This deserves its own thread

[bigdog]

For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
question:

"Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
going to invoke another one of your double standards?"

To which Chris replied:

"WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".

So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
Carcano. We can just assume they did.

With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.

[BOZ]

Here is another problem. Mainframetech claims that JFK was shot and killed
from the right front yet Main claims that Mac Wallace fired from the TSBD
and killed Kennedy. I guess JFK was killed twice.

[BOZ]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

THE SPOTTER WAS PROBABLY MRS. PAINE WHO WAS AT THE TSBD LOOKING FOR HER
CURTAIN RODS.

[David Von Pein]

LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.

This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
ask:

***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
without anybody seeing them leave?***

Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.

[Robert Harris]

While I am not a supporter of the Wallace theory, I can't help but get a
good laugh out of the horrific reasoning you employ.

If Wallace or some other accomplice had fired the MC rifle at Kennedy that
day, the conspiracy could have gotten the ammunition anywhere. Of course
no attempt was made (that we know of), to track down their purchases.

Oswald, was thoroughly investigated and except for the weekend in which he
met with the FBI on 11/16/63, his movements, whereabouts and purchases
were investigated down to the tiniest detail.

Sooo, it is MUCH more significant that the authorities could not find
where Oswald got ammunition, than that no one knows where the others got
theirs.

John, there is a reason that you make such bad arguments. You seek debate
fodder to support your pre-drawn conclusions. What you SHOULD be doing is
seeking out evidence with no concern for which side it supports, and then
draw your conclusions from that.

When you do that, lights will start coming on all over the place:-)


Robert Harris

[John McAdams]

On 1 Jan 2017 19:50:15 -0500, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>John, there is a reason that you make such bad arguments. You seek debate
>fodder to support your pre-drawn conclusions. What you SHOULD be doing is
>seeking out evidence with no concern for which side it supports, and then
>draw your conclusions from that.
>
>When you do that, lights will start coming on all over the place:-)
>
>

Irony alert!

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:41:03 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
> is proof he never bought any.

WRONG! You've been listening to the liars again and repeating their
lies. I have NEVER said that the FBI not finding the proof means that it
is proof that Oswald never bought any ammunition. However, I have said
that they can't find anyplace that he bought any, and that coupled with
the fact that they also could not find anyplace where he practiced with
his rifle, suggests that he did not have any intention of shooting anyone.
I can appreciate your irritation at not being able to win any arguments in
the JFK case with me, so that you have felt it necessary to make this
thread just for me, but it isn't helpful to you. You're going to keep
losing arguments as long as you hold the WCR to your chest like your
savior and avoid thinking things through before blatting out foolish
questions. Nor will your logic improve from what I've seen, and I'm sure
that hurts knowing that.

Lately he has become enamored with the book
> The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> by an unnamed woman were was their spotter.

WRONG again! I have NEVER said the woman was a "spotter". But that's
just the kind of mistake that you make all the time. You're so enamored
with 'winning' arguments and looking good to everyone, that you will go to
great lengths in hopes you can recover the ego lost from previous clashes
about the case. What I HAVE said is that the woman, who was named 'Ruth
Ann Martinez' was the person that signaled others with a walkie-talkie to
fire on the motorcade in unison. If you had read the book that I
recommended, you'd know all that, and not make yet another batch of
errors.

(don't asked me why a two man
> team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> question:
>
> "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
> bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
> going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
>
> To which Chris replied:
>
> "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
> had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
>

You seemed to have left out my full answer, which included that the CIA
had bought an awful lot of that odd ammo, but had no MC rifles to use it
with.

> So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> Carcano. We can just assume they did.
>

WRONG again! Of course, I've made the usual corrections to that above
since you can't seem to get anything right. I can't see how opening this
separate thread will help you regain any of your lost ego, why not try
using real evidence in the case instead of constant opinions? That would
certainly improve my opinion of your abilities. And having the courage to
talk to me directly would help you too in my estimation, instead of going
to third parties in an attempt to make them listen to you. As you and I
argue, I'm not sure that very many people follow the arguments and get to
know your kind of errors.

> With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.

WRONG! Well, here's yet another error to be corrected by me. You seem
to forget the intervening 90's when the ARRB took much sworn testimony
that bears on the case, and proves much of the cover ups that were done in
the autopsy and elsewhere. So the old LN baloney of 53 years with no new
evidence is false. For those that are honestly interested in information
developed by the ARRB, let me know, I'll be happy to point out some of it.

And so yet another attack on me is closed with the same ending as the
many arguments generated by you. Just another amusing sidelight. Now
back to the evidence and proofs.

Chris

[Chosen Ten]

I'm glad you brought up Oswald's ammo bigdog. Because the FBI actually did
trace the bullets back to The CIA. The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
well. I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.

[BOZ]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

Maybe Oswald sold Factor and Wallace some MC ammo since he also brought
the rifle to the TSBD in order to sell. Maybe there was a yard sale that
day.

[Anthony Marsh]

WC defenders are not the only hypocrites. Some conspiracy kooks are also
hypocrites. As you just pointed out.

The difference is that they know they are only guessing, while the WC
defenders claim to have the absolute truth. Both without any evidence.
Different sides, same problems, same tactics.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/31/2016 11:41 PM, bigdog wrote:

> For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that

Remiss Why didn't he tell you that the DPD didn't even try and the WC
didn't even care? In most routine murder cases the state tries to prove
each and every little point of evidence.

> is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
> The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
> team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> question:
>

Snipers often go out in 2-man team. The shooter is called the shooter
and the spotter is called the spotter. The spotter is also there to
protect the shooter from return fire and may have to take over if the
shooter is wounded or killed. He is the back-up shooter and often is
armed with an automatic rifle incase their position gets attacked by
more than one person.

> "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
> bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
> going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
>

He's trying to turn your standard of proof back on you.

> To which Chris replied:
>
> "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have

But I'm not allowed to say the word stupid.
I have to say academically challenged.

> had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
>
> So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> Carcano. We can just assume they did.
>

He's trying to hold you to the same standard of proof that you are
demanding of him.

> With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
>

Is it any wonder that after 52 years you guys have had hundreds of
Single Bullet Theories and can't prove any of them?

>

[bigdog]

The most amazing thing is I don't think Chris sees any inconsistency in
his positions. I even gave him a heads up before he walked into this trap
when I asked, "Or are you going to invoke another one of your double
standards?". He went right ahead and invoked another one of his double
standards anyway.

It's easy to demonstrate his double standard. If you took his statement,

"Factor and Wallace had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we

don't know where." and substituted Oswald's name for Factor and Wallace it
would read, "Oswald had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we
don't know where.". Would Chris accept that has a legitimate argument. I
seriously doubt it. In his world it's OK to assume Factor and Wallace
obtained ammo for the Carcano even though we have no evidence as to where
they bought it, but it's not OK to assume the same for Oswald.

In reality, both versions of statement are legitimate. The fact that we
can't prove where Wallace, Factor, or Oswald bought Carcano ammo does not
by itself establish that they couldn't have bought ammo. But Chris
believes that fact disqualifies Oswald as a suspect but doesn't disqualify
Wallace and Factor. Such is the way the conspiracy hobbyist mind works.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did he say Wallace made a head shot? Some kooks do believe there were
two head shots, one from the front and one from behind.

[BOZ]

How did the real killers manage to enter the building without anybody
seeing them enter?

[BOZ]

Big Dog's argument is perfectly logical. That is exactly why you have a
problem with it. Bob your logic is that no witnesses saw a shooter in the
Dal Tex and therefore this proves that there was a shooter in the Dal Tex.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> While I am not a supporter of the Wallace theory, I can't help but get a
> good laugh out of the horrific reasoning you employ.
>
> If Wallace or some other accomplice had fired the MC rifle at Kennedy that
> day, the conspiracy could have gotten the ammunition anywhere.

As could Oswald.

> Of course
> no attempt was made (that we know of), to track down their purchases.
>

Doesn't matter. If you are going to insist that it be proved where Oswald
bought his ammo, it should be a necessary element to proving any
alternative shooter as well. Of course the whole argument is a red herring
since proving where any murderer bought his ammo is not a requirement.

> Oswald, was thoroughly investigated and except for the weekend in which he
> met with the FBI on 11/16/63, his movements, whereabouts and purchases
> were investigated down to the tiniest detail.
>

So what. Do you think there would be a record of everything Oswald did?
Specifically, do you think there would be a record of any ammo purchases
he made. The FBI was taking a flyer trying to establish where Oswald
bought his ammo. Maybe they were hoping he paid for his ammo with a check
or that some clerk might remember him buying some. It was a longshot given
that he had to have bought the ammo before the attempt to kill Walker the
previous spring.

> Sooo, it is MUCH more significant that the authorities could not find
> where Oswald got ammunition, than that no one knows where the others got
> theirs.
>

No it isn't significant at all. There is no reason to expect that they
would have found where Oswald bought his ammo.

> John, there is a reason that you make such bad arguments.

Well at least we're getting into your area of expertise.

> You seek debate
> fodder to support your pre-drawn conclusions. What you SHOULD be doing is
> seeking out evidence with no concern for which side it supports, and then
> draw your conclusions from that.
>

That was done a long time ago. The WC laid out the evidence against Oswald
and it is overwhelming. The time for being open minded about Oswald's
guilt expired over 50 years ago.

> When you do that, lights will start coming on all over the place:-)
>

I won't say what I'm thinking because I don't want you whining to John
McAdams that I am making a personal attack against you

[bigdog]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:54:05 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:41:03 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> > unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
> > is proof he never bought any.
>
>
>
> WRONG! You've been listening to the liars again and repeating their
> lies. I have NEVER said that the FBI not finding the proof means that it
> is proof that Oswald never bought any ammunition. However, I have said
> that they can't find anyplace that he bought any, and that coupled with
> the fact that they also could not find anyplace where he practiced with
> his rifle, suggests that he did not have any intention of shooting anyone.

Oh, it "suggests" he didn't intend to shoot anyone. Then you acknowledge
it doesn't prove he didn't shoot anyone.

> I can appreciate your irritation at not being able to win any arguments in
> the JFK case with me,

Excuse me. I needed to stifle a laugh.................
OK, I think I'm good..............HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry. I couldn't help it.

> so that you have felt it necessary to make this
> thread just for me, but it isn't helpful to you. You're going to keep
> losing arguments as long as you hold the WCR to your chest like your
> savior and avoid thinking things through before blatting out foolish
> questions. Nor will your logic improve from what I've seen, and I'm sure
> that hurts knowing that.
>

Right, Chris. It's just devastating. I don't know whether to kill myself
or go bowling.

>
>
> Lately he has become enamored with the book
> > The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> > Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> > by an unnamed woman were was their spotter.
>
>
>
> WRONG again! I have NEVER said the woman was a "spotter".

Cheerleader?

> But that's
> just the kind of mistake that you make all the time. You're so enamored
> with 'winning' arguments and looking good to everyone, that you will go to
> great lengths in hopes you can recover the ego lost from previous clashes
> about the case. What I HAVE said is that the woman, who was named 'Ruth
> Ann Martinez' was the person that signaled others with a walkie-talkie to
> fire on the motorcade in unison.

Some people might call that a spotter.

> If you had read the book that I
> recommended, you'd know all that, and not make yet another batch of
> errors.
>

There's a glowing endorsement. <chuckle>

>
>
> (don't asked me why a two man
> > team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> > question:
> >
> > "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> > ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
> > bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
> > going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
> >
> > To which Chris replied:
> >
> > "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
> > had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
> >
>
>
> You seemed to have left out my full answer, which included that the CIA
> had bought an awful lot of that odd ammo, but had no MC rifles to use it
> with.
>
>
>
> > So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> > we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> > any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> > Carcano. We can just assume they did.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG again! Of course, I've made the usual corrections to that above
> since you can't seem to get anything right. I can't see how opening this
> separate thread will help you regain any of your lost ego, why not try
> using real evidence in the case instead of constant opinions? That would
> certainly improve my opinion of your abilities. And having the courage to
> talk to me directly would help you too in my estimation,

Right, Chris. I never do that. <chuckle>

> instead of going
> to third parties in an attempt to make them listen to you. As you and I
> argue, I'm not sure that very many people follow the arguments and get to
> know your kind of errors.
>

How do you suppose we are able to argue if, as you just charged, I don't
have the courage to talk to you directly?

>
>
> > With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> > conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
>
>
> WRONG! Well, here's yet another error to be corrected by me. You seem
> to forget the intervening 90's when the ARRB took much sworn testimony
> that bears on the case, and proves much of the cover ups that were done in
> the autopsy and elsewhere. So the old LN baloney of 53 years with no new
> evidence is false. For those that are honestly interested in information
> developed by the ARRB, let me know, I'll be happy to point out some of it.
>

You're still going around in circles. Have you noticed the scenery never
changes.

> And so yet another attack on me is closed with the same ending as the
> many arguments generated by you. Just another amusing sidelight. Now
> back to the evidence and proofs.

How can you go back to a place you've never visited before?

[bigdog]

This smells like a factoid. Do you have a cite to support this?

[BOZ]

What is your excuse?

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:

> While I am not a supporter of the Wallace theory, I can't help but get a
> good laugh out of the horrific reasoning you employ.
>
> If Wallace or some other accomplice had fired the MC rifle at Kennedy that
> day, the conspiracy could have gotten the ammunition anywhere. Of course
> no attempt was made (that we know of), to track down their purchases.
>
> Oswald, was thoroughly investigated and except for the weekend in which he
> met with the FBI on 11/16/63, his movements, whereabouts and purchases
> were investigated down to the tiniest detail.

Horrific reasoning to believe the FBI has such capabilities. Conspiracy
hobbyists start from a false reality and proceed from there.

> Sooo, it is MUCH more significant that the authorities could not find
> where Oswald got ammunition, than that no one knows where the others got
> theirs.

Horrific reasoning. It isn`t significant at all that the authorities
couldn`t find where Oswald purchased the ammunition, it establishes
nothing and rules out nothing. That Oswald`s rifle contained a live round
when it was found speaks loudest on the issue of whether Oswald acquired
ammunition.

> John, there is a reason that you make such bad arguments. You seek debate
> fodder to support your pre-drawn conclusions. What you SHOULD be doing is
> seeking out evidence with no concern for which side it supports, and then
> draw your conclusions from that.
>
> When you do that, lights will start coming on all over the place:-)

When people accept the idea there is a God they start to see evidence of
God everywhere. Doesn`t speak to the existence of God, speaks to man`s
ability to self deceive.

