interior of the barrel
for bullet, primer, and powder residue? But lo and behold, this wasn't done.
Why not? The conclusions i draw from this fact is that either they knew the
rifle hadn't been used in the shooting, or they did check for residue and the
result was negative and this fact was concealed. The fact that they didn't test
if the rifle had been recently fired suggests that the rifle had not been
recently fired. It was just used as a prop to implicate Oswald.
Dave
Barb Junkkarinen
What test existed for them to use that would have been able to tell if
any "bullet, primer, and powder residue" found was an hour old ... or
a month ... or a year?
What I find somewhat striking is that there are no recorded comments
on what they did have at their disposal ... the sniff test. The smell
of recent firing should have been noticeable ... particularly when the
bolt was worked.
>
>
>Dave
Barb :-)
---"Our intention, is not to establish the point with
complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
hypothesis which underlies the conclusion that
Oswald was the sole assassin."
(Redlich memo to Rankin, 4/64)
NoKetch
>>shooting. The cops had the rifle. Why didn't they follow basic procedure and
>>check whether the rifle had been fired by testing the interior of the barrel
>>for bullet, primer, and powder residue? But lo and behold, this wasn't done.
>>Why not? The conclusions i draw from this fact is that either they knew the
>>rifle hadn't been used in the shooting, or they did check for residue and
>the
>>result was negative and this fact was concealed. The fact that they didn't
>test
>>if the rifle had been recently fired suggests that the rifle had not been
>>recently fired. It was just used as a prop to implicate Oswald.
>
>What test existed for them to use that would have been able to tell if
>any "bullet, primer, and powder residue" found was an hour old ... or
>a month ... or a year?
>
Hi Barb
Hey, It's not rocket science. Anyone can run a clean white patch down the bore
and can see, with the naked eye, the difference in a clean bore and a bore that
has had a least one round fired through it. i've done it many times myself,
during my target shooting and reloading days. This could have at least told us
if the rifle had ever been fired after shipment, or since the last time it was
cleaned. I think it's significant that this simple test wasn't done. There may
have been more sophisticated tests by experts to determine the length of time
since firing. For sure, a swab that comes out with powder residue and plain old
dust would show the gun had not recently been fired.
>What I find somewhat striking is that there are no recorded comments
>on what they did have at their disposal ... the sniff test. The smell
>of recent firing should have been noticeable ... particularly when the
>bolt was worked.
>>
I also thought about the smell test, but since i'm not sure how long the odor
of burnt powder and primer residue lingers, i can't make any useful comment.
All noses are different. :-)
>Barb :-)
>---"Our intention, is not to establish the point with
> complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
> hypothesis which underlies the conclusion that
> Oswald was the sole assassin."
> (Redlich memo to Rankin, 4/64)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dave
Bud
> >>The cops were desperate to tie Oswald and the rifle found in the TSBD to the
> >>shooting. The cops had the rifle. Why didn't they follow basic procedure and
> >>check whether the rifle had been fired by testing the interior of the barrel
> >>for bullet, primer, and powder residue? But lo and behold, this wasn't done.
> >>Why not? The conclusions i draw from this fact is that either they knew the
> >>rifle hadn't been used in the shooting, or they did check for residue and
> the
> >>result was negative and this fact was concealed. The fact that they didn't
> test
> >>if the rifle had been recently fired suggests that the rifle had not been
> >>recently fired. It was just used as a prop to implicate Oswald.
> >
> >What test existed for them to use that would have been able to tell if
> >any "bullet, primer, and powder residue" found was an hour old ... or
> >a month ... or a year?
> >
>
> Hi Barb
> Hey, It's not rocket science. Anyone can run a clean white patch down the bore
> and can see, with the naked eye, the difference in a clean bore and a bore that
> has had a least one round fired through it. i've done it many times myself,
> during my target shooting and reloading days. This could have at least told us
> if the rifle had ever been fired after shipment, or since the last time it was
> cleaned. I think it's significant that this simple test wasn't done. There may
> have been more sophisticated tests by experts to determine the length of time
> since firing. For sure, a swab that comes out with powder residue and plain old
> dust would show the gun had not recently been fired.
>
rifle had been fired, would that change your mind one bit? If you
believe all the other evidence is rigged, how hard do you think it
would be to rig one more tiny detail? Is this the reseach that is
going to solve this case? Second guessing what was done 40 years ago?
-Bud
Walt
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:fc87368f.04012...@posting.google.com...
You're right, Bud.... If one is asking the question; " Why wasn't the rifle
tested to see if it had been fired?" in other than a rhetorical manner. (
which is what Dave was doing) Asking the question in rhetoric merely
illuminates the FACT that the authorities CLAIMED it was not tested. And
that is either CRIMINAL negligence or collusion. Dave was merely using this
information to illuminate one more example of the police covering up the
evidence and framing Oswald.
Walt
P.S. Dave's right.....Ir would have been very easy to run a clean patch
through the bore of the rifle, and then analyze any residue found on the
patch to see of that residue matched the residue from the inside of the
spent cartridges.....
NoKetch
>>shooting. The cops had the rifle. Why didn't they follow basic procedure and
>>check whether the rifle had been fired by testing the interior of the barrel
>>for bullet, primer, and powder residue? But lo and behold, this wasn't done.
>>Why not? The conclusions i draw from this fact is that either they knew the
>>rifle hadn't been used in the shooting, or they did check for residue and
>the
>>result was negative and this fact was concealed. The fact that they didn't
>test
>>if the rifle had been recently fired suggests that the rifle had not been
>>recently fired. It was just used as a prop to implicate Oswald.
>
>What test existed for them to use that would have been able to tell if
>any "bullet, primer, and powder residue" found was an hour old ... or
>a month ... or a year?
>
While searching the web for a possible answer to this question, i did find this
interesting page on analysis of gunshot residue.
http://www.jwharbert.com/gsranalysis.htm
Here is a section that raised another question in my mind. Was the window frame
and surrounding area in the so-called snipers nest tested for gunshot residue?
I think the answer is obvious, since if the rifle itself wasn't tested,
well....
<quote>
GSR residue comes out of the gun in “blowback”. It exhausts from the
muzzle, cylinder or any leaky areas in a cloud of residue. Conceivably a person
standing beside the shooter will have GSR on his person. It is unlikely that it
will be on a bystander’s hands in threshold quantities. This should be noted
because the SEM examination for GSR positively identifies actual particles of
GSR. Using this test, it would be possible to positively identify particles of
GSR on an individual standing in the vicinity of the shooting. Tests have shown
that residue in the emissions around a discharging gun will be deposited
several feet to each side and to the rear of the shooter. GSR has been detected
as much as 14 feet down range of the muzzle.
<unquote>
I'm still searching for info on how residue inside a rifle bore can be tested
for length of time since firing. I would think the characteristics of gunshot
residue change over time, and there should be a way to test this.
>What I find somewhat striking is that there are no recorded comments
>on what they did have at their disposal ... the sniff test. The smell
>of recent firing should have been noticeable ... particularly when the
>bolt was worked.
>>
>>
>
>Barb :-)
>---"Our intention, is not to establish the point with
> complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
> hypothesis which underlies the conclusion that
> Oswald was the sole assassin."
> (Redlich memo to Rankin, 4/64)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dave
Walt
on the rifle..... The FBI lab techs would have known that after checking
the rifle thoroughly for latent prints and fibers it would be SOP to run a
patch through the bore for and check for gunpwder residue. The authorities
"claimed" the bore was never checked for evidence of recent firing..... But
I'll bet it was. Simply because it's so fundamental. The results must have
not supported their tale so they simply said the rifle wasn't tested.
Walt
"NoKetch" <nok...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040125122122...@mb-m25.aol.com...
NoKetch
You're right, Walt. The nay-sayers argument is that there is no way to tell how
long gunshot residue has been in the bore. The problem with this is they are
starting from the assumption that there "was" gunshot residue in the bore,
never considering the possibility that the rifle had "not" been fired since
it's last cleaning. One swab through the bore could have easily determined this
one way or the other, and a negative result would have completely cleared
Oswald. This is just more proof the cops and FBI were only looking for evidence
against him, and steered clear of anything that could have been exculpatory.
Gunshot residue also stays on clothing for a long time. Was the simple test for
gunshot residue on his clothing done? Hell no, they couldn't chance finding
exculpatory evidence.
Dave
NoKetch
>> >on what they did have at their disposal ... the sniff test. The smell
>> >of recent firing should have been noticeable ... particularly when the
>> >bolt was worked.
>> >>
>
>forensic scientist and a ballistic expert. You should be able to detect
>the smell of gunpowder up to 5 hours after the gun has been fired. Hell,
>no one ever mentioned even noticing the smell of gunpowder anywhere
>except at street level. The 6th floor should have reeked when the police
>got up there after firing 3 shots with the chamber portion of the rifle
>inside of the building.
>
>gene
>
I agree completely, but i would think "smell" evidence is more subjective than
scientic. Perhaps there is a need for a high-tech sniffing device that could
detect different odors. :-)
Dave
gordyd...@yahoo.com
> On 25 Jan 2004 01:23:23 GMT, nok...@aol.com (NoKetch) wrote:
>
> >The cops were desperate to tie Oswald and the rifle found in the TSBD to the
> >shooting. The cops had the rifle. Why didn't they follow basic procedure and
> >check whether the rifle had been fired by testing the interior of the barrel
> >for bullet, primer, and powder residue? But lo and behold, this wasn't done.
> >Why not? The conclusions i draw from this fact is that either they knew the
> >rifle hadn't been used in the shooting, or they did check for residue and the
> >result was negative and this fact was concealed. The fact that they didn't test
> >if the rifle had been recently fired suggests that the rifle had not been
> >recently fired. It was just used as a prop to implicate Oswald.
>
> What test existed for them to use that would have been able to tell if
> any "bullet, primer, and powder residue" found was an hour old ... or
> a month ... or a year?
Pretty simple one, actually! Run a white patch through the barrel --
If they sell them in Rhode Island - they sold them in Texas
--gd
Bud
As always, hysterical claims. Are they valid claims? Who knows? Can
you prove that running a swab through the barrel of murder weapons was
something that was commonly done in murder investigations, and was
willfully disregarded in this one? Or are you talking out of your ass?
> Dave was merely using this
> information to illuminate one more example of the police covering up the
> evidence and framing Oswald.
>
Dave was merely pointing out that he felt something was sinister,
when in fact he had nothing to back up that claim. Either produce data
that the Dallas police routinely ran a swab through the barrels of
guns in other murders, and willfully neglected to do so in this case,
or produce a witness who says "I was going to run the swab test, but
so-and so ordered me not to", or shut the fuck up.
-Bud
Herbert Blenner
>From: sirs...@fast.net (Bud)
>Date: 1/25/04 6:55 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <fc87368f.04012...@posting.google.com>
Can you deal with the primer residue testing that proves rigging of evidence?
In particular, I refer to the NAA of the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek. The
outer surface of the cast that was not in contact with Oswald contained
quantities of primer residuals comparable with the inner surface, which
contacted Oswald.
Besides finding otherwise incriminating evidence in the wrong place, the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, who did the NAA, reported no evidence of an
accidental contamination of the paraffin cast. They found barium and antimony
without noting any of the other heavy metals that would have accompanied barium
or antimony compounds from environmental sources.
Herbert
Walt
My goodness....You seem to be coming unhinged. Take a deep breath and calm
down..... Were you a member of the Dallas Police Force?? Is that why you're
getting so upset. Not to worry.....If you one of the guilty you're still
safe....The cover-up is still alive and well in the government controlled
media.
We are not just talking about the Dallas PD failing to test the rifle....The
rifle was sent by special courier to the FBI lab in Washington D.C. It
arrived there in the early hours of 11/23/63. So The FBI was also
criminally negligent if they failed to test the rifle to see if it had been
fired recently.
Bud..... I know you hate to have facts jammed up yer nose, that's why I
enjoy doing it. Keep stickin yer nose in here and we'll keep jammin the
facts.....
Walt
AnthonyMarsh
>
> In article <20040125122122...@mb-m25.aol.com>,
> nok...@aol.com says...
> forensic scientist and a ballistic expert. You should be able to detect
> the smell of gunpowder up to 5 hours after the gun has been fired. Hell,
> no one ever mentioned even noticing the smell of gunpowder anywhere
> except at street level. The 6th floor should have reeked when the police
> got up there after firing 3 shots with the chamber portion of the rifle
> inside of the building.
>
> gene
Gee, I wonder where the term "smoking gun" ever came from.
But actually with that rifle and ammo you might not have a lingering
smell of gunpowder that long. You yourself could test this at home. I
can even test it for you.
But what you are proposing sounds uncomfortably like an actual forensic
investigation, something the DPD was not accustomed to.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
AnthonyMarsh
> forensic scientist and a ballistic expert. You should be able to detect
> the smell of gunpowder up to 5 hours after the gun has been fired. Hell,
> no one ever mentioned even noticing the smell of gunpowder anywhere
> except at street level. The 6th floor should have reeked when the police
> got up there after firing 3 shots with the chamber portion of the rifle
> inside of the building.
