Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Throw the baby out with the bathwater
428 views
Skip to first unread message
David Emerling
Mar 16, 2015, 9:27:33 PM3/16/15
to
There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
Let me first give you an example from the O.J. Simpson criminal trial.
During final summations, Barry Scheck and Johnnie Cochran (two members of
Simpson's Dream Team) kept telling the jurors that if they had reasonable
doubt about any one piece of evidence, they would have to find Simpson
"not guilty" based on that reasonable doubt. The prosecution should have
immediately objected when that point was made. In Vincent Bugliosi's book
on the Simpson trial, "Outrage", he made this point. The reason this was
objectionable is because that is in direct contradiction to Judge Ito's
instructions to the jury. That is not the standard by which jurors should
make their decision.
Reasonable doubt has to do with the a juror's OVERALL view of the case
presented against the defendant. It does not necessarily hinge on any
single piece of evidence. In fact, a juror can totally reject or have
doubts about a particular aspect of the prosecution's case; however, on
the preponderance of other evidence, they can still decide that the
defendant is guilty.
If all it took was for the jury to have doubts about one piece (or, maybe
even two pieces) of the evidence, it would behoove the prosecution to not
present their lesser evidence because, if this standard were applied
(which it's not!), then the more evidence they presented the more likely
the defendant will be acquitted because of the failure of just one piece
of evidence.
Before I go on any further - I do not like discussing the Kennedy
assassination case in the context of technical courtroom standards. Many
of those courtroom restrictions are there to protect the defendant's
rights and are heavily slanted toward the presumption of innocence. After
all, the defendant's life or liberty is at stake. This was not the case in
the Warren investigation. This was not a courtroom hearing. This was a
fact-finding investigation. Fact-finding investigations are much better at
getting to the truth because they are not encumbered by anybody's
presumption of innocence and nobody has their life or liberty at stake.
All that matters are the facts. This is why Marina was permitted to
testify, for instance.
In Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", he outlines 53 pieces of
evidence indicating Oswald's guilt. In every prosecution case some
evidence is more compelling and more damning than others. Such is the case
with Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence.
It has been said by some conspiracy kooks that if just one piece of
evidence is found to be faulty then all of it has to be thrown out. Now,
seriously, does that make any sense? I can see how convenient that is for
them. But that's not the way the real world works and it is also not the
courtroom standard for a reason.
I'm looking over Bugliosi's "53 pieces" as I have the book sitting in
front of me. I'm going to page through it and find what I think is one of
the weaker pieces. I'm not going to give this a great deal of thought.
There may be something that is even weaker. I'll just pick one.
I'm going to pick #4. Here's the way it reads in "Reclaiming History"
(p.955 from "Reclaiming History")
Oswald and his wife, Marina, shared an abiding interest in President
Kennedy and his family and spoke of them often. Yet on Thursday evening,
the night before the assassination, when Marina brought up in conversation
with Oswald the president's scheduled visit to Dallas the next day, she
said, "He just ignored a little bit, you know, to talk about [it] ...
maybe changed subject and talking about ... newborn baby or something like
that ... It was quite unusual that he did not want to talk about President
Kennedy being in Dallas that particular evening. That was quite peculiar."
(end of citation)
Even I consider that a bit weak. I can see the significance of it when you
balance it against everything else; but I can certainly see how a
conspiracy-leaning person might say, "How can you find him guilty based on
that?" OK, fair enough. Like I've always said, it's a tapestry built of
many pieces.
Now, according to many kooks, if just one piece of Bugliosi's "53 pieces"
is rejected - you have to reject all of them.
Why?
Then we have #33. Here's the way it reads in "Reclaiming History"
(p. 962 from "Reclaiming History")
A Mannlicher-Carcano, serial number C2766, was found on the sixth floor of
the Book Depository Building shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
Handwriting experts determined that the writing on the purchase order and
money order for the rifle was Oswald's. And the seller shipped the rifle
to Oswald's post office box in Dallas. So Oswald owned the Carcano. Also,
photographs taken by Oswald's wife, Marina, in April of 1963 show Oswald
holding the Carcano, and Oswald's right palm print was found on the
underside of the rifle barrel following the assassination. So we know that
Oswald not only owned put possessed the subject rifle.