[Bud]

Confession is good for the soul.

> As you just pointed out.
>
> The difference is that they know they are only guessing, while the WC
> defenders claim to have the absolute truth. Both without any evidence.

You should at least get up to speed on the basics of the case before you post nonsense like this.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:55:07 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

I think this speaks to the crux of John`s point. There is a great
disparency between the bar set for evidence against Oswald and evidence
the conspiracy hobbyists favor. The CTer require documentation of a chain
of evidence for all evidence indicating Oswald`s guilt, but some vague
connection between the CIA and Oswald`s ammo is accepted without question.
Lets see you document the path of the bullet Fritz jacked out of Oswald`s
rifle into the hands of a known CIA operative.

> The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> well.

Nonsense. Klein`s was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market,
most were being bought as cheap hunting rifles. Why buy a rifle that you
can only get bullets from the CIA for?

> I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.

Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:55:07 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

Given the evidence, we can easily take it that Oswald had no intention
of shooting anyone with his old, used rifle. The FBI was unable to find
anyplace he bought ammunition for his odd type rifle, and they couldn't
find anyplace that he practiced with it. It looks like he bought it, and
when he got it, he took some pictures with his weapons and literature and
then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in the garage.

The rifle was found to have a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and
a sticky bolt, which would limit any rapid firing. If Oswald had
practiced with the rifle, he would have found the faults in the rifle and
had them fixed. Can't shoot a the president with a bad scope. But the
faults weren't fixed, meaning that the rifle was not practiced with.

If, as many believe, that Oswald was involved with the CIA or FBI,
then that also is a good reason not to be involved in the shooting of the
president.

The evidence strongly suggests that Oswald had no interest in shooting
anyone with his rifle.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You weren't told by anyone that Oswald brought in the rifle to sell.
Selling was considered a possible reason for bringing it in, but there
were other possibilities too. Trading or showing, for instance. Someone
gave Oswald a reason to bring it in, since he had no interest in shooting
anyone himself.

And maybe Oswald didn't even know the Wallace group, which is also a
possibility. Think it through.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
>
> This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
> possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
> assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
> And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
> ask:
>
> ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
> without anybody seeing them leave?***
>

The Wallace group left immediately after shots were made into Dealey
Plaza. At that time, everyone was concentrating on looking at the
motorcade, and then what was happening to it as shots rang out. That gave
the shooters time to get down the back stairs of the TSBD and get out the
loading dock door. The story of the Wallace group fits very well with
other facts in the case, and answers a few questions.

> Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
> Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
> buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.

Apparently thinking is limited to CTs and not LNs.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:00:48 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> > unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
> > is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
> > The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> > Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> > by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
> > team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> > question:
> >
> > "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> > ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
> > bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
> > going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
> >
> > To which Chris replied:
> >
> > "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
> > had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
> >
> > So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> > we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> > any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> > Carcano. We can just assume they did.
> >

No one told you that when the FBI couldn't find where Oswald bought any
ammo fir the odd rifle, that it meant that Oswald didn't shoot JFK. That
was proved in other ways. It's amazing how messed up the LNs can get with
information.

> > With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> > conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
>
> Here is another problem. Mainframetech claims that JFK was shot and killed
> from the right front yet Main claims that Mac Wallace fired from the TSBD
> and killed Kennedy. I guess JFK was killed twice.

Try and use your brain. I NEVER said that Wallace and his little group
killed JFK. There's a small chance that one of the MC rifle bullets hit
near JFK, like on the chrome over the windshield, and possibly a shot in
the upper back, which was a 'short shot', proved during the autopsy when
they saw the proof that the bullet never passed the pleura, which is the
covering over the lungs. Cites and links on request.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 2 Jan 2017 21:09:43 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

You need to see Joan Mellen's latest book.

On the evening of the assassination, Wallace was with his son in
California.

Mellen also decisively debunks the "Wallace fingerprint" nonsense.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe YOU did.

[BOZ]

53 years.

[Bud]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 2:29:53 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/31/2016 11:41 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> > unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
>
> Remiss Why didn't he tell you that the DPD didn't even try and the WC
> didn't even care? In most routine murder cases the state tries to prove
> each and every little point of evidence.

Did they prove where OJ got the knife he used to kill his ex-wife?

> > is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
> > The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> > Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> > by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
> > team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> > question:
> >
>
> Snipers often go out in 2-man team. The shooter is called the shooter
> and the spotter is called the spotter. The spotter is also there to
> protect the shooter from return fire and may have to take over if the
> shooter is wounded or killed. He is the back-up shooter and often is
> armed with an automatic rifle incase their position gets attacked by
> more than one person.

What does he use if their position is attacked by only one person?

> > "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> > ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
> > bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
> > going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
> >
>
> He's trying to turn your standard of proof back on you.

The standard of proof conspiracy hobbyist use shifts to meet the needs
of their ideas. Very high if it is evidence that indicates Oswald`s guilt,
very low if they think it is useful in exonerating him.

> > To which Chris replied:
> >
> > "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
>
> But I'm not allowed to say the word stupid.
> I have to say academically challenged.
>
> > had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
> >
> > So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> > we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> > any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> > Carcano. We can just assume they did.
> >
>
> He's trying to hold you to the same standard of proof that you are
> demanding of him.

Who saw your shooter shooting? Who identified him? Do you have a photo
of him holding the murder weapon? We have the good stuff, you guys got
squat.

> > With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> > conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
> >
>
> Is it any wonder that after 52 years you guys have had hundreds of
> Single Bullet Theories and can't prove any of them?

You can`t understand the one on the table.

> >

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

Klein's was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market. .... Why

buy a rifle that you can only get bullets from the CIA for?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And I guess many CTers want to totally forget (or ignore) the fact that
Klein's was selling boxes of 108 Carcano bullets for $7.50 through the
very same ad Oswald used to buy the rifle.

Oswald elected not to purchase the ammunition from Klein's in March '63,
but he certainly *could* have bought the bullets from Klein's Sporting
Goods if he had wanted to.

Do CTers think these 1963 Klein's ads for "6.5mm Italian military ammo"
were put there by the CIA?....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/s1600/Klein's-Ads.png

So, quite obviously, Carcano bullets were readily available for anybody to
purchase in 1963.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well it was show and tell week with Truly and Caster bringing in their
rifles to show off. Maybe Oswald got jealous.

[David Von Pein]

2008 RETRO POST REVISITED ("K" words excised by DVP)....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, goodie, 23 questions [below] from a [...] [Gil Jesus] who seems to
think those 23 Qs have never, ever been answered or addressed by LNers in
the past.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/KsW2a4tuGLE/cy0Y8lnPL7QJ

That's another definition of "Conspiracy-Loving [...]" --- A person who
has a 6-minute memory.

I especially love #11 from Gilbert -- "What evidence is there that Lee
Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition?"

IOW -- In Gil's strange mind, if lone-assassin believers can't prove
exactly WHERE and HOW and FROM WHOM Lee Oswald purchased his Carcano
bullets, then there's simply no other choice but to declare that Oswald
didn't shoot President Kennedy with that Carcano rifle (despite the fact
that all of the bullets lead straight back into that Carcano rifle, which
was owned and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald prior to 11/22/63).

But it should be quite obvious to every reasonable-thinking person (in a
"common sense" sort of fashion) that if Lee Oswald purchased a rifle via
mail-order (which we know beyond ALL doubt that he did, using his alias
"A. Hidell"), then it probably stands to reason that he planned on getting
SOME BULLETS TO PUT IN THAT GUN AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

And it also stands to reason that if mail-order houses (like Klein's
Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago, Illinois) were selling 1940-era
Mannlicher-Carcano rifles through magazine advertisements in 1963, then
the ammunition for such a gun would be readily available for the consumer
to also purchase.

In fact, Klein's sold boxes of 6.5mm Carcano bullets (108 per box) for
$7.50/box via its magazine ads in 1963.

Now, it's true that Oswald apparently didn't order any of his bullets
through Klein's when he ordered the rifle and scope (at least there's no
record of any such ammo order from LHO using Klein's), but it just shows
that the type of bullets that Oswald needed for his Carcano rifle could
easily be purchased.

Perhaps Oswald found a better deal on his bullets in a different magazine
ad from a company other than Klein's. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.
But just because there's no specific paper trail marked "Oswald's Receipts
For Every 6.5mm Bullet He Ever Purchased For Rifle #C2766" doesn't mean he
didn't obtain some bullets for his weapon.

I wonder if Gil thinks that every murderer who kills people with firearms
is to be considered Not Guilty if it can't be determined beyond a
reasonable doubt exactly HOW and WHERE the killer obtained the bullets
that resulted in the death of the victim(s)?

Plus: Is there any other case in history where a Guilty verdict required a
definitive answer to the question "Where did the defendant buy his
bullets?"?

I'm not positive, but if I had to go out on a limb, I'd wager to say that
the answer to that last silly inquiry is "No".

David Von Pein
August 19, 2008

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-307.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Ok, so you're begging out because you don't have any evidence. That's
fine. Maybe because you destroyed it all.

> Lets see you document the path of the bullet Fritz jacked out of Oswald`s
> rifle into the hands of a known CIA operative.
>
>> The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
>> they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
>> well.
>
> Nonsense. Klein`s was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market,
> most were being bought as cheap hunting rifles. Why buy a rifle that you
> can only get bullets from the CIA for?

No one said that, silly. Kleins was in the same ad selling 108 rounds of
SMI ammo.

>
>
>> I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
>> definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
>
> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/WCC-CIA.gif


>

[Anthony Marsh]

What nonsense? I've been studying this case a lot longer than you have.

[Anthony Marsh]

What part? Learn to reply mid-paragraph so we know what you are
objecting to.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/WCC-CIA.gif

[bigdog]

By YOUR standard of evidence, we can take it that Mac Wallace and Loy
Factor had no intention of shooting anyone since it was never found where
they bought ammo for Oswald's rifle or where they practiced with it.

> The rifle was found to have a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and
> a sticky bolt, which would limit any rapid firing. If Oswald had
> practiced with the rifle, he would have found the faults in the rifle and
> had them fixed. Can't shoot a the president with a bad scope. But the
> faults weren't fixed, meaning that the rifle was not practiced with.
>

The rifle was found to have fired the only two bullets recovered from the
assassination. So even with a misaligned scope and a sticky bold it got
the job done.

> If, as many believe, that Oswald was involved with the CIA or FBI,
> then that also is a good reason not to be involved in the shooting of the
> president.
>

One needs a reason for that?

> The evidence strongly suggests that Oswald had no interest in shooting
> anyone with his rifle.
>

Using that same standard of evidence would suggest that no one had an
interest in shooting anyone with that rifle but somehow JFK got shot with
that rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe it was Hoover dressed up as a woman?

[bigdog]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:08:47 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
> >
> > This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
> > possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
> > assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
> > And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
> > ask:
> >
> > ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
> > without anybody seeing them leave?***
> >
>
>
> The Wallace group left immediately after shots were made into Dealey
> Plaza. At that time, everyone was concentrating on looking at the
> motorcade, and then what was happening to it as shots rang out. That gave
> the shooters time to get down the back stairs of the TSBD and get out the
> loading dock door. The story of the Wallace group fits very well with
> other facts in the case, and answers a few questions.
>

Not surprising you completely missed David's point. If it was possible for
your 3 person team to come down the back stairs without being detected it
would also have been possible for Oswald to come down those same stairs
without being detected. You are willing to make allowances for your 3
person team that you won't make for Oswald.

>
>
> > Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
> > Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
> > buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.
>
>
> Apparently thinking is limited to CTs and not LNs.
>

Like you just demonstrated. <chuckle>

[bigdog]

Since you acknowledge that the fact the FBI couldn't find where Oswald
bought any ammo for his Carcano doesn't rule out Oswald as the shooter of
JFK, why do you bother continually bringing it up?

[mainframetech]

Was that what the son said?

> Mellen also decisively debunks the "Wallace fingerprint" nonsense.
>

Ah, Mellen again. Another LN kook.



> .John
> -------------------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 7:30:08 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
> >
> > This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
> > possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
> > assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
> > And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
> > ask:
> >
> > ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
> > without anybody seeing them leave?***
> >

> > Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
> > Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
> > buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.
>

> The most amazing thing is I don't think Chris sees any inconsistency in
> his positions. I even gave him a heads up before he walked into this trap
> when I asked, "Or are you going to invoke another one of your double
> standards?". He went right ahead and invoked another one of his double
> standards anyway.
>



WRONG as usual! I see you still are afraid to talk to me directly, but
then when you attack someone with nothing but your opinions, that's to be
expected that you'd be unsure of your ground. I can easily imagine a
tremor in your voice as you try to recover the often lost ego that you've
given up in arguments with me, especially when you try to apply logic that
fails.

There is no inconsistency in my arguments, but often in yours, as
anyone that follows our discussions can see.



> It's easy to demonstrate his double standard. If you took his statement,

> "Factor and Wallace had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we

> don't know where." and substituted Oswald's name for Factor and Wallace it
> would read, "Oswald had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we
> don't know where.". Would Chris accept that has a legitimate argument.



In your badly designed example, you've made your usual mistake. You
have placed Oswald's name in the position of a shooter at the motorcade,
while in reality the witnesses saw 2 men in the window on the 6th floor
with a gun, meaning they were the ones shooting at the motorcade, and we
know that Oswald was elsewhere by the evidence. I repeat that word
"evidence", which you seem to often ignore. If you want to have something
relevant to say, stick with the evidence, you'll do better than sniping at
me in your frustration.




> I seriously doubt it. In his world it's OK to assume Factor and Wallace
> obtained ammo for the Carcano even though we have no evidence as to where
> they bought it, but it's not OK to assume the same for Oswald.
>


WRONG once again. You'll never learn. The point of Oswald not having
been found to have bought ammunition for his odd rifle was more a way of
pointing out that Oswald did not show any interest in shooting anyone,
also shown by them not finding anyplace he practiced. Evidence shows
that. And if Oswald was playing some spy games by getting in with some
people and then reporting on them to the CIA or the FBI or whoever,
shooting anyone would be the last thing he would want to do.






> In reality, both versions of statement are legitimate. The fact that we
> can't prove where Wallace, Factor, or Oswald bought Carcano ammo does not
> by itself establish that they couldn't have bought ammo. But Chris
> believes that fact disqualifies Oswald as a suspect but doesn't disqualify
> Wallace and Factor. Such is the way the conspiracy hobbyist mind works.