>
> gene
I would also think that there should have been gunpowder residue on the
window sill and that was not tested.
Bud
Yes, you were. NoKetch`s original post says "the cops". Twice. He
stated that they didn`t follow basic procedure, although I don`t think
he knows what the basic procedure the Dallas police used in `63. I
don`t think you do, either, but it didn`t stop you from saying them
not making these "tests" was something criminal and sinister. Then you
came in with "one more example of the police covering up the
evidence". Again, not the FBI, but the police. So let me ask you
again, do you know of the Dallas police making these "tests" in other
murders, and willfully not making them in this case? Or, were you
talking out of your ass?
The
AnthonyMarsh
>
> It's inconceivable that the FBI lab wouldn't have performed elementary tests
> on the rifle..... The FBI lab techs would have known that after checking
> the rifle thoroughly for latent prints and fibers it would be SOP to run a
> patch through the bore for and check for gunpwder residue. The authorities
> "claimed" the bore was never checked for evidence of recent firing..... But
> I'll bet it was. Simply because it's so fundamental. The results must have
> not supported their tale so they simply said the rifle wasn't tested.
>
The FBI made a sulfur cast of the bore.
Walt
My dear Bud....I hope yer seating down....because it's obviously going to
come as a shock to you....The FBI is the federal POLICE force.
Walt
Walt
"AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:4014884E...@quik.com...
> Walt wrote:
> >
> > It's inconceivable that the FBI lab wouldn't have performed elementary
tests
> > on the rifle..... The FBI lab techs would have known that after
checking
> > the rifle thoroughly for latent prints and fibers it would be SOP to run
a
> > patch through the bore for and check for gunpwder residue. The
authorities
> > "claimed" the bore was never checked for evidence of recent firing.....
But
> > I'll bet it was. Simply because it's so fundamental. The results must
have
> > not supported their tale so they simply said the rifle wasn't tested.
> >
>
> The FBI made a sulfur cast of the bore.
Yes, they sure did...and do you think that pouring molten sulfur down the
barrel obliterated any gunpwder residue that may have been there?? And does
sulfur (S) and water ( H2O) make sulfuric acid ( H2So4)?? Now what do you
think happened to the bore of that rifle when the sulfur combined with the
humidty of the air??? Do you think the result may have corroded the bore so
it was useless for ballistic testing at some future date?
Walt
Ted Gittinger
Back to high school chemistry with you, Walt. Molten sulfur will not
produce sulfuric acid.
It is *sulfur dioxide" (SO2), the gaseous product of burning sulfur in the
air, not sulfur, that makes sulfurous acid (H2SO3), a weak acid which is a
major component of acid rain. It is not sulfuric acid (H2SO4), a much
stronger item.
ted
chemistry minor, many years ago
famous raconteur and burster of balloons
Walt
"Ted Gittinger" <tgitting...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8O1Rb.15825$RR3....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Sulfur and water does create a corrosive substance.
Have you forgotten why it was important to clean the bore of your rifle???
There are FBI reports which substaniate my claim that the sulfur and
humidity corroded the bore of the TSBD rifle. The excuse given was, someone
at the FBI "forgot" to clean the rifle bore after they made a sulfur
cast.......
Walt
Bud
> It's inconceivable that the FBI lab wouldn't have performed elementary tests
> on the rifle..... The FBI lab techs would have known that after checking
> the rifle thoroughly for latent prints and fibers it would be SOP to run a
> patch through the bore for and check for gunpwder residue. The authorities
> "claimed" the bore was never checked for evidence of recent firing..... But
> I'll bet it was. Simply because it's so fundamental. The results must have
> not supported their tale so they simply said the rifle wasn't tested.
>
you think probably must have happened?
Bud
are any guilt-ridden agents coming forward in all these years saying
they were forced by superiors to plant evidence, manufacture evidence,
ect. I mean, I`m sure there are some kooks who worked the mailroom who
claim they saw some sinister things, but no verifiable agents that,
say, worked in the FBI photography department, and worked on the
backyard photo. Or worked ballistics, and were told to purposely
damage the rifle. You`d need dozens, if not hundreds, of agents to do
all the things you allege, Walt. They`d be heroes to the majority of
people, who believe that a conspiracy existed anyway...
Ben Holmes
Untrue. There *have* been people who've come forward.
We *have* manufactured evidence... or do *YOU* care to explain the 6.5mm
virtually round object seen in the AP X-ray? Or the recently mentioned patch in
the curb?
And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was exculpatory. Such
as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
>I mean, I`m sure there are some kooks who worked the mailroom who
>claim they saw some sinister things, but no verifiable agents that,
>say, worked in the FBI photography department, and worked on the
>backyard photo. Or worked ballistics, and were told to purposely
>damage the rifle. You`d need dozens, if not hundreds, of agents to do
>all the things you allege, Walt.
That *is* right out of the LN'er handbook.
In reality, the conspiracy probably had less than a dozen people who knew all
the facts.
gordyd...@yahoo.com
Why refer to possible government employees as "guilt-ridden"? After
all, they only do what there told... [sorry Ted, I'll get it sooner or
later]
Now, who would want to be a dead hero? And why, not a single white
patch down the bore of Oswald's "supposed" MC? In Dallas or
Washington?
--gd
Bud
You do know that rational explainations exist to explain that circle
on an x-ray, right? You reject them, I guess, because you want to
believe it is a bullet. Another ungodly stroke of luck that that
bullet does not appear in profile, where it would be impossible to
dispute it was a bullet. So close to being real evidence, you can
imagine it, eh?
> Or the recently mentioned patch in
> the curb?
>
I don`t claim to know why everything was done. Perhaps the city of
Dallas didn`t want tourist flocking to see the scars of it`s
humiliation, maybe they wanted to get back to normal as quickly as
possible. That you guys can keep finding
things that seem fishy to you, and things that you "can`t understand"
is very understandable to me. Instead of listing all the things that
you "can`t understand", why don`t you take something like this curb
thing, or this rifle swatch thing, or the umbrella guy, or the
horn-beep at the boarding house thing, or any one of the dozens of
things you find sinister, and actually prove that something sinister
actually was done? Like so-and-so ordered so-and-so to fix the curb,
to destroy evidence. That there are things you "don`t understand" is
well established.
> And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was exculpatory. Such
> as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
>
You have a name of a person who ordered this information withheld,
and can prove it was withheld for nefarious reasons, correct?
> >I mean, I`m sure there are some kooks who worked the mailroom who
> >claim they saw some sinister things, but no verifiable agents that,
> >say, worked in the FBI photography department, and worked on the
> >backyard photo. Or worked ballistics, and were told to purposely
> >damage the rifle. You`d need dozens, if not hundreds, of agents to do
> >all the things you allege, Walt.
>
> That *is* right out of the LN'er handbook.
>
> In reality, the conspiracy probably had less than a dozen people who knew all
> the facts.
>
If everyone involved didn`t know what they were working on was a
presidential assassination before the assassination, they damn well
should have been able to figure it out after the fact. Unless they
found a way to keep the assassination a secret from the agents who
worked the different aspects of the assassination.
But, my assumption of at least dozens, and probably hundreds of
agents involved is derived from the CT claims of sinister activity...
if you want to claim the BY photos were fakes, it requires photo
techs, and field agents to plant the various photos and negatives, if
you say the rifle was removed by someone other Oz from the Paine`s
garage, more agents, sneaking it into the TSBD, more agents, coercing
witnesses, more agents, umbrella guy is fishy, more agents, beepimg
horn at boarding hose is sinister, more agents, this curb stuff is
fishy, more agents , planting evidence at the hospital, more agents,
controlling the events surrounding the Tippit shooting, more agents,
do you think anything suspicious happened at the Texas Theater (of
course you do!), more agents, ect, ect. Everytime you find something
is suspicious, or is fishy, or you "can`t understand", and you feel it
is the work of conspiracy, that work would have to be performed by
human beings. And the number of people required to do all the things
you find suspicious would be more than a few people. It would require
a LOT of people.
-Bud
Bud
were 50 years old them, they`d be 90 now. What are they going to do,
run the squealer down with thier scooters?
AnthonyMarsh
>
> "AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:4014884E...@quik.com...
> > Walt wrote:
> > >
> > > It's inconceivable that the FBI lab wouldn't have performed elementary
> tests
> > > on the rifle..... The FBI lab techs would have known that after
> checking
> > > the rifle thoroughly for latent prints and fibers it would be SOP to run
> a
> > > patch through the bore for and check for gunpwder residue. The
> authorities
> > > "claimed" the bore was never checked for evidence of recent firing.....
> But
> > > I'll bet it was. Simply because it's so fundamental. The results must
> have
> > > not supported their tale so they simply said the rifle wasn't tested.
> > >
> >
> > The FBI made a sulfur cast of the bore.
>
> Yes, they sure did...and do you think that pouring molten sulfur down the
> barrel obliterated any gunpwder residue that may have been there?? And does
> sulfur (S) and water ( H2O) make sulfuric acid ( H2So4)?? Now what do you
> think happened to the bore of that rifle when the sulfur combined with the
> humidty of the air??? Do you think the result may have corroded the bore so
> it was useless for ballistic testing at some future date?
>
Aside from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about, you
are being silly.
Ted Gittinger
"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
>
> Sulfur and water does create a corrosive substance.
>
> Have you forgotten why it was important to clean the bore of your rifle???
I certn'y do remember, and I have cleaned one or two in my day.
Listen carefully, now: *Sulfur had nothing to do with it.*
Hee. It gets better and better.
What else you got?
ted
Walt
news:<1018283...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > It's inconceivable that the FBI lab wouldn't have performed elementary
tests
> > on the rifle..... The FBI lab techs would have known that after
checking
> > the rifle thoroughly for latent prints and fibers it would be SOP to run
a
> > patch through the bore for and check for gunpwder residue. The
authorities
> > "claimed" the bore was never checked for evidence of recent firing.....
But
> > I'll bet it was. Simply because it's so fundamental. The results must
have
> > not supported their tale so they simply said the rifle wasn't tested.
> >
> Is that what we are going to replace the WC finding with? With what
> you think probably must have happened?
I don't know what we're going to replace the W.C. decree with......I hope it
will be the truth, because I'm sick and tired of the lies.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Yep. I've aware of at least one explanation that fits the known facts. I'm
still waiting for *your* explanation. Why didn't you mention it?
Please don't be shy - go ahead and explain this 6.5mm virtually round object.
>You reject them, I guess, because you want to
>believe it is a bullet.
Are you trying to tell everyone that you reject the Clark Panel, and the HSCA
experts?
*They* thought it was a bullet.
Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
And just what *is* your explanation?
>Another ungodly stroke of luck that that
>bullet does not appear in profile,
You apparently haven't read anything else I've posted about this topic. You
are, in this sentence, simply wrong.
Or again, you disagree with the Clark Panel and the HSCA. Which is it?
>where it would be impossible to dispute it was a bullet.
So you dispute it? What is it, then? Don't let us down like Marsh or McAdams -
tell us what it is.
>So close to being real evidence, you can
>imagine it, eh?
???
>> Or the recently mentioned patch in
>> the curb?
>>
> I don`t claim to know why everything was done. Perhaps the city of
>Dallas didn`t want tourist flocking to see the scars of it`s
>humiliation, maybe they wanted to get back to normal as quickly as
>possible.
This must be embarrassing to you...
>That you guys can keep finding
>things that seem fishy to you, and things that you "can`t understand"
>is very understandable to me. Instead of listing all the things that
>you "can`t understand", why don`t you take something like this curb
>thing, or this rifle swatch thing, or the umbrella guy, or the
>horn-beep at the boarding house thing, or any one of the dozens of
>things you find sinister, and actually prove that something sinister
>actually was done?
You mean like a patch on a curb? Proven.
You mean like a 6.5mm virtually round object never seen in 63/64? Demonstrated.
>Like so-and-so ordered so-and-so to fix the curb,
>to destroy evidence. That there are things you "don`t understand" is
>well established.
>
>>And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was exculpatory. Such
>> as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
>>
> You have a name of a person who ordered this information withheld,
The Justice Department. Presumably the WC as well, since they knew of it, and
failed to include it in their numerous volumes.
>and can prove it was withheld for nefarious reasons, correct?
Can you come up with any reason *WHATSOEVER* to withhold exculpatory evidence in
a murder case?
Believe this if you wish... the facts are quite different.
<rest snipped>
Bud
enough for yhe both of us. It is not the only evidence in this case,
if it is even evidence at all.
> Please don't be shy - go ahead and explain this 6.5mm virtually round object.
>
>
> >You reject them, I guess, because you want to
> >believe it is a bullet.
>
> Are you trying to tell everyone that you reject the Clark Panel, and the HSCA
> experts?
>
Am I?
> *They* thought it was a bullet.
>
> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
>
> And just what *is* your explanation?
>
> >Another ungodly stroke of luck that that
> >bullet does not appear in profile,
>
> You apparently haven't read anything else I've posted about this topic. You
> are, in this sentence, simply wrong.
>
Yeah, well that has happened once before. But, you don`t think the
conspirators are astoundingly lucky that the bullet did not come to
rest in a manner that the x-ry would show it from a side view?