In the same vein, a tuft of several fresh, dark blue, gray-black, and
orange-yellow cotton fibers was found in a crevice between the butt plate
of the Carcano and the wooden stock. The FBI laboratory found that the
colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the
shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers
could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the
prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt. (end of
citation)
He owned the murder weapon! He handled the murder weapon! The murder
weapon is at the crime scene!
A juror could reject #4 above and yet find #33 very indicative of his
guilt. Then, of course, there are 52 additional pieces of evidence. It
makes no sense, either from a technical legal standpoint of from a common
sense standpoint to reject 52 pieces of evidence because you didn't find
#4 particularly compelling.
That's the way reality works in the world where people have rational
minds. That's why the finder-of-fact needs to be a "reasonable man".
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
Let me first give you an example from the O.J. Simpson criminal trial.
During final summations, Barry Scheck and Johnnie Cochran (two members of
Simpson's Dream Team) kept telling the jurors that if they had reasonable
doubt about any one piece of evidence, they would have to find Simpson
"not guilty" based on that reasonable doubt. The prosecution should have
immediately objected when that point was made. In Vincent Bugliosi's book
on the Simpson trial, "Outrage", he made this point. The reason this was
objectionable is because that is in direct contradiction to Judge Ito's
instructions to the jury. That is not the standard by which jurors should
make their decision.
Reasonable doubt has to do with the a juror's OVERALL view of the case
presented against the defendant. It does not necessarily hinge on any
single piece of evidence. In fact, a juror can totally reject or have
doubts about a particular aspect of the prosecution's case; however, on
the preponderance of other evidence, they can still decide that the
defendant is guilty.
If all it took was for the jury to have doubts about one piece (or, maybe
even two pieces) of the evidence, it would behoove the prosecution to not
present their lesser evidence because, if this standard were applied
(which it's not!), then the more evidence they presented the more likely
the defendant will be acquitted because of the failure of just one piece
of evidence.
Before I go on any further - I do not like discussing the Kennedy
assassination case in the context of technical courtroom standards. Many
of those courtroom restrictions are there to protect the defendant's
rights and are heavily slanted toward the presumption of innocence. After
all, the defendant's life or liberty is at stake. This was not the case in
the Warren investigation. This was not a courtroom hearing. This was a
fact-finding investigation. Fact-finding investigations are much better at
getting to the truth because they are not encumbered by anybody's
presumption of innocence and nobody has their life or liberty at stake.
All that matters are the facts. This is why Marina was permitted to
testify, for instance.
In Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", he outlines 53 pieces of
evidence indicating Oswald's guilt. In every prosecution case some
evidence is more compelling and more damning than others. Such is the case
with Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence.
It has been said by some conspiracy kooks that if just one piece of
evidence is found to be faulty then all of it has to be thrown out. Now,
seriously, does that make any sense? I can see how convenient that is for
them. But that's not the way the real world works and it is also not the
courtroom standard for a reason.
I'm looking over Bugliosi's "53 pieces" as I have the book sitting in
front of me. I'm going to page through it and find what I think is one of
the weaker pieces. I'm not going to give this a great deal of thought.
There may be something that is even weaker. I'll just pick one.
I'm going to pick #4. Here's the way it reads in "Reclaiming History"
(p.955 from "Reclaiming History")
Oswald and his wife, Marina, shared an abiding interest in President
Kennedy and his family and spoke of them often. Yet on Thursday evening,
the night before the assassination, when Marina brought up in conversation
with Oswald the president's scheduled visit to Dallas the next day, she
said, "He just ignored a little bit, you know, to talk about [it] ...
maybe changed subject and talking about ... newborn baby or something like
that ... It was quite unusual that he did not want to talk about President
Kennedy being in Dallas that particular evening. That was quite peculiar."