WRONG! What foolish logic you try to put on me! It is plain dumb to
suggest that, yet you boldly plop it out there. I'm aware that not
finding a place where Oswald bought ammo is not clear proof that he didn't
kill JFK, but somehow in your twisted mind you got the idea that I said
that, which I did not. Given how badly the FBI would have loved to find a
place where Oswald bought ammo, it is suggestive that they couldn't find
such a place, but not absolute evidence. You need to stop making up these
weird attacks and get on with evidence, and you'll maybe lose less
arguments.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:54:53 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:

> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:02:03 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
> >
> > This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
> > possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
> > assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
> > And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
> > ask:
> >
> > ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
> > without anybody seeing them leave?***
> >
> > Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
> > Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
> > buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.
>

> How did the real killers manage to enter the building without anybody
> seeing them enter?

Most people at the time they entered were glued to the windows or were
down on the street to see the motorcade. Same for leaving immediately
after shooting.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:00:05 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:55:07 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 10:41:03 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> > > For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> > > unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
> > > is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
> > > The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> > > Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> > > by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
> > > team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> > > question:
> > >
> > > "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> > > ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter

> > > bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you

> > > going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
> > >

> > > To which Chris replied:
> > >
> > > "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
> > > had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
> > >
> > > So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> > > we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> > > any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> > > Carcano. We can just assume they did.
> > >

> > > With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> > > conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
> >

> > I'm glad you brought up Oswald's ammo bigdog. Because the FBI actually did
> > trace the bullets back to The CIA. The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> > they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> > well. I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> > definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
>

> This smells like a factoid. Do you have a cite to support this?

This is the old "the CIA ordered the ammunition therefore Oswald got the
ammo from the CIA" claim.

If you do a search here you'll see the source of this claim.

If I have the history right, in 1954 the CIA ordered (through the USMC) a
supply of ammunition that was intended for an operation, either in
Guatemala or Greece (I've read both accounts), probably Guatemala.

More than four million rounds were made - more than was needed - and the
extra several million rounds were put on the market.

Shorter: You didn't need to go to the CIA to get the ammo.

[Robert Harris]

BOZ wrote:

> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 8:50:16 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> While I am not a supporter of the Wallace theory, I can't help but get a
>> good laugh out of the horrific reasoning you employ.
>>
>> If Wallace or some other accomplice had fired the MC rifle at Kennedy that
>> day, the conspiracy could have gotten the ammunition anywhere. Of course
>> no attempt was made (that we know of), to track down their purchases.
>>
>> Oswald, was thoroughly investigated and except for the weekend in which he
>> met with the FBI on 11/16/63, his movements, whereabouts and purchases
>> were investigated down to the tiniest detail.
>>

>> Sooo, it is MUCH more significant that the authorities could not find
>> where Oswald got ammunition, than that no one knows where the others got
>> theirs.
>>

>> John, there is a reason that you make such bad arguments. You seek debate
>> fodder to support your pre-drawn conclusions. What you SHOULD be doing is
>> seeking out evidence with no concern for which side it supports, and then
>> draw your conclusions from that.
>>

>> When you do that, lights will start coming on all over the place:-)
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris

>>
>>
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
>>> unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
>>> is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
>>> The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
>>> Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
>>> by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
>>> team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
>>> question:
>>>
>>> "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
>>> ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
>>> bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
>>> going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
>>>
>>> To which Chris replied:
>>>
>>> "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
>>> had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
>>>
>>> So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
>>> we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
>>> any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
>>> Carcano. We can just assume they did.
>>>
>>> With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
>>> conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
>>>
>>>
>

> Big Dog's argument is perfectly logical.

No, it is utter nonsense, which is why you cannot be specific
about why you think it is logical.





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

bigdog wrote:

> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>> While I am not a supporter of the Wallace theory, I can't help but get a
>> good laugh out of the horrific reasoning you employ.
>>
>> If Wallace or some other accomplice had fired the MC rifle at Kennedy that
>> day, the conspiracy could have gotten the ammunition anywhere.
>

> As could Oswald.

Not really. He couldn't drive and there would have been a
record of him going to some other city to buy ammunition.

His movements and purchases were analyzed to the point where
we almost know when he went to the bathroom:-)

>
>> Of course
>> no attempt was made (that we know of), to track down their purchases.
>>
>

> Doesn't matter. If you are going to insist that it be proved where Oswald
> bought his ammo, it should be a necessary element to proving any
> alternative shooter as well.

Only if that shooter was investigated.

> Of course the whole argument is a red herring
> since proving where any murderer bought his ammo is not a requirement.

It is significant, mainly because it suggests that someone
else got the ammunition, either for Oswald or some other shooter.

>
>> Oswald, was thoroughly investigated and except for the weekend in which he
>> met with the FBI on 11/16/63, his movements, whereabouts and purchases
>> were investigated down to the tiniest detail.
>>
>

> So what. Do you think there would be a record of everything Oswald did?

Pretty much.

As I understand it, there is no record of anyone in Dallas
selling that ammunition, other than John Mason.

Nonetheless, I will admit that it was not impossible for him
to purchase that ammunition, but it is far less probable than
that an accomplice bought it.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. It took several months to develop the first Single Bullet
Theory and you weren't around to help.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:12:01 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

Google doesn't seem to know much about Wallace's son, so it would be
appreciated if there were a cite and link for that.

> Mellen also decisively debunks the "Wallace fingerprint" nonsense.
>

It continues to be an argument about whether it was valid Wallace
print or not.



> .John
> -------------------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Chosen Ten]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:00:05 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:55:07 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 10:41:03 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> > > For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> > > unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
> > > is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
> > > The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> > > Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> > > by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
> > > team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> > > question:
> > >
> > > "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> > > ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
> > > bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
> > > going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
> > >
> > > To which Chris replied:
> > >
> > > "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
> > > had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
> > >
> > > So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> > > we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> > > any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> > > Carcano. We can just assume they did.
> > >

> > > With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> > > conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
> >

> > I'm glad you brought up Oswald's ammo bigdog. Because the FBI actually did
> > trace the bullets back to The CIA. The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> > they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> > well. I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> > definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
>
> This smells like a factoid. Do you have a cite to support this?

It seems marsh beat me to the punch. In any case, you have more than
proved from our other conversations you are not really interested in
finding out the whole truth. You can lead a horse to water but you can't
make it drink. If our previous conversations are any indication, I would
bet money you would casually dismiss it and lead back to your obsession
with proving Oswald guilty and casually dismissing the overwhelming
evidence of coverup by the CIA and government yet again.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 9:26:48 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 7:30:08 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
> > >
> > > This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
> > > possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
> > > assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
> > > And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
> > > ask:
> > >
> > > ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
> > > without anybody seeing them leave?***
> > >
> > > Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
> > > Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
> > > buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.
> >
> > The most amazing thing is I don't think Chris sees any inconsistency in
> > his positions. I even gave him a heads up before he walked into this trap
> > when I asked, "Or are you going to invoke another one of your double
> > standards?". He went right ahead and invoked another one of his double
> > standards anyway.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG as usual! I see you still are afraid to talk to me directly,

I've never bothered to count them but I'm quite sure the number of posts
I've made directly to you number in the hundreds, perhaps more than 1000.
So for you to claim I am afraid to talk to you directly is about as
ludicrous as anything else you have ever written.

> but
> then when you attack someone with nothing but your opinions, that's to be
> expected that you'd be unsure of your ground. I can easily imagine a
> tremor in your voice as you try to recover the often lost ego that you've
> given up in arguments with me, especially when you try to apply logic that
> fails.
>
> There is no inconsistency in my arguments, but often in yours, as
> anyone that follows our discussions can see.
>

Of course there is and I pointed it out quite plainly in the OP. You apply
a different standard of proof to Factor and Wallace than you do to Oswald.

>
>
> > It's easy to demonstrate his double standard. If you took his statement,
> > "Factor and Wallace had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we
> > don't know where." and substituted Oswald's name for Factor and Wallace it
> > would read, "Oswald had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we
> > don't know where.". Would Chris accept that has a legitimate argument.
>
>
>
> In your badly designed example, you've made your usual mistake. You
> have placed Oswald's name in the position of a shooter at the motorcade,
> while in reality the witnesses saw 2 men in the window on the 6th floor
> with a gun, meaning they were the ones shooting at the motorcade, and we
> know that Oswald was elsewhere by the evidence.

You are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in irrelevant arguments. We
are speaking about your contention that the lack of proof of Oswald's
purchase of ammo is an indication he never intended to shoot anyone yet
you don't apply that same contention to Factor and Wallace.

> I repeat that word
> "evidence", which you seem to often ignore. If you want to have something
> relevant to say, stick with the evidence, you'll do better than sniping at
> me in your frustration.
>

This is about the inferences you draw in absence of evidence. You draw one
inference about Oswald's intentions based on the lack of proof of where he
bought ammo for his Carcano yet you don't draw that same inference for
Factor and Wallace. That is the inconsistency which I spoke about earlier.

>
>
>
> > I seriously doubt it. In his world it's OK to assume Factor and Wallace
> > obtained ammo for the Carcano even though we have no evidence as to where
> > they bought it, but it's not OK to assume the same for Oswald.
> >
>
>
> WRONG once again. You'll never learn. The point of Oswald not having
> been found to have bought ammunition for his odd rifle was more a way of
> pointing out that Oswald did not show any interest in shooting anyone,

So if you were consistent you would make the same argument about Factor
and Wallace but you don't.

> also shown by them not finding anyplace he practiced.

Ditto. One standard for Oswald. Another standard for Factor and Wallace.

> Evidence shows
> that. And if Oswald was playing some spy games by getting in with some
> people and then reporting on them to the CIA or the FBI or whoever,
> shooting anyone would be the last thing he would want to do.
>

I think this is called going off on a tangent.

>
>
>
>
>
> > In reality, both versions of statement are legitimate. The fact that we
> > can't prove where Wallace, Factor, or Oswald bought Carcano ammo does not
> > by itself establish that they couldn't have bought ammo. But Chris
> > believes that fact disqualifies Oswald as a suspect but doesn't disqualify
> > Wallace and Factor. Such is the way the conspiracy hobbyist mind works.
>
>
> WRONG! What foolish logic you try to put on me! It is plain dumb to
> suggest that, yet you boldly plop it out there.

All I have said is that to be consistent the same standards of proof
should be applied to your suspects that you want to apply to Oswald. To
you that seems illogical.

> I'm aware that not
> finding a place where Oswald bought ammo is not clear proof that he didn't
> kill JFK, but somehow in your twisted mind you got the idea that I said
> that, which I did not.

Then why bring it up at all? You have consistently stated the lack of such
evidence is an indication Oswald didn't intent to shoot anyone.

> Given how badly the FBI would have loved to find a
> place where Oswald bought ammo, it is suggestive that they couldn't find
> such a place, but not absolute evidence. You need to stop making up these
> weird attacks and get on with evidence, and you'll maybe lose less
> arguments.
>

I'm going to copy this and remind you of it every time you try to make the
argument that the lack of proof of where Oswald bought ammo is an
indication he didn't try to shoot anyone. I'm sure it won't be long before
you give me that opportunity.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well she's new here and just heard about it.
You read the damn memo on the same day that I posted it for the first time.

> If you do a search here you'll see the source of this claim.
>

What do you a search here? McAdams did not put in a search feature.
You mean if she had bothered to do her homework and read the documents
on my Web site. How come they aren't on the CIA web site?

> If I have the history right, in 1954 the CIA ordered (through the USMC) a
> supply of ammunition that was intended for an operation, either in

If that a conspiracy myth? Can you prove it?

> Guatemala or Greece (I've read both accounts), probably Guatemala.
>

Maybe Greece, maybe Israel.
How did all those Carcanos get to the Syrian rebels?

> More than four million rounds were made - more than was needed - and the
> extra several million rounds were put on the market.
>

YOU don't know how many were needed. If they ever had as many Carcanos
as they wanted they would need all 4M. But they got better rifles.

> Shorter: You didn't need to go to the CIA to get the ammo.
>

WHat happened to the other half of the unused ammo? Did the CIA give it
all to the Syrian rebels with their 100-year-old Carcanos?

[Chosen Ten]

> I think this speaks to the crux of John`s point. There is a great
> disparency between the bar set for evidence against Oswald and evidence
> the conspiracy hobbyists favor. The CTer require documentation of a chain
> of evidence for all evidence indicating Oswald`s guilt, but some vague
> connection between the CIA and Oswald`s ammo is accepted without question.

> Lets see you document the path of the bullet Fritz jacked out of Oswald`s
> rifle into the hands of a known CIA operative.

Who ever said the bullet was in the hands of a known CIA operative? The
order for the bullet was placed by the CIA. The FBI knew this. I don't
exactly know why you argue this. The FBI also narrowed down who ended up
selling the ammunition. But they could not definitively say who bought it.

>
> > The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> > they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> > well.
>

> Nonsense. Klein`s was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market,
> most were being bought as cheap hunting rifles. Why buy a rifle that you
> can only get bullets from the CIA for?

Good sir... Where in god's name did you get this from? Who was even
talking about the rifle? Who in the world said only bullets from the CIA
could be fired from Oswald's rifle or even inferred that? I'm not
following your logic. I'm actually at a complete loss for words right now.
Please do explain.

>
>
> > I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> > definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
>

> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.

Marsh beat me to it.
Side tangent: Are you and bigdog related in any way? Other than both being
LN believers?

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. You can't account for every employee.

Where was Carolyn Arnold?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/3/2017 8:57 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:08:47 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
>>>
>>> This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
>>> possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
>>> assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
>>> And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
>>> ask:
>>>
>>> ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
>>> without anybody seeing them leave?***
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Wallace group left immediately after shots were made into Dealey
>> Plaza. At that time, everyone was concentrating on looking at the
>> motorcade, and then what was happening to it as shots rang out. That gave
>> the shooters time to get down the back stairs of the TSBD and get out the
>> loading dock door. The story of the Wallace group fits very well with
>> other facts in the case, and answers a few questions.
>>
>
> Not surprising you completely missed David's point. If it was possible for
> your 3 person team to come down the back stairs without being detected it
> would also have been possible for Oswald to come down those same stairs
> without being detected. You are willing to make allowances for your 3
> person team that you won't make for Oswald.
>

I'm not surprised that you missed the obvious contradiction. If Oswald
came down the stairs just after the shooting and the Three Amigos also
came down the stairs just after the shooting, then how could they not SEE
each other?