> Or again, you disagree with the Clark Panel and the HSCA. Which is it?
>
> >where it would be impossible to dispute it was a bullet.
>
> So you dispute it? What is it, then? Don't let us down like Marsh or McAdams -
> tell us what it is.
>
> >So close to being real evidence, you can
> >imagine it, eh?
>
> ???
>
> >> Or the recently mentioned patch in
> >> the curb?
> >>
> > I don`t claim to know why everything was done. Perhaps the city of
> >Dallas didn`t want tourist flocking to see the scars of it`s
> >humiliation, maybe they wanted to get back to normal as quickly as
> >possible.
>
> This must be embarrassing to you...
>
Or you. I was giving one, of many, non-sinister, rational
explainations for the curb repair. You think that someone you can`t
name ordered the curb removed to cover up a huge conspiracy pulled off
by a lot of other people you can`t name. You only know them by thier
agencies.
> >That you guys can keep finding
> >things that seem fishy to you, and things that you "can`t understand"
> >is very understandable to me. Instead of listing all the things that
> >you "can`t understand", why don`t you take something like this curb
> >thing, or this rifle swatch thing, or the umbrella guy, or the
> >horn-beep at the boarding house thing, or any one of the dozens of
> >things you find sinister, and actually prove that something sinister
> >actually was done?
>
> You mean like a patch on a curb? Proven.
>
Yes, you may have proven a curb was repaired. Well done. You just
can`t prove why that was done, or on who`s orders.
> You mean like a 6.5mm virtually round object never seen in 63/64? Demonstrated.
>
Yes, there is a circle on an x-ray. If I were to look at a million
x-rays, would I find any circles. If I found circles, would they
necessarily be bullets?
>
> >Like so-and-so ordered so-and-so to fix the curb,
> >to destroy evidence. That there are things you "don`t understand" is
> >well established.
> >
> >>And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was exculpatory. Such
> >> as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
> >>
> > You have a name of a person who ordered this information withheld,
>
> The Justice Department. Presumably the WC as well, since they knew of it, and
> failed to include it in their numerous volumes.
>
Don`t presume, prove. You don`t allow the WC the luxury of
presuption. But, first, you said "the government". Then you said "The
Justice Department". That`s good, we`re getting it narrowed down. Now,
tell me the name of the person who made the decision for withholding
the information, and the reason for withholding it. And no guessing...
> >and can prove it was withheld for nefarious reasons, correct?
>
> Can you come up with any reason *WHATSOEVER* to withhold exculpatory evidence in
> a murder case?
>
You are making the claim, you prove it.
I know, there were no agents involved.
> <rest snipped>
Ben Holmes
Ah! So you simply lied when you stated that there were "rational
explainations"?
Or, perhaps more accurately, *YOU* don't know what these "rational
explainations" are.
That is just normal for LN'ers... when confronted with physical evidence that
isn't to their liking, they simply ignore it.
>> Please don't be shy - go ahead and explain this 6.5mm virtually round
>> object.
>>
>>
>> >You reject them, I guess, because you want to
>> >believe it is a bullet.
>>
>> Are you trying to tell everyone that you reject the Clark Panel, and the
>> HSCA experts?
>>
> Am I?
If you try to imply that the 6.5mm virtually round object was *NOT* a bullet,
yes.
>> *They* thought it was a bullet.
>>
>> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
No answer??
>> And just what *is* your explanation?
No answer??
>> >Another ungodly stroke of luck that that
>> >bullet does not appear in profile,
>>
>> You apparently haven't read anything else I've posted about this topic. You
>> are, in this sentence, simply wrong.
>>
> Yeah, well that has happened once before. But, you don`t think the
>conspirators are astoundingly lucky that the bullet did not come to
>rest in a manner that the x-ry would show it from a side view?
Once again, you simply don't know the subject. The 6.5mm virtually round object
IS VISIBLE IN THE SIDE X-RAY.
You should learn the facts before you try to argue them.
>> Or again, you disagree with the Clark Panel and the HSCA. Which is it?
>>
>> >where it would be impossible to dispute it was a bullet.
>>
>> So you dispute it? What is it, then? Don't let us down like Marsh or
>> McAdams - tell us what it is.
>>
>> >So close to being real evidence, you can
>> >imagine it, eh?
>>
>> ???
>>
>> >> Or the recently mentioned patch in
>> >> the curb?
>> >>
>> > I don`t claim to know why everything was done. Perhaps the city of
>> >Dallas didn`t want tourist flocking to see the scars of it`s
>> >humiliation, maybe they wanted to get back to normal as quickly as
>> >possible.
>>
>> This must be embarrassing to you...
>>
> Or you. I was giving one, of many, non-sinister, rational
>explainations for the curb repair.
I know that *I'd* be embarrassed to offer such an idea. Perhaps it doesn't
offend your sense of reality...
>You think that someone you can`t name ordered the curb removed
If I prove that the curb WAS PATCHED (not "removed"), then I don't particularly
have to prove 'who did it' (or ordered it.)
That you don't find this fact disturbing is just your particular biased reality.
Most people would call this "obstruction of justice". Not being a lawyer, I'm
not sure, but I suspect that this is a felony...
>to cover up a huge conspiracy pulled off
>by a lot of other people you can`t name.
Actually, I *can* put a few names to those involved. I have in the past.
>You only know them by thier agencies.
>
>> >That you guys can keep finding
>> >things that seem fishy to you, and things that you "can`t understand"
>> >is very understandable to me. Instead of listing all the things that
>> >you "can`t understand", why don`t you take something like this curb
>> >thing, or this rifle swatch thing, or the umbrella guy, or the
>> >horn-beep at the boarding house thing, or any one of the dozens of
>> >things you find sinister, and actually prove that something sinister
>> >actually was done?
>>
>> You mean like a patch on a curb? Proven.
>>
> Yes, you may have proven a curb was repaired. Well done. You just
>can`t prove why that was done, or on who`s orders.
Nor have you been able to offer a *believable* reason for an innocent 'patching'
job. As for who did it, it's simply not necessary to demonstrate who did it, if
you demonstrate that it *was* done.
>> You mean like a 6.5mm virtually round object never seen in 63/64?
>> Demonstrated.
>>
> Yes, there is a circle on an x-ray. If I were to look at a million
>x-rays, would I find any circles. If I found circles, would they
>necessarily be bullets?
Again, you dispute the Clark Panel and the HSCA? On what basis?
>> >Like so-and-so ordered so-and-so to fix the curb,
>> >to destroy evidence. That there are things you "don`t understand" is
>> >well established.
>> >
>> >>And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was
>> >> exculpatory. Such as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
>> >>
>> > You have a name of a person who ordered this information withheld,
>>
>> The Justice Department. Presumably the WC as well, since they knew of it,
>> and failed to include it in their numerous volumes.
>>
> Don`t presume, prove.
I know for a FACT that the WC failed to include this information... you can
disprove my statement by simply citing the relevant section of the WC volumes
that *does* contain this information.
>You don`t allow the WC the luxury of
>presuption. But, first, you said "the government". Then you said "The
>Justice Department". That`s good, we`re getting it narrowed down. Now,
>tell me the name of the person who made the decision for withholding
>the information, and the reason for withholding it. And no guessing...
I'm not at my library right now, but I *do* have access to the name. I'll
supply it later if you're truly interested.
>> >and can prove it was withheld for nefarious reasons, correct?
>>
>> Can you come up with any reason *WHATSOEVER* to withhold exculpatory
>> evidence in a murder case?
>>
> You are making the claim, you prove it.
There *IS* no valid reason to withhold exculpatory evidence in a murder case.
No need to "prove" it, since this is a valid point of law.
Yep... must have been LHO who patched that curb.
>> <rest snipped>
Bud
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:fc87368f.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > "Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<1018283...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > It's inconceivable that the FBI lab wouldn't have performed elementary
> tests
> > > on the rifle..... The FBI lab techs would have known that after
> checking
> > > the rifle thoroughly for latent prints and fibers it would be SOP to run
> a
> > > patch through the bore for and check for gunpwder residue. The
> authorities
> > > "claimed" the bore was never checked for evidence of recent firing.....
> But
> > > I'll bet it was. Simply because it's so fundamental. The results must
> have
> > > not supported their tale so they simply said the rifle wasn't tested.
> > >
> > Is that what we are going to replace the WC finding with? With what
> > you think probably must have happened?
>
> I don't know what we're going to replace the W.C. decree with......I hope it
> will be the truth, because I'm sick and tired of the lies.
>
> Walt
>
and "that is supicious". You`ve proven yourselves to good at picking
apart the WCR. Very good, thats like shooting at a cow tied to a tree.
You`ve proven yourselves to be good at second-guessing the
investigators. Very good, except you hate all the results of the
investigating that they did do, you only seem interested in what you
think they should have done.
What I would like to see, and never will, is for you to take one of
these things you find suspicious, like the curb being removed, and
prove that it was removed to destroy or conceal evidence, and name the
person who ordered it done. Because that curb has been removed for 40
years. If you can`t prove conspiracy in one small aspect of the case
like this, then you better hang up your spurs, cowboy. Your only hope
is that a lot of people start confessing thier hand in this conspiracy
real soon.
-Bud
Ben Holmes
Oh, far from it! It's in the investigation, what little was done, that the best
demonstration of conspiracy is found. The problem has *always* been that the
WCR wasn't supported by it's own evidence. It's the investigation that *was*
performed that best illustrates the facts. But you have to be willing to accept
those facts, and not twist them to prove what they *don't* prove.
> What I would like to see, and never will, is for you to take one of
>these things you find suspicious, like the curb being removed, and
>prove that it was removed to destroy or conceal evidence, and name the
>person who ordered it done.
It's really amusing to see the ignorance that many LN'ers display about the
evidence. The curb was removed, indeed, by the FBI. There is *no* mystery
about this.
The problem is that the curb was *patched*. And that the FBI tested a patch,
rather than any marking left by a bullet.
There is no reasonable requirement to demonstrate WHO did it, if we prove that
it was done.
Are Nicole and Ron any less dead for not being able to prove "who did it"?
Is the evidence any less disturbed for lack of being able to prove who disturbed
it?
Is obstruction of justice any less a crime for not proving who did it?
>Because that curb has been removed for 40
>years. If you can`t prove conspiracy in one small aspect of the case
>like this,
Are you confused? The latest government investigation *DID* produce a finding
of probable conspiracy.
>then you better hang up your spurs, cowboy. Your only hope
>is that a lot of people start confessing thier hand in this conspiracy
>real soon.
> -Bud
<rest snipped>
Bud
guys. Maybe I should borrow one, and just claim that x-ray is planted.
Seems I need no evidence to back this kind of assertion up, as you
folks never supply any.
> Or, perhaps more accurately, *YOU* don't know what these "rational
> explainations" are.
>
I saw some in some posts. Not that interesting a topic to me. You
want me to give them, so you can attack these ideas, so you can fight
on your favorite ground. You rebut them, and I`m in the position to
defend these explainations like they are mine. They aren`t mine. But
they do exist.
> That is just normal for LN'ers... when confronted with physical evidence that
> isn't to their liking, they simply ignore it.
>
Unlike CTs, who just claim it is planted.
> >> Please don't be shy - go ahead and explain this 6.5mm virtually round
> >> object.
> >>
> >>
> >> >You reject them, I guess, because you want to
> >> >believe it is a bullet.
> >>
> >> Are you trying to tell everyone that you reject the Clark Panel, and the
> >> HSCA experts?
> >>
> > Am I?
>
> If you try to imply that the 6.5mm virtually round object was *NOT* a bullet,
> yes.
>
Then I guess I am.
>
> >> *They* thought it was a bullet.
> >>
> >> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
>
> No answer??
I answered this above, when I said I have no opinion. I didn`t see
the need to keep repeating it. But what expertise do I need?
>
> >> And just what *is* your explanation?
>
> No answer??
See above.
>
>
> >> >Another ungodly stroke of luck that that
> >> >bullet does not appear in profile,
> >>
> >> You apparently haven't read anything else I've posted about this topic. You
> >> are, in this sentence, simply wrong.
> >>
> > Yeah, well that has happened once before. But, you don`t think the
> >conspirators are astoundingly lucky that the bullet did not come to
> >rest in a manner that the x-ry would show it from a side view?
>
> Once again, you simply don't know the subject. The 6.5mm virtually round object
> IS VISIBLE IN THE SIDE X-RAY.
>
> You should learn the facts before you try to argue them.
>
I wasn`t referring to the x-ray, I was referring to the object you
feel is a bullet. Let`s try it this way... are there two views
available of that object? A front and side view of the object?
>
> >> Or again, you disagree with the Clark Panel and the HSCA. Which is it?
> >>
> >> >where it would be impossible to dispute it was a bullet.
> >>
> >> So you dispute it? What is it, then? Don't let us down like Marsh or
> >> McAdams - tell us what it is.
> >>
> >> >So close to being real evidence, you can
> >> >imagine it, eh?
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >> >> Or the recently mentioned patch in
> >> >> the curb?