(end of citation)
Even I consider that a bit weak. I can see the significance of it when you
balance it against everything else; but I can certainly see how a
conspiracy-leaning person might say, "How can you find him guilty based on
that?" OK, fair enough. Like I've always said, it's a tapestry built of
many pieces.
Now, according to many kooks, if just one piece of Bugliosi's "53 pieces"
is rejected - you have to reject all of them.
Why?
Then we have #33. Here's the way it reads in "Reclaiming History"
(p. 962 from "Reclaiming History")
A Mannlicher-Carcano, serial number C2766, was found on the sixth floor of
the Book Depository Building shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
Handwriting experts determined that the writing on the purchase order and
money order for the rifle was Oswald's. And the seller shipped the rifle
to Oswald's post office box in Dallas. So Oswald owned the Carcano. Also,
photographs taken by Oswald's wife, Marina, in April of 1963 show Oswald
holding the Carcano, and Oswald's right palm print was found on the
underside of the rifle barrel following the assassination. So we know that
Oswald not only owned put possessed the subject rifle.
In the same vein, a tuft of several fresh, dark blue, gray-black, and
orange-yellow cotton fibers was found in a crevice between the butt plate
of the Carcano and the wooden stock. The FBI laboratory found that the
colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the
shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers
could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the
prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt. (end of
citation)
He owned the murder weapon! He handled the murder weapon! The murder
weapon is at the crime scene!
A juror could reject #4 above and yet find #33 very indicative of his
guilt. Then, of course, there are 52 additional pieces of evidence. It
makes no sense, either from a technical legal standpoint of from a common
sense standpoint to reject 52 pieces of evidence because you didn't find
#4 particularly compelling.
That's the way reality works in the world where people have rational
minds. That's why the finder-of-fact needs to be a "reasonable man".
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tom...@cox.net
Mar 17, 2015, 3:02:51 PM3/17/15
to
david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
also see these instances where the authorities tampered with
evidence/testimony>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
========================================================================
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
also see these instances where the authorities tampered with
evidence/testimony>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
========================================================================
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
mainframetech
Mar 17, 2015, 3:35:50 PM3/17/15
to
not work in court, and they will use rumors as much as hard evidence in
trying to solve a crime. While they will try for the hard evidence when
it's time to try a defendant, that part doesn't come until the crimes is
solved.
There are a number of assumptions that Bugliosi's 53 reasons has in
them. I've seen quite a number of answers to it on the internet, and all
of them catch some portion of truth in their putting it down. One day
when bored I may do it myself but not yet, It's side issue, and was put
together as part of VB's urge to make money and fame.
Above you've made some of those mistkaes, for example, you act like no
one has already agreed that Oseald owned the MC rifle, and brought it to
the TSBD that day. I am one of those that agree it was his, and agree
that he brought it in that day, but I do NOT agree that he had any
intention of shooting anyone with that rifle. The terrible condition it
was in when examined by the FBI and later the army experts ,show that
Oswald never even tried to practice with the rifle, since it could not be
aimed properly, and it had faults that didn't allow for rapid shooting,
such as a sticky bolt and a double-pull trigger, along with the misaligned
sight. All of which would have been repaired by Oswald if he had even
tried the rifle once.
Oswald refused to buy ammunition for the rifle when the ad he used to
buy the rifle offered him ammunition. The FBI tried to find a place where
Oswald bought ammunition in the area (Oswald didn't drive and had no car
either) and there were only 2 possibilities that handled the odd
ammunition for the old war surplus rifle. Neither of them sold anything
to Oswald.
Oswald (in my estimation from evidence) bought the rifle to use to
impress some people he wanted to get in with. As soon as he had received
the rifle, he had his photo taken with it and his revolver strapped on as
well, and some literature proclaiming who he was, a rough, tough rebel
ready for action. As soon a dthe photos were taken he rolled the rifle up
in a blanket and threw it in a damp garage and forgot it. Someone
reminded him of the rifle and gave him a reason to bring it in that day,
whether to sell it, or trade it, or just to show it, we don't know, but he
had a reason, and it wasn't to shoot anyone.