[Anthony Marsh]

Show me these two bullets. You can't. You just make up crap.

> assassination. So even with a misaligned scope and a sticky bold it got
> the job done.
>

Sure, with one shot missing everything on the planet.

>> If, as many believe, that Oswald was involved with the CIA or FBI,
>> then that also is a good reason not to be involved in the shooting of the
>> president.
>>
>
> One needs a reason for that?
>
>> The evidence strongly suggests that Oswald had no interest in shooting
>> anyone with his rifle.
>>
>
> Using that same standard of evidence would suggest that no one had an
> interest in shooting anyone with that rifle but somehow JFK got shot with
> that rifle.
>

Maybe they had to use his real rifle just to frame him? Or maybe you would
not have been the least little bit suspicious if they had left behind a
$5,000 CIA sniper's rifle. Maybe you'd say that Oswald was just frugal and
saved up enough money from his $1.25/hour job.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe Oswald didn't need 108 bullets to kill Walker?
Or maybe he talked to that guy in New Orleans who told him the WWII
bullets were junk.

> ad from a company other than Klein's. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.

Well, we know that other ads in the magazine were offering better ammo
and even some stores. but Oswald was too paranoid to walk into a store
and be watched by the FBI.

> But just because there's no specific paper trail marked "Oswald's Receipts
> For Every 6.5mm Bullet He Ever Purchased For Rifle #C2766" doesn't mean he
> didn't obtain some bullets for his weapon.
>

Well, in fact he got some WCC bullets from somewhere to shoot at Walker.

> I wonder if Gil thinks that every murderer who kills people with firearms
> is to be considered Not Guilty if it can't be determined beyond a
> reasonable doubt exactly HOW and WHERE the killer obtained the bullets
> that resulted in the death of the victim(s)?
>

Not sure which case ever used that argument.

> Plus: Is there any other case in history where a Guilty verdict required a
> definitive answer to the question "Where did the defendant buy his
> bullets?"?
>

Many cases don't care about evidence. Some courts do.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/3/2017 8:46 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> BUD SAID:
>
> Klein's was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market. .... Why

> buy a rifle that you can only get bullets from the CIA for?
>
>

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> And I guess many CTers want to totally forget (or ignore) the fact that
> Klein's was selling boxes of 108 Carcano bullets for $7.50 through the
> very same ad Oswald used to buy the rifle.
>

Yes, because I've only told them 472,000 times.

> Oswald elected not to purchase the ammunition from Klein's in March '63,
> but he certainly *could* have bought the bullets from Klein's Sporting
> Goods if he had wanted to.
>

I don't think he wanted the old WWII SMI bullets. But one advantage he
passed up was that buying the SMI gets you a free clip. Let me channel
some mainframtech and ask where Oswald got the clip. If you can't prove
WHERE he got the clip, does that prove him innocent? If you prove who gave
him the clip does that prove conspiracy? Gee, this is fun!

> Do CTers think these 1963 Klein's ads for "6.5mm Italian military ammo"
> were put there by the CIA?....
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/s1600/Klein's-Ads.png
>
> So, quite obviously, Carcano bullets were readily available for anybody to
> purchase in 1963.
>

Maybe, maybe not. Were they available to children then?

[Bud]

No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the conspiracy hobbyist
approach.

> That's
> fine. Maybe because you destroyed it all.

Poor Tony, the dog ate all his evidence.

> > Lets see you document the path of the bullet Fritz jacked out of Oswald`s
> > rifle into the hands of a known CIA operative.
> >
> >> The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> >> they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> >> well.
> >
> > Nonsense. Klein`s was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market,
> > most were being bought as cheap hunting rifles. Why buy a rifle that you
> > can only get bullets from the CIA for?
>
> No one said that, silly. Kleins was in the same ad selling 108 rounds of
> SMI ammo.

And you throw away the rifle after using up this stock?

> >
> >
> >> I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> >> definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
> >
> > Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/WCC-CIA.gif

Is this you admitting that you can`t quote the FBI definitively saying
the ammo came from the CIA?

>
> >

[Bud]

Do you plan on showing it? You seem unaware that the Warren Commission
had evidence to back up it`s conclusions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/3/2017 3:36 PM, Bud wrote:

> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 2:29:53 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 12/31/2016 11:41 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
>>> unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
>>

>> Remiss Why didn't he tell you that the DPD didn't even try and the WC
>> didn't even care? In most routine murder cases the state tries to prove
>> each and every little point of evidence.
>

> Did they prove where OJ got the knife he used to kill his ex-wife?
>

I think they at least tried. Didn't they try to prove where he bought
his shoes? IF they never found the knife does that prove that she wasn't
stabbed and didn't die?

>>> is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
>>> The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
>>> Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
>>> by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
>>> team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
>>> question:
>>>
>>

>> Snipers often go out in 2-man team. The shooter is called the shooter
>> and the spotter is called the spotter. The spotter is also there to
>> protect the shooter from return fire and may have to take over if the
>> shooter is wounded or killed. He is the back-up shooter and often is
>> armed with an automatic rifle incase their position gets attacked by
>> more than one person.
>

> What does he use if their position is attacked by only one person?
>

His silencer handgun. To not attract more attackers. Or a knife.

>>> "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
>>> ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
>>> bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
>>> going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
>>>
>>

>> He's trying to turn your standard of proof back on you.
>

> The standard of proof conspiracy hobbyist use shifts to meet the needs
> of their ideas. Very high if it is evidence that indicates Oswald`s guilt,
> very low if they think it is useful in exonerating him.
>

Like the way you prove your SBT of the month?

>>> To which Chris replied:
>>>
>>> "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
>>

>> But I'm not allowed to say the word stupid.
>> I have to say academically challenged.
>>

>>> had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
>>>
>>> So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
>>> we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
>>> any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
>>> Carcano. We can just assume they did.
>>>
>>

>> He's trying to hold you to the same standard of proof that you are
>> demanding of him.
>

> Who saw your shooter shooting? Who identified him? Do you have a photo
> of him holding the murder weapon? We have the good stuff, you guys got

Yes, the Moorman photo. Seen by Lee Bowere and Joe Smith.

> squat.

>
>>> With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
>>> conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
>>>
>>

>> Is it any wonder that after 52 years you guys have had hundreds of
>> Single Bullet Theories and can't prove any of them?
>

> You can`t understand the one on the table.
>
>>>
>
>

[mainframetech]

It is brought up in answer to your comments that cause it to be brought
up to prove a point. You forget (as usual) that I've made it clear that
the FBI could not find where Oswald bought any ammunition, they also
couldn't find anywhere he practiced, which was corroborated by the
condition of the rifle when looked over by the army.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 8:57:05 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:08:47 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
> > >
> > > This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
> > > possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
> > > assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
> > > And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
> > > ask:
> > >
> > > ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
> > > without anybody seeing them leave?***
> > >
> >
> >
> > The Wallace group left immediately after shots were made into Dealey
> > Plaza. At that time, everyone was concentrating on looking at the
> > motorcade, and then what was happening to it as shots rang out. That gave
> > the shooters time to get down the back stairs of the TSBD and get out the
> > loading dock door. The story of the Wallace group fits very well with
> > other facts in the case, and answers a few questions.
> >
>
> Not surprising you completely missed David's point. If it was possible for
> your 3 person team to come down the back stairs without being detected it
> would also have been possible for Oswald to come down those same stairs
> without being detected. You are willing to make allowances for your 3
> person team that you won't make for Oswald.
>

WRONG! The point wasn't missed, it just made no sense since Oswald was elsewhere when the shots rang out. And we've had that argument that you're repeating again.

> >
> >
> > > Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
> > > Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
> > > buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.
> >
> >
> > Apparently thinking is limited to CTs and not LNs.
> >
>
> Like you just demonstrated. <chuckle>

See above where you were found to be WRONG yet again. <belly laugh>

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 8:56:15 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:07:25 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:55:07 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

> > > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 10:41:03 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> > > > For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> > > > unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
> > > > is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
> > > > The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> > > > Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> > > > by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
> > > > team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> > > > question:
> > > >
> > > > "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> > > > ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
> > > > bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
> > > > going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
> > > >
> > > > To which Chris replied:
> > > >
> > > > "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
> > > > had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
> > > >
> > > > So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> > > > we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> > > > any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> > > > Carcano. We can just assume they did.
> > > >

> > > > With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> > > > conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
> > >

> > > I'm glad you brought up Oswald's ammo bigdog. Because the FBI actually did

> > > trace the bullets back to The CIA. The CIA ordered the ammunition. And

> > > they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite

> > > well. I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not

> > > definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
> >
> >

> > Given the evidence, we can easily take it that Oswald had no intention
> > of shooting anyone with his old, used rifle. The FBI was unable to find
> > anyplace he bought ammunition for his odd type rifle, and they couldn't
> > find anyplace that he practiced with it. It looks like he bought it, and
> > when he got it, he took some pictures with his weapons and literature and
> > then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in the garage.
> >
>
> By YOUR standard of evidence, we can take it that Mac Wallace and Loy
> Factor had no intention of shooting anyone since it was never found where
> they bought ammo for Oswald's rifle or where they practiced with it.
>

WRONG yet again! The difference is that we have a witness to the
doings of Wallace and his little group firing at the motorcade. There is
no such for Oswald shooting at the motorcade. Howard Brennan was
discredited by himself. So that there was NO witness to Oswald shooting
at anything, much less the motorcade. He was also elsewhere when the
shooting began.

> > The rifle was found to have a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and
> > a sticky bolt, which would limit any rapid firing. If Oswald had
> > practiced with the rifle, he would have found the faults in the rifle and
> > had them fixed. Can't shoot a the president with a bad scope. But the
> > faults weren't fixed, meaning that the rifle was not practiced with.
> >
>
> The rifle was found to have fired the only two bullets recovered from the

> assassination. So even with a misaligned scope and a sticky bold it got
> the job done.
>

WRONG! There may be proof that the MC rifle was fired at the
motorcade, but there is NO proof that any bullet from the MC rifle hit or
hurt anyone! It didn't matter that the MC rifle was faulty, since it was
fired into Dealey Plaza for forensic purposes. And possibly to give the
crowd in the street a place to point at where gunfire came from. The
killing could be accomplished by one of the other shooters stationed
around the plaza.

> > If, as many believe, that Oswald was involved with the CIA or FBI,
> > then that also is a good reason not to be involved in the shooting of the
> > president.
> >
>
> One needs a reason for that?
>

One needs a reason for doing most anything.

> > The evidence strongly suggests that Oswald had no interest in shooting
> > anyone with his rifle.
> >
>
> Using that same standard of evidence would suggest that no one had an
> interest in shooting anyone with that rifle but somehow JFK got shot with
> that rifle.

Oh? How do you know he was shot with THAT rifle? There's no evidence
to that effect. There were 2 bullets found that came from that rifle, but
neither one was shown to have hit or hurt anyone. So how did that rifle
get to kill JFK?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 8:54:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> 2008 RETRO POST REVISITED ("K" words excised by DVP)....
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Oh, goodie, 23 questions [below] from a [...] [Gil Jesus] who seems to
> think those 23 Qs have never, ever been answered or addressed by LNers in
> the past.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/KsW2a4tuGLE/cy0Y8lnPL7QJ
>
> That's another definition of "Conspiracy-Loving [...]" --- A person who
> has a 6-minute memory.
>
> I especially love #11 from Gilbert -- "What evidence is there that Lee
> Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition?"
>
> IOW -- In Gil's strange mind, if lone-assassin believers can't prove
> exactly WHERE and HOW and FROM WHOM Lee Oswald purchased his Carcano
> bullets, then there's simply no other choice but to declare that Oswald
> didn't shoot President Kennedy with that Carcano rifle (despite the fact
> that all of the bullets lead straight back into that Carcano rifle, which
> was owned and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald prior to 11/22/63).
>

WRONG! When you put it together with the fact that they also couldn't
show that Oswald practiced with his rifle, it begins to look like he
really didn't want to shoot anyone with his new rifle. In fact, he took
pictures with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw in the garage.

> But it should be quite obvious to every reasonable-thinking person (in a
> "common sense" sort of fashion) that if Lee Oswald purchased a rifle via
> mail-order (which we know beyond ALL doubt that he did, using his alias
> "A. Hidell"), then it probably stands to reason that he planned on getting
> SOME BULLETS TO PUT IN THAT GUN AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
>

Not really. Since there were bullets for that odd rifle offered in the
same ad that he bought the rifle from, and he passed them up. He chose
not to buy ammo at that time. And the FBI was unable to find where he
might have bought any.

> And it also stands to reason that if mail-order houses (like Klein's
> Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago, Illinois) were selling 1940-era
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifles through magazine advertisements in 1963, then
> the ammunition for such a gun would be readily available for the consumer
> to also purchase.
>
> In fact, Klein's sold boxes of 6.5mm Carcano bullets (108 per box) for
> $7.50/box via its magazine ads in 1963.
>
> Now, it's true that Oswald apparently didn't order any of his bullets
> through Klein's when he ordered the rifle and scope (at least there's no
> record of any such ammo order from LHO using Klein's), but it just shows
> that the type of bullets that Oswald needed for his Carcano rifle could
> easily be purchased.
>

Not really. The FBI tried to find where that ammo was sold in the
area, and found only 2 shops that handled the odd ammo. One of them
reloaded all his MC type ammo with lead bullets. And neither could be
shown to have sold bullets to Oswald.

> Perhaps Oswald found a better deal on his bullets in a different magazine

> ad from a company other than Klein's. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.

> But just because there's no specific paper trail marked "Oswald's Receipts
> For Every 6.5mm Bullet He Ever Purchased For Rifle #C2766" doesn't mean he
> didn't obtain some bullets for his weapon.
>

perhaps this, maybe that. What we have is no proof that he bought any
ammo for his rifle. But when coupled with the fact that they also
couldn't show where he practiced with his rifle, it begins to look like he
may not have wanted to shoot anyone. The MC rifle had a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting, and a sticky bolt, which would disallow rapid
shooting. Those faults weren't repaired, so Oswald didn't practice and
find them and have them repaired.