> >> >>
> >> > I don`t claim to know why everything was done. Perhaps the city of
> >> >Dallas didn`t want tourist flocking to see the scars of it`s
> >> >humiliation, maybe they wanted to get back to normal as quickly as
> >> >possible.
> >>
> >> This must be embarrassing to you...
> >>
> > Or you. I was giving one, of many, non-sinister, rational
> >explainations for the curb repair.
>
> I know that *I'd* be embarrassed to offer such an idea. Perhaps it doesn't
> offend your sense of reality...
>
> >You think that someone you can`t name ordered the curb removed
>
> If I prove that the curb WAS PATCHED (not "removed"), then I don't particularly
> have to prove 'who did it' (or ordered it.)
>
I`d be nice if you could show who ordered it done, but it would be
better if you could prove why it was done. Notice I say "prove", not
just "say" a reason.
> That you don't find this fact disturbing is just your particular biased reality.
> Most people would call this "obstruction of justice". Not being a lawyer, I'm
> not sure, but I suspect that this is a felony...
>
You`re a suspicious guy. I kinda remember the FBI bulldozing the
Branch Davidian compound flat after that stand-off ended. Don`t
remember any charges. I know the did the same to the MOVE compound
here in Philly after that stand-off.
> >to cover up a huge conspiracy pulled off
> >by a lot of other people you can`t name.
>
> Actually, I *can* put a few names to those involved. I have in the past.
>
Did you ever try to contact these people with your allegations?
> >You only know them by thier agencies.
> >
> >> >That you guys can keep finding
> >> >things that seem fishy to you, and things that you "can`t understand"
> >> >is very understandable to me. Instead of listing all the things that
> >> >you "can`t understand", why don`t you take something like this curb
> >> >thing, or this rifle swatch thing, or the umbrella guy, or the
> >> >horn-beep at the boarding house thing, or any one of the dozens of
> >> >things you find sinister, and actually prove that something sinister
> >> >actually was done?
> >>
> >> You mean like a patch on a curb? Proven.
> >>
> > Yes, you may have proven a curb was repaired. Well done. You just
> >can`t prove why that was done, or on who`s orders.
>
> Nor have you been able to offer a *believable* reason for an innocent 'patching'
> job. As for who did it, it's simply not necessary to demonstrate who did it, if
> you demonstrate that it *was* done.
>
You do understand the difference between proving it was patched, and
proving it was patched for nefarious reasons, right?
> >> You mean like a 6.5mm virtually round object never seen in 63/64?
> >> Demonstrated.
> >>
> > Yes, there is a circle on an x-ray. If I were to look at a million
> >x-rays, would I find any circles. If I found circles, would they
> >necessarily be bullets?
>
> Again, you dispute the Clark Panel and the HSCA? On what basis?
>
Do you believe all the findings of the HSCA? And why did you answer
my question with a question?
>
> >> >Like so-and-so ordered so-and-so to fix the curb,
> >> >to destroy evidence. That there are things you "don`t understand" is
> >> >well established.
> >> >
> >> >>And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was
> >> >> exculpatory. Such as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
> >> >>
> >> > You have a name of a person who ordered this information withheld,
> >>
> >> The Justice Department. Presumably the WC as well, since they knew of it,
> >> and failed to include it in their numerous volumes.
> >>
> > Don`t presume, prove.
>
> I know for a FACT that the WC failed to include this information... you can
> disprove my statement by simply citing the relevant section of the WC volumes
> that *does* contain this information.
>
I never disputed it was withheld. I challenged you to prove that it
was withheld for sinister reasons. The fact that you can`t think of a
reason that isn`t sinister doesn`t interest me.
> >You don`t allow the WC the luxury of
> >presuption. But, first, you said "the government". Then you said "The
> >Justice Department". That`s good, we`re getting it narrowed down. Now,
> >tell me the name of the person who made the decision for withholding
> >the information, and the reason for withholding it. And no guessing...
>
> I'm not at my library right now, but I *do* have access to the name. I'll
> supply it later if you're truly interested.
>
That would be great. And, more importantly, if you could supply the
reason it was withheld.
> >> >and can prove it was withheld for nefarious reasons, correct?
> >>
> >> Can you come up with any reason *WHATSOEVER* to withhold exculpatory
> >> evidence in a murder case?
> >>
> > You are making the claim, you prove it.
>
> There *IS* no valid reason to withhold exculpatory evidence in a murder case.
> No need to "prove" it, since this is a valid point of law.
>
Well, yes, but this isn`t a murder case, it`s a murder
investigation. Nobody went to court. If it was a murder case, that
information would have to be supplied to the defendant`s lawyer. The
same legal requirments do not apply to an investigation.
Naw... Agent Starling of the EFF-BEE-EYE.
> >> <rest snipped>
Bud
> >Because that curb has been removed for 40
> >years. If you can`t prove conspiracy in one small aspect of the case
> >like this,
>
> Are you confused? The latest government investigation *DID* produce a finding
> of probable conspiracy.
>
"probable conspiracy"? That`s a different thing than saying a
conspiracy was proven, right? With all this killer evidence you guys
claim to have, and you couldn`t even prove the conspiracy exists? Oh,
well, you tried...
Ben Holmes
You need evidence? Make an assertion, I'll provide the evidence.
As an example, you claim that there's no side view of the 6.5mm virtually round
object...
From the HSCA:
301. Skull X-ray No. 2, a lateral view of the head, reveals rather
marked disruption of the smooth contour of the skull on the right side
in the. temporal-parietal region, with multiple fractures through
other portions of the skull. There is sharp disruption of the normal
smooth contour of the skull 10 centimeters (as measured in the X-ray)
above the external occipital protuberance, with suggested beveling of
the inner table and with fracture lines radiating superiorly and
inferiorly. (See fig. 16, showing the beveling process.) At this point
there is an irregular, radiopaque, sharply outlined bullet fragment.
Now, would you care to provide YOUR proof that there is no side view of this
6.5mm virtually round object?
>> Or, perhaps more accurately, *YOU* don't know what these "rational
>> explainations" are.
>>
> I saw some in some posts. Not that interesting a topic to me.
Yet you're willing to try debating it.
Perhaps you should simply refuse to debate something you know very little of.
>You want me to give them, so you can attack these ideas, so you can fight
>on your favorite ground. You rebut them, and I`m in the position to
>defend these explainations like they are mine. They aren`t mine. But
>they do exist.
They 'exist'. You just can't name them.
A few LN'ers have tried. They thought it was a drop of developing fluid. Or
they tried claiming that this object *was* seen by the prosectors on the night
of the autopsy.
There has been NO explanation that has not been blasted away by me. Feel free to
search the archives.
This is why I challenge you to provide it. You *say* a rational explanation
exists, but you won't provide it. And then you sit back and carp about CT'ers
not providing evidence.
>> That is just normal for LN'ers... when confronted with physical evidence
>> that isn't to their liking, they simply ignore it.
>>
> Unlike CTs, who just claim it is planted.
As soon as you admit that there *is* no rational explanation for the 6.5mm
virtually round object, you'll be forced to admit that it *was* planted.
But by refusing to even prove your case, you don't have to face the facts.
>> >> Please don't be shy - go ahead and explain this 6.5mm virtually round
>> >> object.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >You reject them, I guess, because you want to
>> >> >believe it is a bullet.
>> >>
>> >> Are you trying to tell everyone that you reject the Clark Panel, and the
>> >> HSCA experts?
>> >>
>> > Am I?
>>
>> If you try to imply that the 6.5mm virtually round object was *NOT* a
>> bullet, yes.
>>
> Then I guess I am.
Then you're disputing what the Clark Panel and the HSCA said.
And yet, you refuse to actually state what you think it is.
You're making LN'ers proud all around the world...
>> >> *They* thought it was a bullet.
>> >>
>> >> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
>>
>> No answer??
>
> I answered this above, when I said I have no opinion. I didn`t see
>the need to keep repeating it. But what expertise do I need?
Why would you ask? This is the same question directed at CT'ers by LN'ers all
the time. Yet, when someone dares to ask *YOU* the question, you have no
answer?
>> >> And just what *is* your explanation?
>>
>> No answer??
>
> See above.
Yep... willing to assert that there *is* an explanation, but lacking the honesty
to admit that you don't know what it is.
>> >> >Another ungodly stroke of luck that that
>> >> >bullet does not appear in profile,
>> >>
>>>> You apparently haven't read anything else I've posted about this topic. You
>> >> are, in this sentence, simply wrong.
>> >>
>> > Yeah, well that has happened once before. But, you don`t think the
>> >conspirators are astoundingly lucky that the bullet did not come to
>> >rest in a manner that the x-ry would show it from a side view?
>>
>> Once again, you simply don't know the subject. The 6.5mm virtually round
>> object IS VISIBLE IN THE SIDE X-RAY.
>>
>> You should learn the facts before you try to argue them.
>>
> I wasn`t referring to the x-ray, I was referring to the object you
>feel is a bullet. Let`s try it this way... are there two views
>available of that object? A front and side view of the object?
Yep... one in the AP X-ray, and one in the Lateral X-ray.
Now, you claimed above that the conspirators were astoundingly lucky that the
bullet "did not come to rest in a manner that the x-ry would show it from a side
view".
Yet, the HSCA SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS this fragment, as quoted in para 301 above.
Now, would you like to provide the citation that demonstrates that the HSCA was
wrong? Or that you were correct when you said there *was* no side view of this
6.5mm virtually round object?
My crystal ball says you won't provide any evidence for your statement. Yet you
keep complaining that it's the CT'ers who won't provide evidence. Seems rather
ironic...
>> >> Or again, you disagree with the Clark Panel and the HSCA. Which is it?
>> >>
>> >> >where it would be impossible to dispute it was a bullet.
>> >>
>> >> So you dispute it? What is it, then? Don't let us down like Marsh or
>> >> McAdams - tell us what it is.
>> >>
>> >> >So close to being real evidence, you can
>> >> >imagine it, eh?
>> >>
>> >> ???
>> >>
>> >> >> Or the recently mentioned patch in
>> >> >> the curb?
>> >> >>
>> >> > I don`t claim to know why everything was done. Perhaps the city of
>> >> >Dallas didn`t want tourist flocking to see the scars of it`s
>> >> >humiliation, maybe they wanted to get back to normal as quickly as
>> >> >possible.
>> >>
>> >> This must be embarrassing to you...
>> >>
>> > Or you. I was giving one, of many, non-sinister, rational
>> >explainations for the curb repair.
>>
>> I know that *I'd* be embarrassed to offer such an idea. Perhaps it doesn't
>> offend your sense of reality...
>>
>> >You think that someone you can`t name ordered the curb removed
>>
>> If I prove that the curb WAS PATCHED (not "removed"), then I don't
>> particularly have to prove 'who did it' (or ordered it.)
>>
> I`d be nice if you could show who ordered it done, but it would be
>better if you could prove why it was done. Notice I say "prove", not
>just "say" a reason.
It would be nice if you could provide a reasonable justification for destruction
of evidence in a murder case.
>> That you don't find this fact disturbing is just your particular biased
>> reality. Most people would call this "obstruction of justice". Not being
>> a lawyer, I'm not sure, but I suspect that this is a felony...
>>
> You`re a suspicious guy.
You seem to think that there's room for discussion on this issue.
There isn't.
Somebody destroyed evidence in a murder case.
And somebody manufactured evidence in this case.
>I kinda remember the FBI bulldozing the
>Branch Davidian compound flat after that stand-off ended. Don`t
>remember any charges. I know the did the same to the MOVE compound
>here in Philly after that stand-off.
So?
>> >to cover up a huge conspiracy pulled off
>> >by a lot of other people you can`t name.
>>
>> Actually, I *can* put a few names to those involved. I have in the past.
>>
> Did you ever try to contact these people with your allegations?
Nope. But I don't feel too bad... neither did the Clark Panel or the HSCA.
>> >You only know them by thier agencies.
>> >
>> >> >That you guys can keep finding
>> >> >things that seem fishy to you, and things that you "can`t understand"
>> >> >is very understandable to me. Instead of listing all the things that
>> >> >you "can`t understand", why don`t you take something like this curb
>> >> >thing, or this rifle swatch thing, or the umbrella guy, or the
>> >> >horn-beep at the boarding house thing, or any one of the dozens of
>> >> >things you find sinister, and actually prove that something sinister
>> >> >actually was done?
>> >>
>> >> You mean like a patch on a curb? Proven.
>> >>
>> > Yes, you may have proven a curb was repaired. Well done. You just
>> >can`t prove why that was done, or on who`s orders.
>>
>>Nor have you been able to offer a *believable* reason for an innocent 'patching'
>>job. As for who did it, it's simply not necessary to demonstrate who did it, if
>> you demonstrate that it *was* done.
>>
> You do understand the difference between proving it was patched, and
>proving it was patched for nefarious reasons, right?
You don't even seem to understand just what is being discussed. There could
ONLY have been a "nefarious" reason to patch the curb. If you'll read the
testimony concerning the condition of that curb, you might figure this out.
>> >> You mean like a 6.5mm virtually round object never seen in 63/64?
>> >> Demonstrated.