When he was accosted by Baker at the point of a gun at the TSBD, and
other employees told him that JFK had been shot, he realized that he had
been set up, or that he would be blamed when the rifle was found, and he
got out of there at his first opportunity.
By running, he showed that he wasn't after fame or blame.
The above is another interpretation of the evidence that you're so sure
proves that Oswald shot JFK (he didn't). If one starts with the
impression that this is a conspiracy, it's amazing how much fits that
scenario. And anyone that takes an honest overall look at this case will
come to the same conclusion. That a conspiracy was hatched and carried
out and presidential policies were changed to suit people that wanted to
make a lot of money.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Mar 17, 2015, 5:35:36 PM3/17/15
to
OHLeeRedux
Mar 17, 2015, 7:53:08 PM3/17/15
to
tom...@cox.net
Post offices do not record the time that each piece of mail is placed into
a mail slot. They might record the time it is collected, but that could be
hours after it was dropped off.
david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
Grasping at straws.
away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
Post offices do not record the time that each piece of mail is placed into
a mail slot. They might record the time it is collected, but that could be
hours after it was dropped off.
Bud
Mar 17, 2015, 10:01:39 PM3/17/15
to
their detective hats on, turn their imagination on high and jump in. Such
a fun hobby!
> The above is another interpretation of the evidence that you're so sure
> proves that Oswald shot JFK (he didn't). If one starts with the
> impression that this is a conspiracy, it's amazing how much fits that
> scenario. And anyone that takes an honest overall look at this case will
> come to the same conclusion. That a conspiracy was hatched and carried
> out and presidential policies were changed to suit people that wanted to
> make a lot of money.
>
> Chris
fantasy...
"The contemplation on things as they are, without error or confusion,
without substitute or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole
harvest of invention."
Bud
Mar 17, 2015, 10:02:22 PM3/17/15
to
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:02:51 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
> away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
<snicker> Who said Oswald was at work, Oswald?
> david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
> away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
And it wasn`t even one mile from Oswald`s work to the post office...
https://srhistorical.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/oswald-downtown-map.jpg
tom...@cox.net
Mar 18, 2015, 5:46:44 PM3/18/15
to
===== OPEN YOUR GOOD EYE
IT'S STAMPED ON THE POSTAL SEAL
SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/orderingreceiving_weapons.htm
===========================================================================
==
Jason Burke
Mar 18, 2015, 5:47:01 PM3/18/15
to
On 3/17/2015 7:02 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:02:51 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>> david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
>> away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
>
> <snicker> Who said Oswald was at work, Oswald?
>
> And it wasn`t even one mile from Oswald`s work to the post office...
>
> https://srhistorical.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/oswald-downtown-map.jpg
>
Don't bother ol' Tom with facts.
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:02:51 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>> david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
>> away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
>
> <snicker> Who said Oswald was at work, Oswald?
>
> And it wasn`t even one mile from Oswald`s work to the post office...
>
> https://srhistorical.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/oswald-downtown-map.jpg
>
He's never gonna understand.
Robert Harris
Mar 18, 2015, 5:52:14 PM3/18/15
to
David Emerling wrote:
> There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
David, you're spinning your wheels here.
> There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
assassination. But that isn't what is important.
What is important is the question of whether he acted alone. That is not
only more important, it is much easier to resolve.
In spite of clear, visual evidence of at least two early shots, only one
of them was loud enough to be heard by most witnesses. And none of the
early shots was loud enough to startle anyone, as the much louder shots
at 285 and 313 did.
We see nothing even remotely like this, prior to frame 285:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
If Oswald was guilty, as I think he was, he certainly got what he had
coming to him. Shouldn't we be concerned about those who didn't?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Mar 18, 2015, 8:05:04 PM3/18/15
to
couldn't get close enough to shoot Walker with the revolver. Why didn't he
shoot random people along the way? His housekeeper?
tom...@cox.net
Mar 19, 2015, 5:54:16 PM3/19/15
to
if you think you know so much Jason how about you debating me on official
evidence/testimony ! ! !
===========================================================================
evidence/testimony ! ! !