> I wonder if Gil thinks that every murderer who kills people with firearms
> is to be considered Not Guilty if it can't be determined beyond a
> reasonable doubt exactly HOW and WHERE the killer obtained the bullets
> that resulted in the death of the victim(s)?
>

Don't get ridiculous on us. In some cases it is necessary to
determine if the suspect bought any ammunition. If he did, it helps to
prove he was guilty, if not the issue is in doubt. In this case, Oswald
was elsewhere when the shots rang out based on a witness, so the shooting
was done by someone else. Before the shooting 2 men were see in the 6th
floor window with a gun. I suggest that's who did the shooting while
Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Where he was seen at the same
time.

> Plus: Is there any other case in history where a Guilty verdict required a
> definitive answer to the question "Where did the defendant buy his
> bullets?"?
>

Possibly, but it doesn't matter. Each case is different. Some will
require more information to prove guilt. In this case there was only one
person that said they could identify Oswald in the 6th floor window and he
discredited himself in his own autobiography:

"Eyewitness to History"

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html

> I'm not positive, but if I had to go out on a limb, I'd wager to say that
> the answer to that last silly inquiry is "No".
>

Yep, you're out on a limb. Every trial is different. See above.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 8:46:20 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> BUD SAID:
>
> Klein's was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market. .... Why

> buy a rifle that you can only get bullets from the CIA for?
>
>

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> And I guess many CTers want to totally forget (or ignore) the fact that
> Klein's was selling boxes of 108 Carcano bullets for $7.50 through the
> very same ad Oswald used to buy the rifle.
>

> Oswald elected not to purchase the ammunition from Klein's in March '63,
> but he certainly *could* have bought the bullets from Klein's Sporting
> Goods if he had wanted to.
>

> Do CTers think these 1963 Klein's ads for "6.5mm Italian military ammo"
> were put there by the CIA?....
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/s1600/Klein's-Ads.png
>
> So, quite obviously, Carcano bullets were readily available for anybody to
> purchase in 1963.

True, they just couldn't show that Oswald bought any of them.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Certainly. You think Klein's is going to check everybody's birth
certificate when they get an order for bullets sent to them through a
mail-order ad?

Oswald could have been a 10-year-old child for all Klein's knew. How could
Klein's have possibly known that Oswald was telling them the truth? After
all, he lied to them once--"Hidell". And he lied to Seaport Traders
twice---"Hidell" and "Drittal".

[Mitch Todd]

On 1/4/2017 4:05 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:06:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:

[...Snip-o-doodle, to get to the point...]

>> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
>
> Marsh beat me to it.

The memorandum Marsh hopefully points to doesn't say
what you or he thinks it does. The text in question
reads:

"[the WCC 6.5mm ammo] does not fit and cannot
be fired in any of the USMC weapons. This gives
rise to the obvious speculation that it is a
contract for ammunition placed by CIA with
Western under a USMC cover for concealment
purposes"

Somehow, the two of you think that "obvious speculation"
is somehow synonymous with "proof" and/or "evidence."
Not that I'm surprised.

There's another report in the FBI's assassination
corpus wherein someone from the State Department's
Office of Munitions Control relates being told by
someone in industry that the WCC 6.5m ammo was part
of US military aid to sent to Greece during and just
after the Greek Civil War. That war was largely
fought with German and Italian weaponry abandoned by
the Axis militaries at the end of WW2, and the
Hellenic army wound up being equipped with large
stockpile of orphaned firearms. These were replaced
with newer guns as the 50's went on, so the newly-
unneeded 6.5mm stuff was likely sold off as surplus.
Some of it was trans-shipped back to the US via
Canada as a way of skirting US prohibitions against
US military aid being sold back into the US.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:14:26 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> While I am not a supporter of the Wallace theory, I can't help but get a
> >> good laugh out of the horrific reasoning you employ.
> >>
> >> If Wallace or some other accomplice had fired the MC rifle at Kennedy that
> >> day, the conspiracy could have gotten the ammunition anywhere.
> >
> > As could Oswald.
>
> Not really. He couldn't drive and there would have been a
> record of him going to some other city to buy ammunition.
>
> His movements and purchases were analyzed to the point where
> we almost know when he went to the bathroom:-)
>

You do love hyperbole, don't you.

Where do you get the idea that someone who had no credit cards or checking
account could have their purchases analyzed. He could walk into any gun
store that sold ammo, pay cash for it, and there would be no record of who
bought the ammo. There were able to track his purchase of the rifle in
part because he purchased a money order to pay for it.

He could buy a ticket for a train or intercity bus without giving any one
his real name. Within a city he could hop on a local bus or a taxi without
his name being recorded.

It is complete nonsense to say the FBI or anyone else could have traced
Oswald's purchase of ammo. Even today that would be virtually impossible
(except in Kalifornia).

> >
> >> Of course
> >> no attempt was made (that we know of), to track down their purchases.
> >>
> >
> > Doesn't matter. If you are going to insist that it be proved where Oswald
> > bought his ammo, it should be a necessary element to proving any
> > alternative shooter as well.
>
> Only if that shooter was investigated.
>

So I guess conspiracy hobbyists get to accuse just about anyone since no
evidence of their involvement is necessary.

> > Of course the whole argument is a red herring
> > since proving where any murderer bought his ammo is not a requirement.
>
> It is significant, mainly because it suggests that someone
> else got the ammunition, either for Oswald or some other shooter.
>

It suggests no such thing except to people who are logically challenged.

> >
> >> Oswald, was thoroughly investigated and except for the weekend in which he
> >> met with the FBI on 11/16/63, his movements, whereabouts and purchases
> >> were investigated down to the tiniest detail.
> >>
> >
> > So what. Do you think there would be a record of everything Oswald did?
>
> Pretty much.
>
> As I understand it, there is no record of anyone in Dallas
> selling that ammunition, other than John Mason.
>

Gun shops keep records of what they sell for inventory purposes. They
don't keep records of who they sell to and if the person pays cash there
is no way to track their purchase.

> Nonetheless, I will admit that it was not impossible for him
> to purchase that ammunition, but it is far less probable than
> that an accomplice bought it.

Because you desperately want to believe he had an accomplice.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:14:26 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:

> bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> While I am not a supporter of the Wallace theory, I can't help but get a
> >> good laugh out of the horrific reasoning you employ.
> >>
> >> If Wallace or some other accomplice had fired the MC rifle at Kennedy that
> >> day, the conspiracy could have gotten the ammunition anywhere.
> >
> > As could Oswald.
>
> Not really. He couldn't drive and there would have been a
> record of him going to some other city to buy ammunition.

Where can I find the records of all the movements of all the people in
Dallas?

> His movements and purchases were analyzed to the point where
> we almost know when he went to the bathroom:-)

Nonsense. They had information wherever they turned up information.
Only.

> >
> >> Of course
> >> no attempt was made (that we know of), to track down their purchases.
> >>
> >
> > Doesn't matter. If you are going to insist that it be proved where Oswald
> > bought his ammo, it should be a necessary element to proving any
> > alternative shooter as well.
>
> Only if that shooter was investigated.

He would first need to exist.

> > Of course the whole argument is a red herring
> > since proving where any murderer bought his ammo is not a requirement.
>
> It is significant, mainly because it suggests that someone
> else got the ammunition, either for Oswald or some other shooter.

Oswald`s rifle containing ammunition when it was found strongly suggests
that Oswald acquired ammunition.

It isn`t even impossible that Oswald acquired the ammo before he even
had the rifle.

> >
> >> Oswald, was thoroughly investigated and except for the weekend in which he
> >> met with the FBI on 11/16/63, his movements, whereabouts and purchases
> >> were investigated down to the tiniest detail.
> >>
> >
> > So what. Do you think there would be a record of everything Oswald did?
>
> Pretty much.

Mind boggling that you think this is even possible.

> As I understand it, there is no record of anyone in Dallas
> selling that ammunition, other than John Mason.

Establishes nothing. Rules out nothing.

> Nonetheless, I will admit that it was not impossible for him
> to purchase that ammunition, but it is far less probable than
> that an accomplice bought it.

<snicker> And put it in Oswald`s rifle?
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Bud]

You are light years away from establishing that.

> The FBI knew this.

Apparently you don`t know what the word "speculation" means.

> I don't
> exactly know why you argue this.

I think if you present something as fact it should be established as fact.

> The FBI also narrowed down who ended up
> selling the ammunition. But they could not definitively say who bought it.

For those interested, these reports cover the FBI`s attempts to track
down where Oswald got the ammo...


http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&search=carcano_ammunition#relPageId=98&tab=page

Hardly exhaustive. The two people found who handled Western Cartridge
ammo didn`t remember selling ammo to Oswald, but the sale could have been
as much as a year previous to the interview.

> >
> > > The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> > > they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> > > well.
> >
> > Nonsense. Klein`s was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market,
> > most were being bought as cheap hunting rifles. Why buy a rifle that you
> > can only get bullets from the CIA for?
>
> Good sir... Where in god's name did you get this from? Who was even
> talking about the rifle? Who in the world said only bullets from the CIA
> could be fired from Oswald's rifle or even inferred that? I'm not
> following your logic. I'm actually at a complete loss for words right now.
> Please do explain.

The Western Cartridge ammo was out on the open market. The CIA
"connection", if it existed at all, is irrelevant.

> >
> > > I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> > > definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
> >
> > Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
>
> Marsh beat me to it.

Marsh produced a document that didn`t support the claim. He never does.

> Side tangent: Are you and bigdog related in any way? Other than both being
> LN believers?

Do you think a low tolerance for bullshit is genetic?

[bigdog]

WCC manufactured four million rounds. They weren't all used and became
surplus and were sold through any number of retailers including the
catalog Company Klein's which offered them in lots of 108. Apparently
Oswald didn't think he needed that much ammo for whatever purpose he had
in mind when he ordered the rifle. We can safely say he didn't order the
rifle for the purpose of killing JFK because he would have no idea what
chance fate would deal him 8 months later. He possibly ordered the rifle
for the purpose of killing Walker and he would have made his first ammo
purchase at that time. If that was his reason for ordering the rifle it's
easy to understand why he would think he didn't need the large lot Klein's
was selling. Most likely he bought his ammo from one of the two retailers
in the Dallas area which sold it. Since one of those retailers reloaded
the ammo with hunting rounds that kind of narrows down the possibilities.
It is also easy to understand why they couldn't prove Oswald bought his
ammo there because there would be no record of whom it was sold to and
unlikely anyone would have remembered who they sold a box of ammo to 8
months prior. It's also possible Oswald could have found another mail
order company that sold the ammo and maybe in smaller lots.

In any case, Oswald would not have needed to obtain ammo for his rifle
from the CIA. There were plenty of private businesses that sold it.

[OHLeeRedux]

Says the expert on making crap up.

[Anthony Marsh]

Some of them are. I argue against them so you attack me.
Go figure.

>> That's
>> fine. Maybe because you destroyed it all.
>
> Poor Tony, the dog ate all his evidence.
>

Who you calling a dog? You mean the WC?

>>> Lets see you document the path of the bullet Fritz jacked out of Oswald`s
>>> rifle into the hands of a known CIA operative.
>>>
>>>> The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
>>>> they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Klein`s was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market,
>>> most were being bought as cheap hunting rifles. Why buy a rifle that you
>>> can only get bullets from the CIA for?
>>
>> No one said that, silly. Kleins was in the same ad selling 108 rounds of
>> SMI ammo.
>
> And you throw away the rifle after using up this stock?

Who said that? Not even the kook. The rifle still had 4 founds in it.
I don't think he was hunting squirrels.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
>>>> definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
>>>
>>> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/WCC-CIA.gif
>
> Is this you admitting that you can`t quote the FBI definitively saying
> the ammo came from the CIA?
>

I just did.

>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I apologize, my dear Lady. I meant no disrespect.
The problem is that I read the messages in reverse order so that I don't
bother replying to a message that someone else had already replies to.
If I get back to the old message and see no reply then I assume no one
has replied to it and feel obligated to say something.

> proved from our other conversations you are not really interested in
> finding out the whole truth. You can lead a horse to water but you can't
> make it drink. If our previous conversations are any indication, I would

Trolls don't drink water. They drink beer.

> bet money you would casually dismiss it and lead back to your obsession
> with proving Oswald guilty and casually dismissing the overwhelming
> evidence of coverup by the CIA and government yet again.
>
>

Slight correction. They never try to prove anything.
They just ASSuME.You do know what happens when you ASSuME, don't you?
[Editorial comment: God do I miss Benny Hill at this time of year. We
need a little joy in our lives right now]

[Bud]

But there were able to show that Oswald killed Kennedy with some of
them.

[bigdog]

You've already admitted that this neither proves that Oswald didn't buy
ammo nor that he didn't practice. So again I ask, why would do you
continually make a point of this?

[bigdog]

Ballistics matching.

> There's no evidence
> to that effect.

Ballistics matching is evidence.

> There were 2 bullets found that came from that rifle, but
> neither one was shown to have hit or hurt anyone. So how did that rifle
> get to kill JFK?
>

That isn't necessary to prove that. The ballistic matching is still
evidence.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:26:03 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 8:57:05 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:08:47 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
> > > > possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
> > > > assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
> > > > And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
> > > > ask:
> > > >
> > > > ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
> > > > without anybody seeing them leave?***
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Wallace group left immediately after shots were made into Dealey
> > > Plaza. At that time, everyone was concentrating on looking at the
> > > motorcade, and then what was happening to it as shots rang out. That gave
> > > the shooters time to get down the back stairs of the TSBD and get out the
> > > loading dock door. The story of the Wallace group fits very well with
> > > other facts in the case, and answers a few questions.
> > >
> >
> > Not surprising you completely missed David's point. If it was possible for
> > your 3 person team to come down the back stairs without being detected it
> > would also have been possible for Oswald to come down those same stairs
> > without being detected. You are willing to make allowances for your 3
> > person team that you won't make for Oswald.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! The point wasn't missed, it just made no sense since Oswald was elsewhere when the shots rang out. And we've had that argument that you're repeating again.
>

Yes we have had that argument. This is nothing but an assumption by you
since you have no witnesses that said Oswald was elsewhere at the time of
the shooting. In fact the only witness as to his whereabouts said he was
in the sniper's nest. Shooting at JFK.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
> > > > Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
> > > > buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.
> > >
> > >
> > > Apparently thinking is limited to CTs and not LNs.
> > >
> >
> > Like you just demonstrated. <chuckle>
>
>
> See above where you were found to be WRONG yet again. <belly laugh>
>

Yes. We can see above an example of your thinking. <chuckle>

[bigdog]

You continue to miss the point that it is completely unnecessary to prove
where a murderer bought his ammo. Not in this case. Not in any case.