>> >>
>> > Yes, there is a circle on an x-ray. If I were to look at a million
>> >x-rays, would I find any circles. If I found circles, would they
>> >necessarily be bullets?
>>
>> Again, you dispute the Clark Panel and the HSCA? On what basis?
>>
> Do you believe all the findings of the HSCA?
Far easier than you can. *They* found probable conspiracy. Are you willing to
admit that?
>And why did you answer my question with a question?
Okay, let's deal with your question... as dumb as it is. If you were to look at
a million X-rays, the chances of you finding a circle that is PRECISELY the
diameter of a fatal bullet, and located in PRECISELY the same location that can
be CORROBORATED by a second X-ray taken from the side, would be zilch.
You see, it's *not* just a circle. It's a circle with a very precise diameter,
which just happens to match the assassination caliber. It's a circle that just
happens to be in the 'right place'. It's a circle that just happens to be
corroborated by a SECOND X-ray taken from a different direction.
Now, why won't you answer my question, which I've asked several times now - your
basis for concluding that the Clark Panel and the HSCA experts were wrong?
Could it be that you simply don't *have* any basis?
>> >> >Like so-and-so ordered so-and-so to fix the curb,
>> >> >to destroy evidence. That there are things you "don`t understand" is
>> >> >well established.
>> >> >
>> >> >>And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was
>> >> >> exculpatory. Such as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
>> >> >>
>> >> > You have a name of a person who ordered this information withheld,
>> >>
>> >> The Justice Department. Presumably the WC as well, since they knew of it,
>> >> and failed to include it in their numerous volumes.
>> >>
>> > Don`t presume, prove.
>>
>> I know for a FACT that the WC failed to include this information... you can
>> disprove my statement by simply citing the relevant section of the WC
>> volumes that *does* contain this information.
>>
> I never disputed it was withheld. I challenged you to prove that it
>was withheld for sinister reasons.
Silly.
Kindly provide ANY reason to withhold exculpatory evidence.
This was *not* a prosecution - this was supposed to be the most massive
investigation ever conducted.
>The fact that you can`t think of a
>reason that isn`t sinister doesn`t interest me.
Nor does the fact that you can't provide any non-'sinister' reason.
>> >You don`t allow the WC the luxury of
>> >presuption. But, first, you said "the government". Then you said "The
>> >Justice Department". That`s good, we`re getting it narrowed down. Now,
>> >tell me the name of the person who made the decision for withholding
>> >the information, and the reason for withholding it. And no guessing...
>>
>> I'm not at my library right now, but I *do* have access to the name. I'll
>> supply it later if you're truly interested.
>>
> That would be great. And, more importantly, if you could supply the
>reason it was withheld.
Redlich when deposing Gallagher were the first two people to hide the facts.
Clarence Kelly with the FBI lied about the existence of the NAA files in an FOIA
request.
John Kilty, FBI Special agent. Lied about the existence of the NAA material in
court.
The lawsuit to release this information listed the Justice Dept and the ERD
(AEC) as defendents. (Civil Action No. 75-0226)
As for the specific individuals in the Justice Dept who ordered the non-release
of this information, Attorney General Mitchell is as good a name as any.
Now, reason withheld? There can only be one reason. I'll let *you* figure it
out.
(Of course, you have to understand that the NAA tests on the paraffin casts
precluded LHO from firing a rifle that day.)
>> >> >and can prove it was withheld for nefarious reasons, correct?
>> >>
>> >> Can you come up with any reason *WHATSOEVER* to withhold exculpatory
>> >> evidence in a murder case?
>> >>
>> > You are making the claim, you prove it.
>>
>> There *IS* no valid reason to withhold exculpatory evidence in a murder
>> case. No need to "prove" it, since this is a valid point of law.
>>
> Well, yes, but this isn`t a murder case, it`s a murder
>investigation. Nobody went to court. If it was a murder case, that
>information would have to be supplied to the defendant`s lawyer. The
>same legal requirments do not apply to an investigation.
Yep... and here you hit the nail on the head. This 'investigation' was NOT an
adversarial proceeding. Which of course prevented any evidence that the WC
didn't want from coming forward. It was merely a prosecution brief, not an
investigation.
Oh? And why was that?
>> >> <rest snipped>
Ben Holmes
Getting desperate, aren't you?
What does proving intent do for Nicole and Ron? Or, for that matter, to JFK?
>> >Because that curb has been removed for 40
>> >years. If you can`t prove conspiracy in one small aspect of the case
>> >like this,
>>
>> Are you confused? The latest government investigation *DID* produce a
>> finding of probable conspiracy.
>>
> "probable conspiracy"? That`s a different thing than saying a
>conspiracy was proven, right?
Nor did I say so.
>With all this killer evidence you guys claim to have,
What, you're unfamiliar with the CT stance and evidence?
Must be, since your equally unfamiliar with LN'er evidence.
You should start with the WCR, and the underlying volumes. Available on the
net.
>and you couldn`t even prove the conspiracy exists? Oh,
>well, you tried...
Succeeded... or have you failed to pay attention to the fact that close to 90%
of the American people believe that there was a conspiracy?
It's a telling indictment that even with the mass media and government
investigations behind them, LN'ers have been unable in 40 years to get more than
a small minority to believe them.
Walt
Thank you....I'll take that as a compliment. But it really doesn't take a
Perry Mason to see through the poorly constructed facade. ( the W.R.) As
you yourself acknowledge in your next sentence.
Very good, thats like shooting at a cow tied to a tree.
> You`ve proven yourselves to be good at second-guessing the
> investigators.
Second guessing?....No...We're just truthfully evaluating the information.
Walt
Bud
original dispute, before you steered the topic to this x-ray, was
whether it was suspicious behavior that the cops didn`t run a swab
through the rifle to prove whether it had been shot or not. Walt and
NoKetch made the assertion this was done with malice, without proving
such malice. Perhaps you can.
> As an example, you claim that there's no side view of the 6.5mm virtually round
> object...
>
> From the HSCA:
> 301. Skull X-ray No. 2, a lateral view of the head, reveals rather
> marked disruption of the smooth contour of the skull on the right side
> in the. temporal-parietal region, with multiple fractures through
> other portions of the skull. There is sharp disruption of the normal
> smooth contour of the skull 10 centimeters (as measured in the X-ray)
> above the external occipital protuberance, with suggested beveling of
> the inner table and with fracture lines radiating superiorly and
> inferiorly. (See fig. 16, showing the beveling process.) At this point
> there is an irregular, radiopaque, sharply outlined bullet fragment.
>
> Now, would you care to provide YOUR proof that there is no side view of this
> 6.5mm virtually round object?
>
object?" Notice the question mark? But, if you can direct me to where
I can view the two seperate views, maybe I can clear up this evidence
you seem to be having problems with.
>
> You're making LN'ers proud all around the world...
>
>
>
> >> >> *They* thought it was a bullet.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
> >>
> >> No answer??
> >
> > I answered this above, when I said I have no opinion. I didn`t see
> >the need to keep repeating it. But what expertise do I need?
>
> Why would you ask? This is the same question directed at CT'ers by LN'ers all
> the time. Yet, when someone dares to ask *YOU* the question, you have no
> answer?
>
> >> >> And just what *is* your explanation?
> >>
> >> No answer??
> >
> > See above.
>
> Yep... willing to assert that there *is* an explanation, but lacking the honesty
> to admit that you don't know what it is.
>
My point exactly. You call it that, but you don`t prove that is what
it is.
>
> >> That you don't find this fact disturbing is just your particular biased
> >> reality. Most people would call this "obstruction of justice". Not being
> >> a lawyer, I'm not sure, but I suspect that this is a felony...
> >>
> > You`re a suspicious guy.
>
>
> You seem to think that there's room for discussion on this issue.
>
>
> There isn't.
>
>
> Somebody destroyed evidence in a murder case.
>
Who?
>
> And somebody manufactured evidence in this case.
>
Who?
>
> >I kinda remember the FBI bulldozing the
> >Branch Davidian compound flat after that stand-off ended. Don`t
> >remember any charges. I know the did the same to the MOVE compound
> >here in Philly after that stand-off.
>
> So?
>
So it appears as though great legal leeway is given in regards to
what constitutes destruction of evidence.
I am a firm believer in human error. You need to show the intent to
destroy evidence.
>
> >> >> You mean like a 6.5mm virtually round object never seen in 63/64?
> >> >> Demonstrated.
> >> >>
> >> > Yes, there is a circle on an x-ray. If I were to look at a million
> >> >x-rays, would I find any circles. If I found circles, would they
> >> >necessarily be bullets?
> >>
> >> Again, you dispute the Clark Panel and the HSCA? On what basis?
> >>
> > Do you believe all the findings of the HSCA?
>
> Far easier than you can. *They* found probable conspiracy. Are you willing to
> admit that?
>
> >And why did you answer my question with a question?
>
> Okay, let's deal with your question... as dumb as it is. If you were to look at
> a million X-rays, the chances of you finding a circle that is PRECISELY the
> diameter of a fatal bullet, and located in PRECISELY the same location that can
> be CORROBORATED by a second X-ray taken from the side, would be zilch.
>
> You see, it's *not* just a circle. It's a circle with a very precise diameter,
> which just happens to match the assassination caliber. It's a circle that just
> happens to be in the 'right place'. It's a circle that just happens to be
> corroborated by a SECOND X-ray taken from a different direction.
>
> Now, why won't you answer my question, which I've asked several times now - your
> basis for concluding that the Clark Panel and the HSCA experts were wrong?
>
> Could it be that you simply don't *have* any basis?
>
I like the HSCA. They concluded that conspiracy wasn`t proven.
>
> >> >> >Like so-and-so ordered so-and-so to fix the curb,
> >> >> >to destroy evidence. That there are things you "don`t understand" is
> >> >> >well established.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was
> >> >> >> exculpatory. Such as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > You have a name of a person who ordered this information withheld,
> >> >>
> >> >> The Justice Department. Presumably the WC as well, since they knew of it,
> >> >> and failed to include it in their numerous volumes.
> >> >>
> >> > Don`t presume, prove.
> >>
> >> I know for a FACT that the WC failed to include this information... you can
> >> disprove my statement by simply citing the relevant section of the WC
> >> volumes that *does* contain this information.
> >>
> > I never disputed it was withheld. I challenged you to prove that it
> >was withheld for sinister reasons.
>
> Silly.
>
> Kindly provide ANY reason to withhold exculpatory evidence.
>
> This was *not* a prosecution - this was supposed to be the most massive
> investigation ever conducted.
>
>
> >The fact that you can`t think of a
> >reason that isn`t sinister doesn`t interest me.
>
> Nor does the fact that you can't provide any non-'sinister' reason.
>
The accusation of malice is yours. The burden of proving the malice
goes with it.
>
> >> >You don`t allow the WC the luxury of
> >> >presuption. But, first, you said "the government". Then you said "The
> >> >Justice Department". That`s good, we`re getting it narrowed down. Now,
> >> >tell me the name of the person who made the decision for withholding
> >> >the information, and the reason for withholding it. And no guessing...
> >>
> >> I'm not at my library right now, but I *do* have access to the name. I'll
> >> supply it later if you're truly interested.
> >>
> > That would be great. And, more importantly, if you could supply the
> >reason it was withheld.
>
> Redlich when deposing Gallagher were the first two people to hide the facts.
>
> Clarence Kelly with the FBI lied about the existence of the NAA files in an FOIA
> request.
>
> John Kilty, FBI Special agent. Lied about the existence of the NAA material in
> court.
>
> The lawsuit to release this information listed the Justice Dept and the ERD
> (AEC) as defendents. (Civil Action No. 75-0226)
>
> As for the specific individuals in the Justice Dept who ordered the non-release
> of this information, Attorney General Mitchell is as good a name as any.
>
> Now, reason withheld? There can only be one reason. I'll let *you* figure it
> out.
>
Thanks for supplying that. Seems the were reluctant to provide that
information. Motivations are difficult to ascertain, but easy to
assign. And reluctance to part with information that is damaging to
thier assassination theory is a different thing than what you charge
with the curb, which is criminal destruction of evidence. That would
require at least a similar documentation, which I haven`t seen. I`ve
just seen it said.
Bud
> What does proving intent do for Nicole and Ron? Or, for that matter, to JFK?
>
In this case, the intent needed is to prove that the curb was
tampered with for malicious reasons. You need to prove the intent.
> >> >Because that curb has been removed for 40
> >> >years. If you can`t prove conspiracy in one small aspect of the case
> >> >like this,
> >>
> >> Are you confused? The latest government investigation *DID* produce a
> >> finding of probable conspiracy.
> >>
> > "probable conspiracy"? That`s a different thing than saying a
> >conspiracy was proven, right?
>
> Nor did I say so.
>
Nor did they.
> >With all this killer evidence you guys claim to have,
>
> What, you're unfamiliar with the CT stance and evidence?
>
CT have one stance? I`ve always viewed them as contortionists.
> Must be, since your equally unfamiliar with LN'er evidence.
>
> You should start with the WCR, and the underlying volumes. Available on the
> net.
>
The what?