===========================================================================
Bud
Mar 19, 2015, 5:58:56 PM3/19/15
to
> He only bought the rifle because he realized he
> couldn't get close enough to shoot Walker with the revolver. Why didn't he
> shoot random people along the way? His housekeeper?
mainframetech
Mar 19, 2015, 6:02:27 PM3/19/15
to
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Emerling wrote:
> > There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> > among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> > but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> > know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> > standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
>
> David, you're spinning your wheels here.
>
> Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
> assassination. But that isn't what is important.
>
Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
> David Emerling wrote:
> > There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> > among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> > but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> > know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> > standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
>
> David, you're spinning your wheels here.
>
> Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
> assassination. But that isn't what is important.
>
involvement in the conspiracy at all. He brought the MC rifle, but did so
for other reasons than for him to shoot anyone with it. This is shown by
the evidence of his actions or lack of them involving the MC rifle from
the time he purchased it.
> What is important is the question of whether he acted alone. That is not
> only more important, it is much easier to resolve.
>
> In spite of clear, visual evidence of at least two early shots, only one
> of them was loud enough to be heard by most witnesses. And none of the
> early shots was loud enough to startle anyone, as the much louder shots
> at 285 and 313 did.
>
> We see nothing even remotely like this, prior to frame 285:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
> If Oswald was guilty, as I think he was, he certainly got what he had
> coming to him. Shouldn't we be concerned about those who didn't?
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Bud
Mar 19, 2015, 11:56:48 PM3/19/15
to
On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > David Emerling wrote:
> > > There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> > > among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> > > but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> > > know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> > > standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
> >
> > David, you're spinning your wheels here.
> >
> > Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
> > assassination. But that isn't what is important.
> >
>
>
> Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
> involvement in the conspiracy at all.
Name one.
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > David Emerling wrote:
> > > There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> > > among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> > > but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> > > know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> > > standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
> >
> > David, you're spinning your wheels here.
> >
> > Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
> > assassination. But that isn't what is important.
> >
>
>
> Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
> involvement in the conspiracy at all.
tom...@cox.net
Mar 20, 2015, 12:02:19 AM3/20/15
to
==== a reasonable person would look at "all" of the facts before reaching a
conclusion ! ! ! in other words the official evidence/testimony in the
commission's 6 volumes ! ! !
===========================================================================
===== $9.95/Month 30GB
Jason Burke
Mar 20, 2015, 11:27:59 AM3/20/15
to
And why would I bother making you look foolish again?
Jason Burke
Mar 20, 2015, 2:48:34 PM3/20/15
to
I guess those aren't "official evidence/testimony ! ! !", eh, Rossley?
So which six *are* official, Rossley?
mainframetech
Mar 20, 2015, 5:37:43 PM3/20/15
to
On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 11:56:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > David Emerling wrote:
> > > > There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> > > > among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> > > > but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> > > > know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> > > > standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
> > >
> > > David, you're spinning your wheels here.
> > >
> > > Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
> > > assassination. But that isn't what is important.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
> > involvement in the conspiracy at all.
>
> Name one.
>
Myself, of course. And A number of other people I've seen post here.
> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > David Emerling wrote:
> > > > There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> > > > among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> > > > but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> > > > know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> > > > standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
> > >
> > > David, you're spinning your wheels here.
> > >
> > > Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
> > > assassination. But that isn't what is important.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
> > involvement in the conspiracy at all.
>
> Name one.
>
All the evidence says that Oswald did not shoot out the window, and never
bought the MC rifle to shoot at anything or anyone. He didn't buy
ammunition when he had a chance from the ad that the rifle was in, and
later the FBI searched all over and couldn't find anyplace that he bought
any ammo nearby Dallas. When he received the rifle he had his photo taken
with it and the revolver to show what a rough, tough rebel he was, and
then he took the rifle and rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in a
damp garage. Not the way to treat a rifle you intended to shoot anyone
with.