The shooting of JFK was not rapid fire shooting. 3 shots in 8-9 seconds,
perhaps even more, is not rapid fire shooting. Oswald's Carcano, in the
condition it was found, was more than capable of firing shots at that rate
so this is nothing more than another red herring you have tried to
introduce as an excuse to dismiss damning evidence against Oswald. The
condition of the rifle also does not preclude that Oswald never practiced
with it. That is another of your silly assumptions. Even if he didn't
practice with it, that would not exonerate him either. If it did, it would
also exonerate Factor and Wallace since they didn't practice with it
either unless you want to argue that they practiced with it and didn't fix
the faults with it.

You see, this was the main point of this thread. You are willing to apply
different standards, different arguments for Oswald than you do for Factor
and Wallace. If you were to be consistent, you would apply the same
arguments to them that you do to Oswald, but you don't because you want to
believe that Oswald didn't shoot at JFK and Factor and Wallace did.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:00:46 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 9:26:48 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 7:30:08 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
> > > > possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
> > > > assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
> > > > And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
> > > > ask:
> > > >
> > > > ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
> > > > without anybody seeing them leave?***
> > > >

> > > > Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
> > > > Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
> > > > buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.
> > >

> > > The most amazing thing is I don't think Chris sees any inconsistency in
> > > his positions. I even gave him a heads up before he walked into this trap
> > > when I asked, "Or are you going to invoke another one of your double
> > > standards?". He went right ahead and invoked another one of his double
> > > standards anyway.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG as usual! I see you still are afraid to talk to me directly,
>
> I've never bothered to count them but I'm quite sure the number of posts
> I've made directly to you number in the hundreds, perhaps more than 1000.
> So for you to claim I am afraid to talk to you directly is about as
> ludicrous as anything else you have ever written.
>



WRONG! Fear grows over time. The inability to face the one you're
trying to discredit begins to wear on the guilty party and fear increases
as time goes on.



> > but
> > then when you attack someone with nothing but your opinions, that's to be
> > expected that you'd be unsure of your ground. I can easily imagine a
> > tremor in your voice as you try to recover the often lost ego that you've
> > given up in arguments with me, especially when you try to apply logic that
> > fails.
> >
> > There is no inconsistency in my arguments, but often in yours, as
> > anyone that follows our discussions can see.
> >
>
> Of course there is and I pointed it out quite plainly in the OP. You apply
> a different standard of proof to Factor and Wallace than you do to Oswald.
>



We discussed that. It seems more important to you to try and pretend
that I argue unfairly (making it harder for you). I don't think so, but I
will argue however I feel is right for the situation. If you're
attempting to change my mode of arguing to make it easier for you, it's a
shame you won't get what you want.


> > > It's easy to demonstrate his double standard. If you took his statement,

> > > "Factor and Wallace had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we

> > > don't know where." and substituted Oswald's name for Factor and Wallace it
> > > would read, "Oswald had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we
> > > don't know where.". Would Chris accept that has a legitimate argument.
> >
> >
> >
> > In your badly designed example, you've made your usual mistake. You
> > have placed Oswald's name in the position of a shooter at the motorcade,
> > while in reality the witnesses saw 2 men in the window on the 6th floor
> > with a gun, meaning they were the ones shooting at the motorcade, and we
> > know that Oswald was elsewhere by the evidence.
>
> You are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in irrelevant arguments. We
> are speaking about your contention that the lack of proof of Oswald's
> purchase of ammo is an indication he never intended to shoot anyone yet
> you don't apply that same contention to Factor and Wallace.
>


WRONG! LOL! So you think that Oswald being somewhere else is
irrelevant? You need to seek counseling to correct your view of the world
and where you are in it. You see, Factor and Wallace were not checked to
see where they bought their ammunition, whereas Oswald was. Think it
through! And add to that the statement of Loy Factor, who stated they
fired at the motorcade. Oswald never said he fired at anyone. He even
suggested he did not, though taking a suspect's word is not appropriate.
This jumping in is just making my work of correcting you that much more
difficult. Give me a break and think before you leap.



> > I repeat that word
> > "evidence", which you seem to often ignore. If you want to have something
> > relevant to say, stick with the evidence, you'll do better than sniping at
> > me in your frustration.
> >
>
> This is about the inferences you draw in absence of evidence. You draw one
> inference about Oswald's intentions based on the lack of proof of where he
> bought ammo for his Carcano yet you don't draw that same inference for
> Factor and Wallace. That is the inconsistency which I spoke about earlier.
>


If my arguing is faulty, why then it makes your arguing much easier.
You can more easily prove your points if mine are faulty. Simple.



> > > I seriously doubt it. In his world it's OK to assume Factor and Wallace
> > > obtained ammo for the Carcano even though we have no evidence as to where
> > > they bought it, but it's not OK to assume the same for Oswald.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG once again. You'll never learn. The point of Oswald not having
> > been found to have bought ammunition for his odd rifle was more a way of
> > pointing out that Oswald did not show any interest in shooting anyone,
>
> So if you were consistent you would make the same argument about Factor
> and Wallace but you don't.
>



WRONG! Your mistake was pointed out above, and here you are repeating
it almost verbatim. We did that already. Give it up, you got the answer.



>
> > also shown by them not finding anyplace he practiced.
>
> Ditto. One standard for Oswald. Another standard for Factor and Wallace.
>



WRONG! You persist in being foolish about these little interruptions
of yours. Factor stated clearly that they fired on the motorcade.
There's no reason to determine if they bought ammunition, since he made
that admission. In the case of Oswald, he did NOT admit to firing
anything at anyone. And it has been suggested that he had no intention of
shooting anyone, so finding where (if anywhere) he bought ammo would be of
use in helping to indicate his intentions.




> > Evidence shows
> > that. And if Oswald was playing some spy games by getting in with some
> > people and then reporting on them to the CIA or the FBI or whoever,
> > shooting anyone would be the last thing he would want to do.
> >
>
> I think this is called going off on a tangent.
>


WRONG! It is yet another factor in determining whether Oswald wanted
to shoot anyone. Think it through.



> > > In reality, both versions of statement are legitimate. The fact that we
> > > can't prove where Wallace, Factor, or Oswald bought Carcano ammo does not
> > > by itself establish that they couldn't have bought ammo. But Chris
> > > believes that fact disqualifies Oswald as a suspect but doesn't disqualify
> > > Wallace and Factor. Such is the way the conspiracy hobbyist mind works.
> >
> >
> > WRONG! What foolish logic you try to put on me! It is plain dumb to
> > suggest that, yet you boldly plop it out there.
>
> All I have said is that to be consistent the same standards of proof
> should be applied to your suspects that you want to apply to Oswald. To
> you that seems illogical.
>


WRONG! But twice now above, you've been answered on that topic. See
above and stop repeating the same thing over and over. It won't get
better for you.



> > I'm aware that not
> > finding a place where Oswald bought ammo is not clear proof that he didn't
> > kill JFK, but somehow in your twisted mind you got the idea that I said
> > that, which I did not.
>
> Then why bring it up at all? You have consistently stated the lack of such
> evidence is an indication Oswald didn't intent to shoot anyone.
>


Oswald's intention and whether he fired on the motorcade are 2
different things, but related. If it can be shown that Oswald wasn't
interested in shooting anyone, then that can also be an added suggestion
that he did not fire on the motorcade. And with that, Oswald being
elsewhere in the TSBD and not on the 6th floor, means that he was innocent
of shooting at JFK.



> > Given how badly the FBI would have loved to find a
> > place where Oswald bought ammo, it is suggestive that they couldn't find
> > such a place, but not absolute evidence. You need to stop making up these
> > weird attacks and get on with evidence, and you'll maybe lose less
> > arguments.
> >
>
> I'm going to copy this and remind you of it every time you try to make the
> argument that the lack of proof of where Oswald bought ammo is an
> indication he didn't try to shoot anyone. I'm sure it won't be long before
> you give me that opportunity.



WRONG! Since I've agreed that it is not ABSOLUTE evidence, and only
suggestive, you'd be making a fool of yourself yet again. Oswald was
proved to be elsewhere when the shots rang out, so he's clear of your
finger pointing.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:

> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:00:05 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:55:07 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 10:41:03 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> > > > For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> > > > unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
> > > > is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
> > > > The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> > > > Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> > > > by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
> > > > team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> > > > question:
> > > >
> > > > "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> > > > ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter

> > > > bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you

> > > > going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
> > > >

> > > > To which Chris replied:
> > > >
> > > > "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
> > > > had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
> > > >
> > > > So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> > > > we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> > > > any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> > > > Carcano. We can just assume they did.
> > > >
> > > > With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> > > > conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you brought up Oswald's ammo bigdog. Because the FBI actually did
> > > trace the bullets back to The CIA. The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> > > they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> > > well. I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> > > definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
> >

> > This smells like a factoid. Do you have a cite to support this?
>
> It seems marsh beat me to the punch. In any case, you have more than

> proved from our other conversations you are not really interested in
> finding out the whole truth. You can lead a horse to water but you can't
> make it drink. If our previous conversations are any indication, I would

> bet money you would casually dismiss it and lead back to your obsession
> with proving Oswald guilty and casually dismissing the overwhelming
> evidence of coverup by the CIA and government yet again.

Good going Chosen Ten. You've discovered the key to bd's discussion.
It's the WCR, which he holds to his chest tightly and ignores anything he
has heard that may have occurred since 53 years ago!

Chris

[Chosen Ten]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 10:38:56 PM UTC-6, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 4:05 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:06:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
>
> [...Snip-o-doodle, to get to the point...]
>
> >> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
> >
> > Marsh beat me to it.
>
> The memorandum Marsh hopefully points to doesn't say
> what you or he thinks it does. The text in question
> reads:
>
> "[the WCC 6.5mm ammo] does not fit and cannot
> be fired in any of the USMC weapons. This gives
> rise to the obvious speculation that it is a
> contract for ammunition placed by CIA with
> Western under a USMC cover for concealment
> purposes"
>
> Somehow, the two of you think that "obvious speculation"
> is somehow synonymous with "proof" and/or "evidence."
> Not that I'm surprised.

Why do you think it was so obvious to the FBI where the bullets had come
from and who had ordered them? Perhaps you feel you could do better than
the FBI in determining the origin of the bullets? That would definitely be
most interesting to see. After all... was it not primarily off of the
FBI's findings and reports that the WC was based off of and got a large
amount of its information from (along with CIA intel) which ultimately
helped the WC reach its conclusions? For all the crap the FBI get, they
were at least diligent in backtracking the bullets. But perhaps you feel
you could do better? Interesting train of thought... i will await your
report anxiously.

>
> There's another report in the FBI's assassination
> corpus wherein someone from the State Department's
> Office of Munitions Control relates being told by
> someone in industry that the WCC 6.5m ammo was part
> of US military aid to sent to Greece during and just
> after the Greek Civil War. That war was largely
> fought with German and Italian weaponry abandoned by
> the Axis militaries at the end of WW2, and the
> Hellenic army wound up being equipped with large
> stockpile of orphaned firearms. These were replaced
> with newer guns as the 50's went on, so the newly-
> unneeded 6.5mm stuff was likely sold off as surplus.
> Some of it was trans-shipped back to the US via
> Canada as a way of skirting US prohibitions against
> US military aid being sold back into the US.

A very interesting summary. So basically you put more faith in this FBI
report than the last one. You have more faith in the word of "someone from
the state departments office of munition control" who "relates being told
by someone who worked in the industry" than you do the FBI's ballistic
researchers and experts regarding where the bullets came from and were
ordered by because they came to an "obvious speculation." Very
interesting. Where does this relate to a previous conversation in this
thread.... Hmmmm... something about "pointing out the hypocrisy of the
Conspiracy Hobbyist approach..." Where's bud when you need him...

Side Tangent: Where is the CIA's report on the ammo? If the ammo was
traced back to them by the FBI and the Ammo was trans-shipped back to the
US via Canada as surplus like you say, surely the CIA knew of it I would
hope no? Or does the CIA not keep track of the ammo it orders?

[Chosen Ten]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 10:38:56 PM UTC-6, Mitch Todd wrote:

> On 1/4/2017 4:05 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:06:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
>
> [...Snip-o-doodle, to get to the point...]
>
> >> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
> >
> > Marsh beat me to it.
>
> The memorandum Marsh hopefully points to doesn't say
> what you or he thinks it does. The text in question
> reads:
>
> "[the WCC 6.5mm ammo] does not fit and cannot
> be fired in any of the USMC weapons. This gives
> rise to the obvious speculation that it is a
> contract for ammunition placed by CIA with
> Western under a USMC cover for concealment
> purposes"
>
> Somehow, the two of you think that "obvious speculation"
> is somehow synonymous with "proof" and/or "evidence."
> Not that I'm surprised.

What I find most amusing is that within that same document it also states
"That memorandum was written in response to Mr. Delmont's instructions
that EVERY effort be made to trace the ammunition on the possibility that
some of it may be traced into Oswald's hands." But obviously, based off of
your comment above, you see no reason to give credibility to the FBI'a
research or findings on the bullets history. An interesting thought
process. I wonder if the same holds true for you for all the other
evidence the FBI found and provided the WC with...

>
> There's another report in the FBI's assassination
> corpus

Oh wait...

wherein someone from the State Department's
> Office of Munitions Control relates being told by
> someone in industry that the WCC 6.5m ammo was part
> of US military aid to sent to Greece during and just
> after the Greek Civil War.

All of a sudden the FBI reports mean something again. Hmmm... interesting.
Should I be surprised?

[Ace Kefford]

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:41:03 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> For years Chris/mainframetech has been telling us that because the FBI was
> unable to find proof of where Oswald bought the ammo for his Carcano, that
> is proof he never bought any. Lately he has become enamored with the book
> The Men on the Sixth Floor which claims two guys named Mac Wallace and Loy
> Factor were the two man rifle team on the sixth floor of the TSBD assisted
> by an unnamed woman were was their spotter. (don't asked me why a two man
> team needed a spotter). In another thread I made asked him the following
> question:
>
> "Got any evidence where Loy Factor or Mac Wallace bought their Carcano
> ammo. Since you are claiming it is necessary to prove where a shooter
> bought his ammo, you have placed that same burden on yourself. Or are you
> going to invoke another one of your double standards?"
>
> To which Chris replied:
>
> "WRONG! Don't get stupid too soon now. Factor and Wallace had to have
> had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we don't know where.".
>
> So according to Chris's wonderfully wacky way of looking at evidence, if
> we can't prove where Oswald bought his ammo we must assume he didn't have
> any but we don't need to prove where Factor and Wallace got ammo for the
> Carcano. We can just assume they did.
>
> With thinking like this, is it any wonder that have 53 years the
> conspiracy hobbyists are still go around in circles.