> >and you couldn`t even prove the conspiracy exists? Oh,
> >well, you tried...
>
> Succeeded... or have you failed to pay attention to the fact that close to 90%
> of the American people believe that there was a conspiracy?
>
It`s hard not to notice it, with the CT constantly bringing it up.
Yes, it does seem that the idea of conspiracy has taken hold in the
imagination of the American public. I wonder what the percentage of
that 90% could say who JD Tippit was? No matter, you`re very good at
convincing people of conspiracy, very bad at bringing together enough
evidence to charge anyone with being a conspirator. So, either I am
right, and these conspirators don`t exist, or you are right, and they
have nothing to worry about.
> It's a telling indictment that even with the mass media and government
> investigations behind them, LN'ers have been unable in 40 years to get more than
> a small minority to believe them.
>
It would be a lot harder to feel superior if everyone had common
sense.
Walt
> > >is that a lot of people start confessing thier hand in this conspiracy
> > >real soon.
> > > -Bud
> >
Bud, This statement reveals how really obtuse you are.....
This case isn't going to be resolved by someone confessing their hand in the
crime.... We've had several of those already.... the government has the
resources to discredit anybody who threatens to expose the truth, and
they've used it many times.....
This crime is going to be solved when the whole rotten mess comes
unglued..... Just as Stalin's crimes were laid bare after his death.....and
the Soviet empire collapsed. It's gonna happen.....When the thieves and
thugs in Washington finally overburden the average citizen with taxes while
filling their pockets with our tax dollars.When there are more citizens
living off the workers, and sitting on their asses, than there are people
working and producing revenue, and paying taxes... the system will
collapse.....That's when we'll learn how really corrupt the government has
become since they blew John Kennedy's head off....
Walt
Ben Holmes
Nope. Get back to the topic THAT I RESPONDED TO.
>The
>original dispute, before you steered the topic to this x-ray, was
>whether it was suspicious behavior that the cops didn`t run a swab
>through the rifle to prove whether it had been shot or not. Walt and
>NoKetch made the assertion this was done with malice, without proving
>such malice. Perhaps you can.
>
>>As an example, you claim that there's no side view of the 6.5mm virtually round
>> object...
>>
>> From the HSCA:
>> 301. Skull X-ray No. 2, a lateral view of the head, reveals rather
>> marked disruption of the smooth contour of the skull on the right side
>> in the. temporal-parietal region, with multiple fractures through
>> other portions of the skull. There is sharp disruption of the normal
>> smooth contour of the skull 10 centimeters (as measured in the X-ray)
>> above the external occipital protuberance, with suggested beveling of
>> the inner table and with fracture lines radiating superiorly and
>> inferiorly. (See fig. 16, showing the beveling process.) At this point
>> there is an irregular, radiopaque, sharply outlined bullet fragment.
>>
>> Now, would you care to provide YOUR proof that there is no side view of this
>> 6.5mm virtually round object?
>>
> My last comment on this was "are there views available of that
>object?" Notice the question mark? But, if you can direct me to where
>I can view the two seperate views, maybe I can clear up this evidence
>you seem to be having problems with.
Try reading my previous posts on this topic, do an archives search for 6.5mm
virtually round object, and you'll see URL cites to X-rays on the net. Or,
presuming *any* sort of library on the topic, you *should* be able to reference
your own books on the topic... a number of JFK books have the X-rays shown.
As for "clearing up this evidence", it's not I that have problems with it, it's
you who is trying to debate on a topic you're ignorant on.
Yep... still have. Are you a coward?
>>
>> You're making LN'ers proud all around the world...
>>
> Without even trying.
>>
>>
>> >> >> *They* thought it was a bullet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
>> >>
>> >> No answer??
>> >
>> > I answered this above, when I said I have no opinion. I didn`t see
>> >the need to keep repeating it. But what expertise do I need?
>>
>>Why would you ask? This is the same question directed at CT'ers by LN'ers all
>> the time. Yet, when someone dares to ask *YOU* the question, you have no
>> answer?
>>
>> >> >> And just what *is* your explanation?
>> >>
>> >> No answer??
>> >
>> > See above.
>>
>>Yep... willing to assert that there *is* an explanation, but lacking the honesty
>> to admit that you don't know what it is.
>>
> Or, lacking interest in the subject.
And yet are willing to attempt to misrepresent the subject here on the
newsgroup.
You're either trying to assert that where the curb was hit was not evidence, or
that the patching 'enhanced' rather than destroyed the evidence.
Both of which are nonsense, of course...
Now you're trying to argue that patching the curb didn't destroy the evidence
because someone "didn't really mean to do it"... ROTFLMAO!!!
>> >> >> You mean like a 6.5mm virtually round object never seen in 63/64?
>> >> >> Demonstrated.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Yes, there is a circle on an x-ray. If I were to look at a million
>> >> >x-rays, would I find any circles. If I found circles, would they
>> >> >necessarily be bullets?
>> >>
>> >> Again, you dispute the Clark Panel and the HSCA? On what basis?
>> >>
>> > Do you believe all the findings of the HSCA?
>>
>>Far easier than you can. *They* found probable conspiracy. Are you willing to
>> admit that?
>>
>> >And why did you answer my question with a question?
>>
>>Okay, let's deal with your question... as dumb as it is. If you were to look at
>> a million X-rays, the chances of you finding a circle that is PRECISELY the
>>diameter of a fatal bullet, and located in PRECISELY the same location that can
>> be CORROBORATED by a second X-ray taken from the side, would be zilch.
>>
>>You see, it's *not* just a circle. It's a circle with a very precise diameter,
>>which just happens to match the assassination caliber. It's a circle that just
>> happens to be in the 'right place'. It's a circle that just happens to be
>> corroborated by a SECOND X-ray taken from a different direction.
>>
>>Now, why won't you answer my question, which I've asked several times now - your
>> basis for concluding that the Clark Panel and the HSCA experts were wrong?
>>
>> Could it be that you simply don't *have* any basis?
>>
> I like the HSCA. They concluded that conspiracy wasn`t proven.
No, actually, they didn't.
Now, why won't you answer my question, which I've asked several times now - your
basis for concluding that the Clark Panel and the HSCA experts were wrong?
Could it be that you simply don't *have* any basis?
>> >> >> >Like so-and-so ordered so-and-so to fix the curb,
>> >> >> >to destroy evidence. That there are things you "don`t understand" is
>> >> >> >well established.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was
>> >> >> >> exculpatory. Such as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > You have a name of a person who ordered this information withheld,
>> >> >>
>>>> >> The Justice Department. Presumably the WC as well, since they knew of it,
>> >> >> and failed to include it in their numerous volumes.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Don`t presume, prove.
>> >>
>>>> I know for a FACT that the WC failed to include this information... you can
>> >> disprove my statement by simply citing the relevant section of the WC
>> >> volumes that *does* contain this information.
>> >>
>> > I never disputed it was withheld. I challenged you to prove that it
>> >was withheld for sinister reasons.
>>
>> Silly.
>>
>> Kindly provide ANY reason to withhold exculpatory evidence.
>>
>> This was *not* a prosecution - this was supposed to be the most massive
>> investigation ever conducted.
>>
>>
>> >The fact that you can`t think of a
>> >reason that isn`t sinister doesn`t interest me.
>>
>> Nor does the fact that you can't provide any non-'sinister' reason.
>>
> The accusation of malice is yours. The burden of proving the malice
>goes with it.
Red herring. I've never argued malice. Malice is NOT a requirement for
obstruction of justice, or destruction of evidence. It's normally present, yes.
>> >> >You don`t allow the WC the luxury of
>> >> >presuption. But, first, you said "the government". Then you said "The
>> >> >Justice Department". That`s good, we`re getting it narrowed down. Now,
>> >> >tell me the name of the person who made the decision for withholding
>> >> >the information, and the reason for withholding it. And no guessing...
>> >>
>> >> I'm not at my library right now, but I *do* have access to the name. I'll
>> >> supply it later if you're truly interested.
>> >>
>> > That would be great. And, more importantly, if you could supply the
>> >reason it was withheld.
>>
>> Redlich when deposing Gallagher were the first two people to hide the facts.
>>
>>Clarence Kelly with the FBI lied about the existence of the NAA files in an FOIA
>> request.
>>
>>John Kilty, FBI Special agent. Lied about the existence of the NAA material in
>> court.
>>
>> The lawsuit to release this information listed the Justice Dept and the ERD
>> (AEC) as defendents. (Civil Action No. 75-0226)
>>
>>As for the specific individuals in the Justice Dept who ordered the non-release
>> of this information, Attorney General Mitchell is as good a name as any.
>>
>>Now, reason withheld? There can only be one reason. I'll let *you* figure it
>> out.
>>
> Thanks for supplying that. Seems the were reluctant to provide that
>information.
And you're a LIAR!!!
I offered, above, to provide that information, and stated that the only reason I
wasn't offering it at that time was that wasn't at home where my library of
books is located.
On my VERY NEXT POST - done at home, I gave the information I had previously
offered to give you.
You're a bald-faced liar for asserting that I was "reluctant to provide that
information".
>Motivations are difficult to ascertain, but easy to
>assign. And reluctance to part with information that is damaging to
>thier assassination theory is a different thing than what you charge
>with the curb, which is criminal destruction of evidence. That would
>require at least a similar documentation, which I haven`t seen. I`ve
>just seen it said.
If you're asking for a citation to demonstrate that the curb was patched, here's
a quote from another post on the topic:
********************************
....Good Day.... From the MAY67 "Esquire" magazine, here is a closeup photo of
the TAGUE curb impact scar as photographed on 23NOV63, and a photo of the curb
after the F.B.I. removed it on 04AUG64:
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/TAGUEcurbSCARmarkCLOSE112363.gif
Here is what JAMES TAGUE said during a "Fox News" interview on 11NOV03:
<QUOTE>
There never was a hole.
It just took a little bit of concrete out.
He (HAROLD WEISBERG, my insertion) said, "Well, it has been patched."
Finally, in 1997, I went to the national archives with a magnifying glass to
examine this curb.
The assistant manager of the national archives was in this room.
I did not need my magnifying glass. I said, "It has been patched."
The assistant manager said, "Yes. I can see that."
I did find, I dug up -well, Harold gave it to me- an engineering report where,
in 1983, a major magazine had commissioned an engineering firm to examine the
curb.
They also confirmed that the curb had been patched.
<END QUOTE>
Don
CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
********************************
Bud
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:fc87368f.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Your only hope
> > > >is that a lot of people start confessing thier hand in this conspiracy
> > > >real soon.
> > > > -Bud
> > >
>
> Bud, This statement reveals how really obtuse you are.....
>
Ben Holmes
>
>"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<101h5t2...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fc87368f.04012...@posting.google.com...
>> Your only hope
>> > > >is that a lot of people start confessing thier hand in this conspiracy
>> > > >real soon.
>> > > > -Bud
>> > >
>>
>> Bud, This statement reveals how really obtuse you are.....
>>
> I could stand to shed some pounds, but I`m not that overweight...
Walt, if you needed any more proof, there it is...
AnthonyMarsh
Besides the fact that it is stupid and meaningless, it was beyond the
capabilities of the DPD crime lab.
Walt
> > >
> > Well then, maybe you can get back the topic in the header. The
> > original dispute, before you steered the topic to this x-ray, was
> > whether it was suspicious behavior that the cops didn`t run a swab
> > through the rifle to prove whether it had been shot or not. Walt and
> > NoKetch made the assertion this was done with malice, without proving
> > such malice. Perhaps you can.
> >
>
> Besides the fact that it is stupid and meaningless, it was beyond the
> capabilities of the DPD crime lab.
>
It was beyond the capabilities of the DPD crime lab to run a clean patch
throgh the bore of the rifle???
Have you been drinkin???
Even the greenest GI knows how to run a patch through the bore of a
rifle.....any six year old kid can do it.
>
Stupid and meaningless?.....are you describing yourself?
Walt
Bud
authorities were criminally negligent by not running a cloth swab
through the barrel of the assassination rifle to determine if it had
been fired. You injected the 6.5 subject, which I said was a subject I
was uninterested in, and not willing to engage in debate. You seem to
think you can demand what topic I must discuss. I`m pretty sure you
are wrong about that.
I know as much on this piece of evidence as my curiosity demands of
me.
> As for "clearing up this evidence", it's not I that have problems with it, it's
> you who is trying to debate on a topic you're ignorant on.
>
You need to look up the definition of debate.
Not that I noticed. Is arguing this topic you are obsessed with a
sign of bravery?
> >>
> >> You're making LN'ers proud all around the world...
> >>
> Without even trying.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> *They* thought it was a bullet.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
> >> >>
> >> >> No answer??
> >> >
> >> > I answered this above, when I said I have no opinion. I didn`t see
> >> >the need to keep repeating it. But what expertise do I need?
> >>
> >>Why would you ask? This is the same question directed at CT'ers by LN'ers all
> >> the time. Yet, when someone dares to ask *YOU* the question, you have no
> >> answer?
> >>
> >> >> >> And just what *is* your explanation?
> >> >>
> >> >> No answer??
> >> >
> >> > See above.