OHLeeRedux
Mar 20, 2015, 5:47:18 PM3/20/15
to
=== OPEN YOUR GOOD EYE
IT'S STAMPED ON THE POSTAL SEAL
SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/orderingreceiving_weapons.htm
===========================================================================
==
What in God's holy name are you blathering about? Postal seal? If you are
IT'S STAMPED ON THE POSTAL SEAL
SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/orderingreceiving_weapons.htm
===========================================================================
==
talking about the stamp the post office puts over the postage stamp, that
is not done until the item has been collected from the drop box, which, as
I said, could be hours after the item was placed there by the mailer.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 20, 2015, 8:08:14 PM3/20/15
to
On 3/19/2015 6:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Emerling wrote:
>>> There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
>>> among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
>>> but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
>>> know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
>>> standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
>>
>> David, you're spinning your wheels here.
>>
>> Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
>> assassination. But that isn't what is important.
>>
>
>
> Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
More vague appeals to authority.
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Emerling wrote:
>>> There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
>>> among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
>>> but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
>>> know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
>>> standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
>>
>> David, you're spinning your wheels here.
>>
>> Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
>> assassination. But that isn't what is important.
>>
>
>
> Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
> involvement in the conspiracy at all. He brought the MC rifle, but did so
> for other reasons than for him to shoot anyone with it. This is shown by
> the evidence of his actions or lack of them involving the MC rifle from
> the time he purchased it.
>
Bud
Mar 20, 2015, 9:09:02 PM3/20/15
to
On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 5:37:43 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 11:56:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > David Emerling wrote:
> > > > > There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> > > > > among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> > > > > but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> > > > > know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> > > > > standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
> > > >
> > > > David, you're spinning your wheels here.
> > > >
> > > > Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
> > > > assassination. But that isn't what is important.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
> > > involvement in the conspiracy at all.
> >
> > Name one.
> >
>
>
> Myself, of course.
Did you read what you wrote?
> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 11:56:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 5:52:14 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > > David Emerling wrote:
> > > > > There is a common misunderstanding regarding evidence against an accused
> > > > > among many people who are not familiar with the law. Now, I'm no attorney,
> > > > > but I have researched this basic principle of the law. Of course, lawyers
> > > > > know this but your average person does not. From a common sense
> > > > > standpoint, most people know this, intuitively.
> > > >
> > > > David, you're spinning your wheels here.
> > > >
> > > > Most rational people accept that Oswald probably had some role in the
> > > > assassination. But that isn't what is important.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Many RATIONAL people believe that Oswald had NO intentional
> > > involvement in the conspiracy at all.
> >
> > Name one.
> >
>
>
> Myself, of course.
> And A number of other people I've seen post here.
> All the evidence says that Oswald did not shoot out the window, and never
> bought the MC rifle to shoot at anything or anyone.
> He didn't buy
> ammunition when he had a chance from the ad that the rifle was in, and
> later the FBI searched all over and couldn't find anyplace that he bought
> any ammo nearby Dallas.
Oswald can`t?
> When he received the rifle he had his photo taken
> with it and the revolver to show what a rough, tough rebel he was, and
> then he took the rifle and rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in a
> damp garage. Not the way to treat a rifle you intended to shoot anyone
> with.
David Emerling
Mar 21, 2015, 11:13:00 AM3/21/15
to
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:02:51 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
> away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
When the order was mailed? What does THAT mean?
> david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
> away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
You can't prove that Oswald DIDN'T pick up the rifle when there is so much
telling us that he DID. Despite your conviction that it was impossible for
Oswald to pick-up that rifle - you have to deal with the following:
Oswald ORDERED the rifle.
It was mailed to HIS PO Box.
SOMEBODY picked up that rifle
His wife said he ordered and OWNED a rifle.
We have PHOTOGRAPHS of him with the rifle.
The rifle was found at HIS place of employment.
The rifle has PRINTS on it.
The argument that Oswald couldn't have picked it up is very weak in light
of everything we know.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
Mar 21, 2015, 2:34:22 PM3/21/15
to
It was mailed to HIS PO Box. IT WAS PLANTED THERE.
SOMEBODY picked up that rifle. A HIDELL PICKED IT UP.
His wife said he ordered and OWNED a rifle. HIS WIFE WAS LYING BECAUSE SHE
DID NOT WANT TO BE DEPORTED.