Especially with a title like that telling us immediately what "this" is
about.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2017 9:20 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 11:14:26 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 7:50:16 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> While I am not a supporter of the Wallace theory, I can't help but get a
>>>> good laugh out of the horrific reasoning you employ.
>>>>
>>>> If Wallace or some other accomplice had fired the MC rifle at Kennedy that
>>>> day, the conspiracy could have gotten the ammunition anywhere.
>>>
>>> As could Oswald.
>>
>> Not really. He couldn't drive and there would have been a
>> record of him going to some other city to buy ammunition.
>>
>> His movements and purchases were analyzed to the point where
>> we almost know when he went to the bathroom:-)
>>
>
> You do love hyperbole, don't you.
>
> Where do you get the idea that someone who had no credit cards or checking
> account could have their purchases analyzed. He could walk into any gun
> store that sold ammo, pay cash for it, and there would be no record of who
> bought the ammo. There were able to track his purchase of the rifle in
> part because he purchased a money order to pay for it.
>

One of 2 ways. Either because his mail was being monitored, or because he
was being followed around by the FBI and the FBI questioned everyone who
came into contact with him.

> He could buy a ticket for a train or intercity bus without giving any one
> his real name. Within a city he could hop on a local bus or a taxi without
> his name being recorded.
>

But the FBI and CIA knew his aliases.

> It is complete nonsense to say the FBI or anyone else could have traced
> Oswald's purchase of ammo. Even today that would be virtually impossible
> (except in Kalifornia).
>

Of course it is stupid.
That's why JFK authored a bill to control purchases. Maybe that was the
reason for his assassination.

>>>
>>>> Of course
>>>> no attempt was made (that we know of), to track down their purchases.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter. If you are going to insist that it be proved where Oswald
>>> bought his ammo, it should be a necessary element to proving any
>>> alternative shooter as well.
>>
>> Only if that shooter was investigated.
>>
>
> So I guess conspiracy hobbyists get to accuse just about anyone since no
> evidence of their involvement is necessary.
>

We have to because the WC refused to.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2017 11:38 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 4:05 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
>> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:06:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
>
> [...Snip-o-doodle, to get to the point...]
>
>>> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
>>
>> Marsh beat me to it.
>
> The memorandum Marsh hopefully points to doesn't say
> what you or he thinks it does. The text in question
> reads:
>
> "[the WCC 6.5mm ammo] does not fit and cannot
> be fired in any of the USMC weapons. This gives
> rise to the obvious speculation that it is a
> contract for ammunition placed by CIA with
> Western under a USMC cover for concealment
> purposes"
>
> Somehow, the two of you think that "obvious speculation"
> is somehow synonymous with "proof" and/or "evidence."
> Not that I'm surprised.
>

Yes, it does. That was written by the FBI agent who was assigned the
task of finding out where the ammunition came from.

Are you saying that he was lying. Is that your only way out of this?
You demand an official press release from the CIA admitting it?

> There's another report in the FBI's assassination
> corpus wherein someone from the State Department's
> Office of Munitions Control relates being told by
> someone in industry that the WCC 6.5m ammo was part
> of US military aid to sent to Greece during and just
> after the Greek Civil War. That war was largely

Again, yes that was one speculation. So you cite that as PROOF and then
you attack me for posting the FBI memo?

> fought with German and Italian weaponry abandoned by
> the Axis militaries at the end of WW2, and the

Something like that. Make sure that you get confused about the different
types of 6.5 mm ammo.

> Hellenic army wound up being equipped with large
> stockpile of orphaned firearms. These were replaced
> with newer guns as the 50's went on, so the newly-
> unneeded 6.5mm stuff was likely sold off as surplus.

Yeah, so what? This was a special order in 1954.
Do you need a calendar?

> Some of it was trans-shipped back to the US via
> Canada as a way of skirting US prohibitions against
> US military aid being sold back into the US.
>

Yes, which is what the Kennedy law would have blocked.
Maybe that's why the CIA killed him.

Do you understand that everything you just said puts the CIA's
fingerprints all over this case? Who authorized you to implicate the
CIA? Was it Clapper again?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2017 11:28 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 8:54:11 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> 2008 RETRO POST REVISITED ("K" words excised by DVP)....
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Oh, goodie, 23 questions [below] from a [...] [Gil Jesus] who seems to
>> think those 23 Qs have never, ever been answered or addressed by LNers in
>> the past.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/KsW2a4tuGLE/cy0Y8lnPL7QJ
>>
>> That's another definition of "Conspiracy-Loving [...]" --- A person who
>> has a 6-minute memory.
>>
>> I especially love #11 from Gilbert -- "What evidence is there that Lee
>> Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition?"
>>
>> IOW -- In Gil's strange mind, if lone-assassin believers can't prove
>> exactly WHERE and HOW and FROM WHOM Lee Oswald purchased his Carcano
>> bullets, then there's simply no other choice but to declare that Oswald
>> didn't shoot President Kennedy with that Carcano rifle (despite the fact
>> that all of the bullets lead straight back into that Carcano rifle, which
>> was owned and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald prior to 11/22/63).
>>
>
>
>
> WRONG! When you put it together with the fact that they also couldn't
> show that Oswald practiced with his rifle, it begins to look like he
> really didn't want to shoot anyone with his new rifle. In fact, he took
> pictures with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw in the garage.
>
>

You won't even admit that Oswald shot at General Walker. You won't admit
ANY fact. You dream up impossible theories to explain away anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, we don't.

> no such for Oswald shooting at the motorcade. Howard Brennan was
> discredited by himself. So that there was NO witness to Oswald shooting
> at anything, much less the motorcade. He was also elsewhere when the
> shooting began.
>
>
>
>
>>> The rifle was found to have a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and
>>> a sticky bolt, which would limit any rapid firing. If Oswald had
>>> practiced with the rifle, he would have found the faults in the rifle and
>>> had them fixed. Can't shoot a the president with a bad scope. But the
>>> faults weren't fixed, meaning that the rifle was not practiced with.
>>>
>>
>> The rifle was found to have fired the only two bullets recovered from the
>> assassination. So even with a misaligned scope and a sticky bold it got
>> the job done.
>>
>
>
>
> WRONG! There may be proof that the MC rifle was fired at the
> motorcade, but there is NO proof that any bullet from the MC rifle hit or
> hurt anyone! It didn't matter that the MC rifle was faulty, since it was
> fired into Dealey Plaza for forensic purposes. And possibly to give the
> crowd in the street a place to point at where gunfire came from. The
> killing could be accomplished by one of the other shooters stationed
> around the plaza.
>

OK, do you understand that even if none of those shots hit anybody, it's
still participating in the conspiracy to asssassinate? Even if one
shooter misses.

>
>
>>> If, as many believe, that Oswald was involved with the CIA or FBI,
>>> then that also is a good reason not to be involved in the shooting of the
>>> president.
>>>
>>
>> One needs a reason for that?
>>
>
>
> One needs a reason for doing most anything.
>
>
>
>>> The evidence strongly suggests that Oswald had no interest in shooting
>>> anyone with his rifle.
>>>
>>
>> Using that same standard of evidence would suggest that no one had an
>> interest in shooting anyone with that rifle but somehow JFK got shot with
>> that rifle.
>
>
>
> Oh? How do you know he was shot with THAT rifle? There's no evidence
> to that effect. There were 2 bullets found that came from that rifle, but
> neither one was shown to have hit or hurt anyone. So how did that rifle
> get to kill JFK?
>

Phony. SHow me the 2 bullets.
Maybe it only wounded, but firing it during an assassination attempt
makes the shooter just as guilty as the guy who fired the fatal head shot.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2017 11:26 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 8:57:05 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

>> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 9:08:47 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 6:02:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> LOL. Excellent point, John/Bigdog. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't
>>>> possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the
>>>> assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc.
>>>> And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I
>>>> ask:
>>>>
>>>> ***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor
>>>> without anybody seeing them leave?***
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> The Wallace group left immediately after shots were made into Dealey
>>> Plaza. At that time, everyone was concentrating on looking at the
>>> motorcade, and then what was happening to it as shots rang out. That gave
>>> the shooters time to get down the back stairs of the TSBD and get out the
>>> loading dock door. The story of the Wallace group fits very well with
>>> other facts in the case, and answers a few questions.
>>>
>>
>> Not surprising you completely missed David's point. If it was possible for
>> your 3 person team to come down the back stairs without being detected it
>> would also have been possible for Oswald to come down those same stairs
>> without being detected. You are willing to make allowances for your 3
>> person team that you won't make for Oswald.
>>
>
>
>
> WRONG! The point wasn't missed, it just made no sense since Oswald was elsewhere when the shots rang out. And we've had that argument that you're repeating again.
>

How did he KNOW to be elsewhere at that exact second. Did the real
killers know that the motorcade was 15 minutes late and told Oswald to
be busy then?

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee
>>>> Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when
>>>> buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.
>>>
>>>

>>> Apparently thinking is limited to CTs and not LNs.
>>>
>>
>> Like you just demonstrated. <chuckle>
>
>
> See above where you were found to be WRONG yet again. <belly laugh>
>

> Chris
>

[Chosen Ten]

Tell that to the FBI agents who backtracked the bullets.

>
> > The FBI knew this.
>
> Apparently you don`t know what the word "speculation" means.

Apparently you don't know what the word "obvious" means. See how stupid
that type of argument method is? Apparently it was obvious to the FBI
agents actually working on the case tracking down the bullets. But to you?
Nah. Cuz you know better than they did... obviously.

>
> > I don't
> > exactly know why you argue this.
>
> I think if you present something as fact it should be established as fact.

Hmmmm okay... interesting train of thought. Weren't you the one who was
talking earlier about the hypocrisy of the conspiracy hobbyist approach?
Coming from a lone nut theory advocate those are EXTREMELY bold words good
sir. Your logic is baffling. If I didn't know better I would have thought
you just said "I think if you present something as fact it should be
established as fact..." So do you then apply this logic to other areas of
your arguments? Hmmm... well let's analyze some of your previous arguments
on this thread alone...

Such as this one... "Conspiracy hobbyists start from a false reality and
proceed from there." Hmmmm... really? Interesting. Is that a fact? All
conspiracy hobbyists start from a false reality and proceed from there? A
better question would be is that really as much of a fact as you present
it to be or just your general attitude and personal beliefs on the matter?
The best question would be... does this logic then apply to all the
arguments you yourself have made? Perhaps a closer examination might
reveal more...

"We have the good stuff. You guys have squat." -Bud 2016

...nevermind.

>
> > The FBI also narrowed down who ended up
> > selling the ammunition. But they could not definitively say who bought it.
>
> For those interested, these reports cover the FBI`s attempts to track
> down where Oswald got the ammo...
>
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&search=carcano_ammunition#relPageId=98&tab=page
>
> Hardly exhaustive. The two people found who handled Western Cartridge
> ammo didn`t remember selling ammo to Oswald, but the sale could have been
> as much as a year previous to the interview.
>
> > >
> > > > The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> > > > they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> > > > well.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Klein`s was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market,
> > > most were being bought as cheap hunting rifles. Why buy a rifle that you
> > > can only get bullets from the CIA for?
> >
> > Good sir... Where in god's name did you get this from? Who was even
> > talking about the rifle? Who in the world said only bullets from the CIA
> > could be fired from Oswald's rifle or even inferred that? I'm not
> > following your logic. I'm actually at a complete loss for words right now.
> > Please do explain.
>
> The Western Cartridge ammo was out on the open market. The CIA
> "connection", if it existed at all, is irrelevant.

Are you stating that last part as fact or is that you just assuming?
Careful now. You have already established you believe "if you present
something as fact it should be established as fact." I'm sure other
conspiracy theorists will definitely hold you to that in the future.

> > >
> > > > I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> > > > definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
> > >
> > > Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
> >
> > Marsh beat me to it.
>
> Marsh produced a document that didn`t support the claim. He never does.

That's funny. So you believe you know better than the FBI agents who came
to the "obvious speculation" that the order for the bullets were placed by
the CIA. Keep in mind they were trying their best to find any evidence
that might lead to the ammunition having been acquired by Oswald. Having
said that, i will be eagerly awaiting to hear your conclusions on why they
were wrong and who you believe ordered the ammunition.

>
> > Side tangent: Are you and bigdog related in any way? Other than both being
> > LN believers?
>
> Do you think a low tolerance for bullshit is genetic?

Not likely. But I do believe there's a saying that goes "You can fix
ignorance with education but you can't fix stupid." Not that I think
you're stupid. Just that your logic is baffling at times. But we should
get back to more pressing matters than each other's logic such as the
facts on hand and why the government and CIA covered up and is still
covering up things related to the JFK assassination.

http://www.jfklancer.com/AngeltonAdvises.html

[Bud]

Whatever parties you blame for your dismal performance.

> >>> Lets see you document the path of the bullet Fritz jacked out of Oswald`s
> >>> rifle into the hands of a known CIA operative.
> >>>
> >>>> The CIA ordered the ammunition. And
> >>>> they narrowed down from where the ammo could have been sold from quite
> >>>> well.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense. Klein`s was selling dozens of these rifles on the open market,
> >>> most were being bought as cheap hunting rifles. Why buy a rifle that you
> >>> can only get bullets from the CIA for?
> >>
> >> No one said that, silly. Kleins was in the same ad selling 108 rounds of
> >> SMI ammo.
> >
> > And you throw away the rifle after using up this stock?
>
> Who said that? Not even the kook. The rifle still had 4 founds in it.
> I don't think he was hunting squirrels.

Facists.

> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I already posted this in my other thread. But they could not
> >>>> definitively say if it had actually been Oswald who bought the ammo.
> >>>
> >>> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
> >>
> >> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/WCC-CIA.gif
> >
> > Is this you admitting that you can`t quote the FBI definitively saying
> > the ammo came from the CIA?
> >
>
> I just did.