> >>
> >>Yep... willing to assert that there *is* an explanation, but lacking the honesty
> >> to admit that you don't know what it is.
> >>
> > Or, lacking interest in the subject.
>
> And yet are willing to attempt to misrepresent the subject here on the
> newsgroup.
>
Thats what newsgroups are for.
Neither, actually.
> Both of which are nonsense, of course...
>
Prove your scenario. It`s been done for 40 years. Do you need 40
more to prove your contention?
Closer. I`ll have to finish responding to this after work.
Bud
> In article <fc87368f.0401...@posting.google.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:<101h5t2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:fc87368f.04012...@posting.google.com...
> >> Your only hope
> >> > > >is that a lot of people start confessing thier hand in this conspiracy
> >> > > >real soon.
> >> > > > -Bud
> >> > >
> >>
> >> Bud, This statement reveals how really obtuse you are.....
> >>
> > I could stand to shed some pounds, but I`m not that overweight...
>
>
> Walt, if you needed any more proof, there it is...
>
sense of humor. Must be a CT thing, Walt totally missed Ted`s
"psychic/psychotic" play on words.
Ben Holmes
Nope... let's go back, and actually *read* what I responded to:
***************************************
> Conspicuously absent in all the sinister things you allege went on
>are any guilt-ridden agents coming forward in all these years saying
>they were forced by superiors to plant evidence, manufacture evidence,
>ect.
Untrue. There *have* been people who've come forward.
We *have* manufactured evidence... or do *YOU* care to explain the 6.5mm
virtually round object seen in the AP X-ray? Or the recently mentioned patch in
the curb?
And we *KNOW* that the government simply hid evidence that was exculpatory. Such
as the NA tests conducted by the AEC...
>I mean, I`m sure there are some kooks who worked the mailroom who
>claim they saw some sinister things, but no verifiable agents that,
>say, worked in the FBI photography department, and worked on the
>backyard photo. Or worked ballistics, and were told to purposely
>damage the rifle. You`d need dozens, if not hundreds, of agents to do
>all the things you allege, Walt.
That *is* right out of the LN'er handbook.
In reality, the conspiracy probably had less than a dozen people who knew all
the facts.
***************************************
As you can see, I made NO COMMENTS WHATSOEVER about the lack of a patch being
run through the rifle.
>You injected the 6.5 subject, which I said was a subject I
>was uninterested in,
And yet were willing to lie about...
>and not willing to engage in debate.
And yet were willing to lie about...
>You seem to think you can demand what topic I must discuss. I`m pretty
>sure you are wrong about that.
LOL!! Think about it a bit more...
Which is, quite obviously, not enough...
For someone attempting to claim that there was no manufactured evidence, you
seem strangely reluctant to actually look at the evidence of precisely that.
People who make the statement that there *are* explanations, but refuse to list
any of them, are cowards, IMO.
I've given you the option to put yourself in that category or not...
>> >> You're making LN'ers proud all around the world...
>> >>
>> Without even trying.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> *They* thought it was a bullet.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No answer??
>> >> >
>> >> > I answered this above, when I said I have no opinion. I didn`t see
>> >> >the need to keep repeating it. But what expertise do I need?
>> >>
>>>>Why would you ask? This is the same question directed at CT'ers by LN'ers all
>> >> the time. Yet, when someone dares to ask *YOU* the question, you have no
>> >> answer?
>> >>
>> >> >> >> And just what *is* your explanation?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No answer??
>> >> >
>> >> > See above.
>> >>
>>>>Yep... willing to assert that there *is* an explanation, but lacking the
>>honesty
>> >> to admit that you don't know what it is.
>> >>
>> > Or, lacking interest in the subject.
>>
>> And yet are willing to attempt to misrepresent the subject here on the
>> newsgroup.
>>
> Thats what newsgroups are for.
Newsgroups are for misrepresentations!??
Surely the LN'er handbook doesn't allow you to *ADMIT* this???
By all means, speak up.
When you don't, I'm merely going to continue to point out how silly your
'argument' is.
>> Both of which are nonsense, of course...
>>
> Prove your scenario.
That the curb was patched? Do you dispute it?
That the 6.5mm virtually round object exists in the AP X-rays? Or that NOBODY
saw it prior to 1966? Feel free to offer contrary citations.
>It`s been done for 40 years. Do you need 40
>more to prove your contention?
My contentions *are* proven. You just don't care to examine the evidence.
I'll be anxiously waiting for more laughs!
Feel free to try explaining the patching of the curb in terms OTHER than the
destruction of evidence.
And, before you do so, perhaps you should examine a few photos of the curb, so
you're prepared... There's a trap for the ignorant laying there...
Bud
Anyway, I don`t know who you are quoting with "didn`t really mean
to do it". Wasn`t me. I`ll spell out the point... you think you know
why the curb was patched, but you can`t prove why the curb was
patched. There is no reason for me to come up with an alternate
version from yours about why it was patched. I merely need to point
out that you have no testimony from anyone involved in the patching
indicating that your version is an accurate one, or no corroborating
evidence backing up your contention that this was a case of
destruction of evidence. You have a patched curb. You can give a
reason why you think it was patched. Is your reason correct? Who
knows? Seems to me you can prove the intent to destroy evidence, or do
the cowardly thing, and laugh about the request.
> >> >> >> You mean like a 6.5mm virtually round object never seen in 63/64?
> >> >> >> Demonstrated.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Yes, there is a circle on an x-ray. If I were to look at a million
> >> >> >x-rays, would I find any circles. If I found circles, would they
> >> >> >necessarily be bullets?
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, you dispute the Clark Panel and the HSCA? On what basis?
> >> >>
> >> > Do you believe all the findings of the HSCA?
> >>
> >>Far easier than you can. *They* found probable conspiracy. Are you willing to
> >> admit that?
> >>
> >> >And why did you answer my question with a question?
> >>
> >>Okay, let's deal with your question... as dumb as it is. If you were to look at
> >> a million X-rays, the chances of you finding a circle that is PRECISELY the
> >>diameter of a fatal bullet, and located in PRECISELY the same location that can
> >> be CORROBORATED by a second X-ray taken from the side, would be zilch.
> >>
> >>You see, it's *not* just a circle. It's a circle with a very precise diameter,
> >>which just happens to match the assassination caliber. It's a circle that just
> >> happens to be in the 'right place'. It's a circle that just happens to be
> >> corroborated by a SECOND X-ray taken from a different direction.
> >>
> >>Now, why won't you answer my question, which I've asked several times now - your
> >> basis for concluding that the Clark Panel and the HSCA experts were wrong?
> >>
> >> Could it be that you simply don't *have* any basis?
> >>
> > I like the HSCA. They concluded that conspiracy wasn`t proven.
>
> No, actually, they didn't.
>
So they concluded it was proven? Seems to me, you can only have one
of two conclusions. "Probably" isn`t a conclusion. Did they give the
odds? You know, 75% chance of conspiracy, something like that.
> Now, why won't you answer my question, which I've asked several times now - your
> basis for concluding that the Clark Panel and the HSCA experts were wrong?
>
I lost confidence in the HSCA when they botched the audio evidence.
Now let me ask you one. How many more investigations do you need
before a conspiracy is proven?
> Could it be that you simply don't *have* any basis?
>
Anything is possible. Hell, someday CT may even get somewhere with
all these "fun facts" they are collecting. I wouldn`t hold my
breath...
You`ve heard of people being charged with inadvertent destruction of
evidence? Of course you need to prove it was willful, purposeful, and
with malice for it to be criminal. Pouring sulfur down the gun barrel
isn`t a criminal destruction of evidence unless you can prove it was a
deliberate destruction of evidence.
Calm down, numbnut. That was a typo. I dropped the "y" in they.
They (the people you cited) were reluctant to provide the information
(the NAA material). My mistake, I should have been clearer in what I
was refering to. But you shouldn`t go off half-cocked with the "liar"
charges.
>
> >Motivations are difficult to ascertain, but easy to
> >assign. And reluctance to part with information that is damaging to
> >thier assassination theory is a different thing than what you charge
> >with the curb, which is criminal destruction of evidence. That would
> >require at least a similar documentation, which I haven`t seen. I`ve
> >just seen it said.
>
> If you're asking for a citation to demonstrate that the curb was patched, here's
> a quote from another post on the topic:
>
I don`t remember disputing the curb was patched. I disputed that
you could prove the motivation behind patching the curb. Not just
assign a reason, but actually prove the reason. I could give reasons,
but they would be guesses, devoid of testimony or corroberating
evidence, like your conclusion. You take my reason, and compare it to
your version, and decide you like yours better. What I was doing was
different. I was challenging you to prove your version. Unless you are
a coward...
Ben Holmes
Sure it was... you're trying to toss in "intent" into the debate. It's going to
backfire on you, because quite obviously you haven't taken a look at pictures of
the curb yet. Let me know when you do, and I'll expand on this point.
>I`ll spell out the point... you think you know
>why the curb was patched,
Yep... there *is* no alternative explanation, which should become clear to you
when you actually view a photo of the curb.
>but you can`t prove why the curb was
>patched. There is no reason for me to come up with an alternate
>version from yours about why it was patched. I merely need to point
>out that you have no testimony from anyone involved in the patching
>indicating that your version is an accurate one, or no corroborating
>evidence backing up your contention that this was a case of
>destruction of evidence.
It WAS destruction of evidence... you keep thinking that intent had to be proven
before you demonstrate that the evidence WAS destroyed.
>You have a patched curb. You can give a
>reason why you think it was patched. Is your reason correct? Who
>knows? Seems to me you can prove the intent to destroy evidence, or do
>the cowardly thing, and laugh about the request.
Come back when you've examined a photo of the curb, I have no intention of
backstabbing you on this issue. When you've examined the photos, then we'll
continue this. If you don't have access to photos of the curb, I'm sure I can
either locate some on the net, or scan in some photos and post them.
So you simply don't believe in the HSCA and their "expert" status. Okay. On
what basis have YOU decided that the 6.5mm virtually round object is not a
bullet? Did you study the X-rays? Have you measured the object? Are you a
forensic pathologist? Are you an expert on ammo? Are you a radiologist?
Just *what* is your basis?
Or is it merely an opinion tossed into the wind with no evidence to support it?
>Now let me ask you one. How many more investigations do you need
>before a conspiracy is proven?
It has been. Only the most strongly biased individuals, particularly those who
are unfamiliar with the evidence, hold otherwise.
Take a look at the photos, and we'll talk again. Ambushing you with the facts
would be far too easy, I'd rather that you were attempting to support your
statements with the actual facts in hand.
My apologies. I don't consider it "half-cocked", this *is* a written forum, and
people need to re-check what they type, but my accusation was wrong.
>> >Motivations are difficult to ascertain, but easy to
>> >assign. And reluctance to part with information that is damaging to
>> >thier assassination theory is a different thing than what you charge
>> >with the curb, which is criminal destruction of evidence. That would
>> >require at least a similar documentation, which I haven`t seen. I`ve
>> >just seen it said.
>>
>>If you're asking for a citation to demonstrate that the curb was patched, here's
>> a quote from another post on the topic:
>>
> I don`t remember disputing the curb was patched. I disputed that
>you could prove the motivation behind patching the curb. Not just
>assign a reason, but actually prove the reason. I could give reasons,
>but they would be guesses, devoid of testimony or corroberating
>evidence, like your conclusion. You take my reason, and compare it to
>your version, and decide you like yours better. What I was doing was
>different. I was challenging you to prove your version. Unless you are
>a coward...
As soon as you've examined photos of the curb, we'll continue this...
Walt
> Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:<bvc74...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <fc87368f.0401...@posting.google.com>, Bud says...
> > >
> > >"Walt" <Papakoc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:<101h5t2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > >> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:fc87368f.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > >> Your only hope
> > >> > > >is that a lot of people start confessing thier hand in this
conspiracy
> > >> > > >real soon.
> > >> > > > -Bud
> > >> > >
> > >>
> > >> Bud, This statement reveals how really obtuse you are.....
> > >>
> > > I could stand to shed some pounds, but I`m not that overweight...
> >
> >
> > Walt, if you needed any more proof, there it is...
> >
> The only thing it proves is, among your other faults, you have no
> sense of humor. Must be a CT thing, Walt totally missed Ted`s
> "psychic/psychotic" play on words.
>
nose what you think.
Walt
AnthonyMarsh
>
> "AnthonyMarsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:4019CAB4...@quik.com...
>
> > > >
> > > Well then, maybe you can get back the topic in the header. The
> > > original dispute, before you steered the topic to this x-ray, was
> > > whether it was suspicious behavior that the cops didn`t run a swab
> > > through the rifle to prove whether it had been shot or not. Walt and
> > > NoKetch made the assertion this was done with malice, without proving
> > > such malice. Perhaps you can.
> > >
> >
> > Besides the fact that it is stupid and meaningless, it was beyond the
> > capabilities of the DPD crime lab.
> >
>
> It was beyond the capabilities of the DPD crime lab to run a clean patch
> throgh the bore of the rifle???
> Have you been drinkin???
When you do that you change the evidence. The DPD turned the rifle over
to the FBI for testing.