We have PHOTOGRAPHS of him with the rifle. THE PHOTOS ARE FAKES AND MARINA
LIED.
The rifle was found at HIS place of employment. THE RIFLE WAS PLANTED.
The rifle has PRINTS on it. THE PRINTS WERE PLANTED.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 21, 2015, 9:40:53 PM3/21/15
to
On 3/21/2015 11:12 AM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:02:51 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>> david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
>> away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
>
> When the order was mailed? What does THAT mean?
>
> You can't prove that Oswald DIDN'T pick up the rifle when there is so much
> telling us that he DID. Despite your conviction that it was impossible for
> Oswald to pick-up that rifle - you have to deal with the following:
>
You are demanding that someone prove a negative. Naughty.
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:02:51 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>> david; when the oder for that rifle was being mailed, Oswald was miles
>> away from the post office while he was at worh at jcs ! ! !
>
> When the order was mailed? What does THAT mean?
>
> You can't prove that Oswald DIDN'T pick up the rifle when there is so much
> telling us that he DID. Despite your conviction that it was impossible for
> Oswald to pick-up that rifle - you have to deal with the following:
>
> Oswald ORDERED the rifle.
>
> It was mailed to HIS PO Box.
>
> SOMEBODY picked up that rifle
>
up that rifle. Now you are hinting that it might have been a
co-conspirator who picked it up for him. Naughty.
> His wife said he ordered and OWNED a rifle.
>
> We have PHOTOGRAPHS of him with the rifle.
>
> The rifle was found at HIS place of employment.
>
> The rifle has PRINTS on it.
>
> The argument that Oswald couldn't have picked it up is very weak in light
> of everything we know.
>
Vacillating again?
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
Mar 21, 2015, 9:47:46 PM3/21/15
to
mainframetech
Mar 21, 2015, 10:05:04 PM3/21/15
to
Chris
mainframetech
Mar 21, 2015, 10:06:06 PM3/21/15
to
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 11:13:00 AM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
fire the rifle out the window and he had no intention of using the rifle
to shoot anyone.
He bought the rifle and refused the offer of ammunition from Klein's and
the FBI couldn't find any other place he bought any ammo. When he got the
rifle he had a photo of himself with it and with his revolver around his
waist and some communist literature. Once had had the photo, he rolled up
the MC rifle in a blanket and threw it into a damp garage to sit for as
long time. The intention was to show how rough and tough a rebel he could
be, not to actually shoot anyone. He never practiced with the rifle.
If I were going to shoot someone with a new rifle, I'd want to try it
out and sight it in. But when the FBI got the rifle, its condition was
terrible. The scope was misaligned, the trigger was a double-pull type,
and the bolt was sticky. All of which made it impossible to fire rapidly
and still hit what you were aiming at. The army tried out the rifle and
found they had to send it to their gunsmith to have the scope shimmed to
correct the problem with it.
With the condition being so bad, Oswald never practiced wit hit because
he never intended to use it on anyone. Even the phony story of him
shooting at Walker was baloney. The bullet (as per the Dallas police) was
STEEL jacketed, which the MC ammunition was not.
Chris
Bud
Mar 22, 2015, 9:50:34 PM3/22/15
to
reading for comprehension might conclude he was disputing that Oswald
could find bullets to buy. So my question to Chris was how anyone else
could find the bullets that so eluded Oswald. Up to speed?
bigdog
Mar 22, 2015, 10:03:27 PM3/22/15
to
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> Much of the above is true as far as I know. However, Oswald did NOT
> fire the rifle out the window and he had no intention of using the rifle
> to shoot anyone.
>
This is where Chris shows off his remarkable power to read the minds of
>
> Much of the above is true as far as I know. However, Oswald did NOT
> fire the rifle out the window and he had no intention of using the rifle
> to shoot anyone.