Maybe you just aren`t cut out for this reading comprehension stuff.


> >>
> >>>
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

The total time is not what made Connally think it was a semi-automatic.
It was the very short spacing between the first two shots.
No one realized that a bolt action rifle could fire 2 shots within 1.66
seconds.

[Anthony Marsh]

Only if they cite them, not if WE cite them.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why should the CIA have any report on the ammo?
Plausible deniability. That's why they used the USMC as a cut-out.

> traced back to them by the FBI and the Ammo was trans-shipped back to the
> US via Canada as surplus like you say, surely the CIA knew of it I would
> hope no? Or does the CIA not keep track of the ammo it orders?

No. Why should they?

>

[bigdog]

What reason would I have to fear your nonsensical ramblings.

How's that for facing the one I am trying to discredit.

>
>
> > > but
> > > then when you attack someone with nothing but your opinions, that's to be
> > > expected that you'd be unsure of your ground. I can easily imagine a
> > > tremor in your voice as you try to recover the often lost ego that you've
> > > given up in arguments with me, especially when you try to apply logic that
> > > fails.
> > >
> > > There is no inconsistency in my arguments, but often in yours, as
> > > anyone that follows our discussions can see.
> > >
> >
> > Of course there is and I pointed it out quite plainly in the OP. You apply
> > a different standard of proof to Factor and Wallace than you do to Oswald.
> >
>
>
>
> We discussed that. It seems more important to you to try and pretend
> that I argue unfairly (making it harder for you).

You're only being unfair to yourself by making the foolish arguments which
you do.

> I don't think so, but I
> will argue however I feel is right for the situation. If you're
> attempting to change my mode of arguing to make it easier for you, it's a
> shame you won't get what you want.
>

Shooting fish in a barrel is easy enough for me.

>
> > > > It's easy to demonstrate his double standard. If you took his statement,
> > > > "Factor and Wallace had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we
> > > > don't know where." and substituted Oswald's name for Factor and Wallace it
> > > > would read, "Oswald had to have had some MC ammo from somewhere, but we
> > > > don't know where.". Would Chris accept that has a legitimate argument.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In your badly designed example, you've made your usual mistake. You
> > > have placed Oswald's name in the position of a shooter at the motorcade,
> > > while in reality the witnesses saw 2 men in the window on the 6th floor
> > > with a gun, meaning they were the ones shooting at the motorcade, and we
> > > know that Oswald was elsewhere by the evidence.
> >
> > You are trying to muddy the waters by bringing in irrelevant arguments. We
> > are speaking about your contention that the lack of proof of Oswald's
> > purchase of ammo is an indication he never intended to shoot anyone yet
> > you don't apply that same contention to Factor and Wallace.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! LOL! So you think that Oswald being somewhere else is
> irrelevant?

It is the point of this thread which is that you apply different standards
of proof to Oswald than those whom you wish to accuse.

> You need to seek counseling to correct your view of the world
> and where you are in it. You see, Factor and Wallace were not checked to
> see where they bought their ammunition, whereas Oswald was.

Completely irrelevant. If you are going to demand that it be proven where
Oswald bought his ammo you should be expected to prove the same thing if
you want to accuse Factor and Wallace. Why should you get a pass on that.

> Think it
> through! And add to that the statement of Loy Factor, who stated they
> fired at the motorcade.

We only have the word of Collom and Sample for that.

> Oswald never said he fired at anyone. He even
> suggested he did not, though taking a suspect's word is not appropriate.
> This jumping in is just making my work of correcting you that much more
> difficult. Give me a break and think before you leap.
>

Another of your double standards. You make demands of others which you
don't apply to yourself.

>
>
> > > I repeat that word
> > > "evidence", which you seem to often ignore. If you want to have something
> > > relevant to say, stick with the evidence, you'll do better than sniping at
> > > me in your frustration.
> > >
> >
> > This is about the inferences you draw in absence of evidence. You draw one
> > inference about Oswald's intentions based on the lack of proof of where he
> > bought ammo for his Carcano yet you don't draw that same inference for
> > Factor and Wallace. That is the inconsistency which I spoke about earlier.
> >
>
>
> If my arguing is faulty, why then it makes your arguing much easier.

Yes it does. Too easy in fact. There's no sport in it.

> You can more easily prove your points if mine are faulty. Simple.

I have certainly found that to be true. A little competition now and then
would be nice.

>
>
>
> > > > I seriously doubt it. In his world it's OK to assume Factor and Wallace
> > > > obtained ammo for the Carcano even though we have no evidence as to where
> > > > they bought it, but it's not OK to assume the same for Oswald.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG once again. You'll never learn. The point of Oswald not having
> > > been found to have bought ammunition for his odd rifle was more a way of
> > > pointing out that Oswald did not show any interest in shooting anyone,
> >
> > So if you were consistent you would make the same argument about Factor
> > and Wallace but you don't.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Your mistake was pointed out above, and here you are repeating
> it almost verbatim. We did that already. Give it up, you got the answer.
>

Let's just show the double standard by substituting "Factor and Wallace"
for "Oswald" in your statement.

The point of Factor and Wallace not having been found to have bought
ammunition for his odd rifle was more a way of pointing out that Factor
and Wallace did not show any interest in shooting anyone.

If you don't agree with that statement you have demonstrated your double
standard.

>
>
> >
> > > also shown by them not finding anyplace he practiced.
> >
> > Ditto. One standard for Oswald. Another standard for Factor and Wallace.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You persist in being foolish about these little interruptions
> of yours. Factor stated clearly that they fired on the motorcade.

Isn't it amazing the only source for that are the authors of a book. No
recording. No corroboration.

> There's no reason to determine if they bought ammunition, since he made
> that admission.

So you assume. You assume Collom and Sample were telling the truth.

> In the case of Oswald, he did NOT admit to firing
> anything at anyone. And it has been suggested that he had no intention of
> shooting anyone, so finding where (if anywhere) he bought ammo would be of
> use in helping to indicate his intentions.
>

You were the one who suggested that.

>
>
>
> > > Evidence shows
> > > that. And if Oswald was playing some spy games by getting in with some
> > > people and then reporting on them to the CIA or the FBI or whoever,
> > > shooting anyone would be the last thing he would want to do.
> > >
> >
> > I think this is called going off on a tangent.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! It is yet another factor in determining whether Oswald wanted
> to shoot anyone. Think it through.
>

I did. It still makes no sense.

>
>
> > > > In reality, both versions of statement are legitimate. The fact that we
> > > > can't prove where Wallace, Factor, or Oswald bought Carcano ammo does not
> > > > by itself establish that they couldn't have bought ammo. But Chris
> > > > believes that fact disqualifies Oswald as a suspect but doesn't disqualify
> > > > Wallace and Factor. Such is the way the conspiracy hobbyist mind works.
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! What foolish logic you try to put on me! It is plain dumb to
> > > suggest that, yet you boldly plop it out there.
> >
> > All I have said is that to be consistent the same standards of proof
> > should be applied to your suspects that you want to apply to Oswald. To
> > you that seems illogical.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! But twice now above, you've been answered on that topic. See
> above and stop repeating the same thing over and over. It won't get
> better for you.
>

All your answers did were to reinforce your double standards.

>
>
> > > I'm aware that not
> > > finding a place where Oswald bought ammo is not clear proof that he didn't
> > > kill JFK, but somehow in your twisted mind you got the idea that I said
> > > that, which I did not.
> >
> > Then why bring it up at all? You have consistently stated the lack of such
> > evidence is an indication Oswald didn't intent to shoot anyone.
> >
>
>
> Oswald's intention and whether he fired on the motorcade are 2
> different things, but related. If it can be shown that Oswald wasn't
> interested in shooting anyone, then that can also be an added suggestion
> that he did not fire on the motorcade. And with that, Oswald being
> elsewhere in the TSBD and not on the 6th floor, means that he was innocent
> of shooting at JFK.
>

Now all you have to do is prove Oswald wasn't interested in shooting
anyone. That's going to be hard to do given that he shot three people and
tried to shoot a fourth.

>
>
> > > Given how badly the FBI would have loved to find a
> > > place where Oswald bought ammo, it is suggestive that they couldn't find
> > > such a place, but not absolute evidence. You need to stop making up these
> > > weird attacks and get on with evidence, and you'll maybe lose less
> > > arguments.
> > >
> >
> > I'm going to copy this and remind you of it every time you try to make the
> > argument that the lack of proof of where Oswald bought ammo is an
> > indication he didn't try to shoot anyone. I'm sure it won't be long before
> > you give me that opportunity.
>
>
>
> WRONG! Since I've agreed that it is not ABSOLUTE evidence, and only
> suggestive, you'd be making a fool of yourself yet again. Oswald was
> proved to be elsewhere when the shots rang out, so he's clear of your
> finger pointing.
>

Funny how you don't think it is suggestive that Factor and Wallace didn't
shoot at the motorcade.

[bigdog]

Should I now be whining that you are afraid to talk to me directly the way
you did earlier in this thread?

You continue demonstrate your double standards.

[Bud]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-5, Chosen Ten wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 10:38:56 PM UTC-6, Mitch Todd wrote:
> > On 1/4/2017 4:05 PM, Chosen Ten wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 8:06:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> >
> > [...Snip-o-doodle, to get to the point...]
> >
> > >> Quote the FBI definitively saying the ammo came from the CIA.
> > >
> > > Marsh beat me to it.
> >
> > The memorandum Marsh hopefully points to doesn't say
> > what you or he thinks it does. The text in question
> > reads:
> >
> > "[the WCC 6.5mm ammo] does not fit and cannot
> > be fired in any of the USMC weapons. This gives
> > rise to the obvious speculation that it is a
> > contract for ammunition placed by CIA with
> > Western under a USMC cover for concealment
> > purposes"
> >
> > Somehow, the two of you think that "obvious speculation"
> > is somehow synonymous with "proof" and/or "evidence."
> > Not that I'm surprised.
>
> What I find most amusing is that within that same document it also states
> "That memorandum was written in response to Mr. Delmont's instructions
> that EVERY effort be made to trace the ammunition on the possibility that
> some of it may be traced into Oswald's hands."

They tried and came up empty. Big deal.

Either of the two people found to have Western Cartridge could have sold
it to Oswald and not remembered. I bought a computer about a year ago, a
fairly significant purchase. I couldn`t tell you if the person who waited
on me was male or female.

>But obviously, based off of
> your comment above, you see no reason to give credibility to the FBI'a
> research or findings on the bullets history. An interesting thought
> process. I wonder if the same holds true for you for all the other
> evidence the FBI found and provided the WC with...
>
> >
> > There's another report in the FBI's assassination
> > corpus
>
> Oh wait...
>
> wherein someone from the State Department's
> > Office of Munitions Control relates being told by
> > someone in industry that the WCC 6.5m ammo was part
> > of US military aid to sent to Greece during and just
> > after the Greek Civil War.
>
> All of a sudden the FBI reports mean something again. Hmmm... interesting.
> Should I be surprised?

The words used in the reports have meanings. "speculation", for
instance.

[mainframetech]

You've been suckered. bd didn't quote me correctly. I pointed out
that Oswald couldn't be found to have practiced anywhere and put together
with the inability ot find where he vbought any ammunition, it strongly
suggested that Oswald didn't want to shoot anyone. Burt there are other
added facts that show that too.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You keep missing the point that it matters in this case. Not
all cases are exactly alike. In this case the possibility has been raised
that Oswald didn't buy ammo and therefore could not be the shooter.
Therefore it is important as to whether the ammo was bought or not by
Oswald.

> The shooting of JFK was not rapid fire shooting. 3 shots in 8-9 seconds,
> perhaps even more, is not rapid fire shooting. Oswald's Carcano, in the
> condition it was found, was more than capable of firing shots at that rate
> so this is nothing more than another red herring you have tried to
> introduce as an excuse to dismiss damning evidence against Oswald.

WRONG! Did YOU test the MC rifle? The Army did, and found that it
could not do rapid shooting because of a sticky bolt, and was unsafe to
use at all. The scope being almost useless. They had to send it to the
gunsmith before they could test it.

The
> condition of the rifle also does not preclude that Oswald never practiced
> with it. That is another of your silly assumptions. Even if he didn't
> practice with it, that would not exonerate him either. If it did, it would
> also exonerate Factor and Wallace since they didn't practice with it
> either unless you want to argue that they practiced with it and didn't fix
> the faults with it.
>

WRONG! As usual, you're not thinking and then jumping in with phony
data. The rifle had a misaligned scope making it almost impossible to hit
anything with it, and a sticky bolt that also made rapid shooting next to
impossible. Now, since the rifle wasn't repaired, if Oswald had practiced
with it, the faults would have shown definitely. If he was going to shoot
at someone, he would have the rifle repaired before doing that shooting,
but the rifle was NOT repaired, meaning that it had not been practiced
with and the faults weren't discovered. Simple . Think it through.

> You see, this was the main point of this thread. You are willing to apply
> different standards, different arguments for Oswald than you do for Factor
> and Wallace. If you were to be consistent, you would apply the same
> arguments to them that you do to Oswald, but you don't because you want to
> believe that Oswald didn't shoot at JFK and Factor and Wallace did.
>

WRONG yet again! This has ben proved to you before, and now it will
have to be repeated because you're pretending you can't remember it.
There is difference between Loy factor and Oswald. In the case of Oswald,
he said he didn't shoot anyone, in the case with Loy Factor, he said they
fired at the motorcade and so that need not be proved since it was
admitted. It would be plain stupid to use the same argument for both,
since their situations were different. Now try to remember this time.

> > > I wonder if Gil thinks that every murderer who kills people with firearms
> > > is to be considered Not Guilty if it can't be determined beyond a
> > > reasonable doubt exactly HOW and WHERE the killer obtained the bullets
> > > that resulted in the death of the victim(s)?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Don't get ridiculous on us. In some cases it is necessary to
> > determine if the suspect bought any ammunition. If he did, it helps to
> > prove he was guilty, if not the issue is in doubt. In this case, Oswald
> > was elsewhere when the shots rang out based on a witness, so the shooting

> > was done by someone else. Before the shooting 2 men were seen in the 6th

[Jean Davison]

On 1/5/2017 12:27 PM, Bud wrote:
>> Side tangent: Are you and bigdog related in any way? Other than both being
>> LN believers?
> Do you think a low tolerance for bullshit is genetic?
>

LOL!
Jean