Bud
Make an assertion, I`ll provide the evidence." It seemed to me to be
an open invitation to any topic, so I choose the original one from the
thread. But you don`t have to discuss it if you don`t want to. Only an
asshole would keep insisting that someone must debate a topic they
expressed disinterest in.
>
> >You injected the 6.5 subject, which I said was a subject I
> >was uninterested in,
>
> And yet were willing to lie about...
>
> >and not willing to engage in debate.
>
> And yet were willing to lie about...
>
Your frustration is showing...
> >You seem to think you can demand what topic I must discuss. I`m pretty
> >sure you are wrong about that.
>
> LOL!! Think about it a bit more...
>
Why?
To suit who?
> For someone attempting to claim that there was no manufactured evidence, you
> seem strangely reluctant to actually look at the evidence of precisely that.
>
Did I claim there was no manufactured evidence? I think you are
lying...
Anyone who would allow another person to browbeat them into
discussing a topic they are not interested in is a coward, IMO.
> I've given you the option to put yourself in that category or not...
>
I can do what you tell me to do, or not. Hmmm... tough one. Let`s
try "not".
>
> >> >> You're making LN'ers proud all around the world...
> >> >>
> Without even trying.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> *They* thought it was a bullet.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Just what expertise do you have to reject their considered opinion?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No answer??
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I answered this above, when I said I have no opinion. I didn`t see
> >> >> >the need to keep repeating it. But what expertise do I need?
> >> >>
> >>>>Why would you ask? This is the same question directed at CT'ers by LN'ers all
> >> >> the time. Yet, when someone dares to ask *YOU* the question, you have no
> >> >> answer?
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And just what *is* your explanation?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No answer??
> >> >> >
> >> >> > See above.
> >> >>
> >>>>Yep... willing to assert that there *is* an explanation, but lacking the
> honesty
> >> >> to admit that you don't know what it is.
> >> >>
> >> > Or, lacking interest in the subject.
> >>
> >> And yet are willing to attempt to misrepresent the subject here on the
> >> newsgroup.
> >>
> > Thats what newsgroups are for.
>
>
> Newsgroups are for misrepresentations!??
>
>
> Surely the LN'er handbook doesn't allow you to *ADMIT* this???
>
This is the conspiracy newsgroup. Of course it`s for
misrepresentations.
"My argument" is asking you to prove the criminal tampering with
evidence that was alleged.
>
>
> >> Both of which are nonsense, of course...
> >>
> > Prove your scenario.
>
> That the curb was patched? Do you dispute it?
>
Not once.
> That the 6.5mm virtually round object exists in the AP X-rays? Or that NOBODY
> saw it prior to 1966? Feel free to offer contrary citations.
>
Thanks.
> >It`s been done for 40 years. Do you need 40
> >more to prove your contention?
>
> My contentions *are* proven. You just don't care to examine the evidence.
>
Need I remind you again that "saying" and "proving" are different
things?
Was it worth the wait?
Bud
>
> >I`ll spell out the point... you think you know
> >why the curb was patched,
>
> Yep... there *is* no alternative explanation, which should become clear to you
> when you actually view a photo of the curb.
>
it.
>
> >but you can`t prove why the curb was
> >patched. There is no reason for me to come up with an alternate
> >version from yours about why it was patched. I merely need to point
> >out that you have no testimony from anyone involved in the patching
> >indicating that your version is an accurate one, or no corroborating
> >evidence backing up your contention that this was a case of
> >destruction of evidence.
>
> It WAS destruction of evidence... you keep thinking that intent had to be proven
> before you demonstrate that the evidence WAS destroyed.
>
>
> >You have a patched curb. You can give a
> >reason why you think it was patched. Is your reason correct? Who
> >knows? Seems to me you can prove the intent to destroy evidence, or do
> >the cowardly thing, and laugh about the request.
>
> Come back when you've examined a photo of the curb, I have no intention of
> backstabbing you on this issue. When you've examined the photos, then we'll
> continue this. If you don't have access to photos of the curb, I'm sure I can
> either locate some on the net, or scan in some photos and post them.
>
think. I saw a chuck of concrete with a white mark on it. Not a good
picture. So, do you need a drumroll, or aren`t you finished with the
teasers. Get to the proving, if you don`t mind...
audio tapes, I realized they were... *sniff*... only human. No telling
what else they were wrong about...
> Okay. On
> what basis have YOU decided that the 6.5mm virtually round object is not a
> bullet? Did you study the X-rays? Have you measured the object? Are you a
> forensic pathologist? Are you an expert on ammo? Are you a radiologist?
Are you an asshole?
> Just *what* is your basis?
>
First base, second base, third base, home plate.
> Or is it merely an opinion tossed into the wind with no evidence to support it?
>
What opinion is that?
>
> >Now let me ask you one. How many more investigations do you need
> >before a conspiracy is proven?
>
> It has been. Only the most strongly biased individuals, particularly those who
> are unfamiliar with the evidence, hold otherwise.
>
If conspiracy is proven why are you here? Why does this newgroup
exist? Why couldn`t the HSCA prove it`s existence?
I can hardly wait...
I intrigued. I`m enthralled. I`m losing interest. Spill it...
Ben Holmes
Yep... What I *don't* hear is any more silly comments from you about the 6.5mm
virtually round object. Seems like you realize that I *do* know what I'm
talking about, and *do* have the evidence.
>It seemed to me to be
>an open invitation to any topic, so I choose the original one from the
>thread. But you don`t have to discuss it if you don`t want to. Only an
>asshole would keep insisting that someone must debate a topic they
>expressed disinterest in.
>> >You injected the 6.5 subject, which I said was a subject I
>> >was uninterested in,
>>
>> And yet were willing to lie about...
>>
> That I was unwilling to let you decide I must discuss...
And yet were willing to lie about...
>> >and not willing to engage in debate.
>>
>> And yet were willing to lie about...
>>
> Your frustration is showing...
And yet were willing to lie about...
>> >You seem to think you can demand what topic I must discuss. I`m pretty
>> >sure you are wrong about that.
>>
>> LOL!! Think about it a bit more...
>>
> Why?
Oh, I'm sure the lurkers have caught on!
Any lurkers reading this.
You're making a *very* poor case for your original assertions.
You seem strangely reluctant to deal with the evidence that there *is*
manufactured evidence in this case.
>> For someone attempting to claim that there was no manufactured evidence, you
>> seem strangely reluctant to actually look at the evidence of precisely that.
>>
> Did I claim there was no manufactured evidence? I think you are
>lying...
"Conspicuously absent in all the sinister things you allege went on
are any guilt-ridden agents coming forward in all these years saying
they were forced by superiors to plant evidence, manufacture
evidence, ect."
Caught in the web of your own making... yes, you *did* make this claim, and no,
it's clear that I am not 'lying' about what you said.
Nobody "browbeat" you into making statements that you can't support. You're a
coward for trying to weasel out of it.
You tried to claim that there *are* explanations, and refuse to name a single
one. Can't you get help from the censored newsgroup? Don't you have any LN'er
friends you can call on for help? Then, at least, you wouldn't appear to be the
liar that you appear now to be.
>> I've given you the option to put yourself in that category or not...
>>
> I can do what you tell me to do, or not. Hmmm... tough one. Let`s
>try "not".
Good for you. I'll continue to point out that you made a statement that you
refuse to support, and let lurkers decide who's a coward and a liar.
Unfortunately for your interpretation, it's clear that the misrepresentations
are all coming from your side.
Afraid of the evidence, aren't you?
And I continue to point out that the evidence was *still* destroyed, and
required no proof of malice for the evidence to be destroyed.
>> >> Both of which are nonsense, of course...
>> >>
>> > Prove your scenario.
>>
>> That the curb was patched? Do you dispute it?
>>
> Not once.
Ah! A sign of intelligence!
>>That the 6.5mm virtually round object exists in the AP X-rays? Or that NOBODY
>> saw it prior to 1966? Feel free to offer contrary citations.
>>
> Thanks.
Ah! I see that despite your challenge to "prove my scenario", you aren't
interested in debating it.
Or, of course, providing the "explanations" you said existed.
>> >It`s been done for 40 years. Do you need 40
>> >more to prove your contention?
>>
>> My contentions *are* proven. You just don't care to examine the evidence.
>>
> Need I remind you again that "saying" and "proving" are different
>things?
You mean like your refusal to "say" what "explanations" exist? Your failure to
"prove" that any alternative theory exists?
Bud
You offered to supply evidence to my assertions. Yet,when I
mentioned the swab thing, you refused. Scared?
What I *don't* hear is any more silly comments from you about the
6.5mm
> virtually round object.
> Seems like you realize that I *do* know what I'm
> talking about, and *do* have the evidence.
>
Did I say that?
> >It seemed to me to be
> >an open invitation to any topic, so I choose the original one from the
> >thread. But you don`t have to discuss it if you don`t want to. Only an
> >asshole would keep insisting that someone must debate a topic they
> >expressed disinterest in.
> >> >You injected the 6.5 subject, which I said was a subject I
> >> >was uninterested in,
> >>
> >> And yet were willing to lie about...
> >>
> > That I was unwilling to let you decide I must discuss...
>
>
> And yet were willing to lie about...
I must discuss your favorite topic or you will call me names? Ouch.
> >> >and not willing to engage in debate.
> >>
> >> And yet were willing to lie about...
> >>
> > Your frustration is showing...
>
>
> And yet were willing to lie about...
>
I wonder if this tactic will force me talk about your favorite
topic. Time will tell...
>
> >> >You seem to think you can demand what topic I must discuss. I`m pretty
> >> >sure you are wrong about that.
> >>
> >> LOL!! Think about it a bit more...
> >>
> > Why?
>
> Oh, I'm sure the lurkers have caught on!
>
Them lurkers is a sharp bunch.
Thank God! I thought you were refering to someone I give a fuck
about.
>
> You're making a *very* poor case for your original assertions.
Perhaps that can be explained by my complete lack of effort.
> You seem strangely reluctant to deal with the evidence that there *is*
> manufactured evidence in this case.
I just asked for proof on your assertion that there was criminal
tampering with evidence in regards to the curb. Do or do not... there
is no try.
> >> For someone attempting to claim that there was no manufactured evidence, you
> >> seem strangely reluctant to actually look at the evidence of precisely that.
> >>
> > Did I claim there was no manufactured evidence? I think you are
> >lying...
>
>
> "Conspicuously absent in all the sinister things you allege went on
> are any guilt-ridden agents coming forward in all these years saying
> they were forced by superiors to plant evidence, manufacture
> evidence, ect."
>
> Caught in the web of your own making... yes, you *did* make this claim, and no,
> it's clear that I am not 'lying' about what you said.
Now you compound your lies. I said that no one had come forward to
admit manufacturing evidence, and you said I claimed there was no
manufactured evidence. Liar, liar, pants on fire...
I`m still thinking I can comment as much or as little on a topic as
I decide.
> You tried to claim that there *are* explanations, and refuse to name a single
> one.
And I told you why I wouldn`t. Shall we rehash it again?
> Can't you get help from the censored newsgroup?
To help me in the discussion of a topic I am not discussing?
> Don't you have any LN'er
> friends you can call on for help?
Yes, me and my friends discuss that object in that x-ray all the
time. I just don`t want to discuss it with you, for I am paralyzed
with fear.
> Then, at least, you wouldn't appear to be the
> liar that you appear now to be.
Couldn`t fit another "appear" in there?
> >> I've given you the option to put yourself in that category or not...
> >>
> > I can do what you tell me to do, or not. Hmmm... tough one. Let`s
> >try "not".
>
> Good for you. I'll continue to point out that you made a statement that you
> refuse to support,
Or discuss, or debate, or wax poetic...
> and let lurkers decide who's a coward and a liar.
You really shouldn`t worry so much what other people think.
You said conspiracy was proven. Is that a truthful representation of
the facts?
> Afraid of the evidence, aren't you?
When I`m not lying.
So you can`t prove the criminal tampering with evidence? Or are you
just afraid?
>
> >> >> Both of which are nonsense, of course...
> >> >>
> >> > Prove your scenario.
> >>
> >> That the curb was patched? Do you dispute it?
> >>
> > Not once.
>
> Ah! A sign of intelligence!
>
Ten posts before it sinks in that I never said that? Do I need ten
post before what I say catches up with you?
> >>That the 6.5mm virtually round object exists in the AP X-rays? Or that NOBODY
> >> saw it prior to 1966? Feel free to offer contrary citations.
> >>
> > Thanks.
>
> Ah! I see that despite your challenge to "prove my scenario", you aren't
> interested in debating it.
No, you see me thanking you for letting me offer contrary citations.
> Or, of course, providing the "explanations" you said existed.
>
Of course.
>
> >> >It`s been done for 40 years. Do you need 40
> >> >more to prove your contention?
> >>
> >> My contentions *are* proven. You just don't care to examine the evidence.
> >>
> > Need I remind you again that "saying" and "proving" are different
> >things?
>
> You mean like your refusal to "say" what "explanations" exist? Your failure to
> "prove" that any alternative theory exists?
Or your failure to show where I said no evidence was manufactured?