>
people who have been dead for over 50 years.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 22, 2015, 10:06:59 PM3/22/15
to
fact that some murderers pick up a weapon for the first time and murder
someone with it. They don't always need years of practice to know how to
pull the trigger. In the case of Squeaky Frome she didn't even know how to
cock the gun. In the case of Sarah Jane Moore she had just bought the
revolver and didn't realize that it shoots high at close distances and
just barely missed Gerald Ford's head. She aimed for the head because she
knew that Ford was wearing his Kevlar T-shirt.
tom...@cox.net
Mar 23, 2015, 6:09:38 PM3/23/15
to
==== kinda like you quoting something you never reads ! ! !
===========================================================================
=
mainframetech
Mar 23, 2015, 6:37:52 PM3/23/15
to
back up and spinning myths.
We have evidence to easily tell why some people back then did what they
did. If we hear that a person 50 years ago went to the market and bought
a loaf of bread and brought it home, we can easily tell that they intended
to eat bread soon after that purchase. I someone bought a rifle but did
NOT buy ammunition and only took photos with the rifle and threw in a damp
garage, we can pretty well se that he didn't intend to shoot anyone with
it. The fact that Oswald also didn't practice with the rifle or he would
have found the various faults the MC rifle had and he would have fixed
them. When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald
did not practicing. Simple deduction that anyone can do.
Chris
mainframetech
Mar 23, 2015, 6:38:52 PM3/23/15
to
to him from Klein's, and they were the easiest to get at that point.
Later the FBI tried to find where those special bullets were sold in the
Dallas area, and they only found 2 places that handled them. They checked
both places and Oswald hadn't bought any bullets at either. But Oswald
didn't buy the rifle for shooting anyone. He never practiced with the
rifle, or he would have discovered the problems the rifle had. It had a
double-pull trigger, it had a sticky bolt, and it had a misaligned scope.
Those faults mad it impossible to fire the MC rifle rapidly and still hit
what you were aiming at.
What he did was when he received the rifle, he took his photo with the
rifle and his revolver and some communist literature to show what a rough,
tough rebel he was. That was all to impress others that he was trying to
get in with. After taking his photo he rolled the rifle up in a blanket
and threw it into a damp garage, where it stayed until someone gave him a
reason to bring it to work one day. Maybe to sell it, trade it, or just
to show an odd Italian carbine, but who knows why. And since he didn't
put the rifle out the 6th floor window and shoot it, there was another
employee that did do it, and was probably the person that convinced Oswald
to bring the MC rifle in.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Mar 24, 2015, 12:02:14 AM3/24/15
to
rifle?
Sandy McCroskey
Mar 24, 2015, 11:24:43 AM3/24/15
to
Only someone *desperate* to believe (God knows why!) that Oswald was
innocent would rest their hopes on this ridiculous "no one can prove he
bought ammunition" argument.
Oswald clearly had ammunition, wherever he got it, because it was a bullet
from his gun, with the exclusion of all others on the planet, that put a
bullet thru President Kennedy's head, and he was the only person it is at
all logical or realistic to suppose could have fired it from the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.
Sandy McCroskey
Mar 24, 2015, 11:25:07 AM3/24/15
to
Bud
Mar 24, 2015, 11:25:27 AM3/24/15
to
bigdog
Mar 24, 2015, 11:31:45 AM3/24/15
to
On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:37:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 10:03:27 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Much of the above is true as far as I know. However, Oswald did NOT
> > > fire the rifle out the window and he had no intention of using the rifle
> > > to shoot anyone.
> > >
> >
> > This is where Chris shows off his remarkable power to read the minds of
> > people who have been dead for over 50 years.
>
>
>
> Naah! This is where bd embarrasses himself by making guesses he can't
> back up and spinning myths.
>
> We have evidence to easily tell why some people back then did what they
> did.
No we don't. We have evidence of what "some people" did. You are guessing
> On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 10:03:27 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Much of the above is true as far as I know. However, Oswald did NOT
> > > fire the rifle out the window and he had no intention of using the rifle
> > > to shoot anyone.
> > >
> >
> > This is where Chris shows off his remarkable power to read the minds of
> > people who have been dead for over 50 years.
>
>
>
> Naah! This is where bd embarrasses himself by making guesses he can't
> back up and spinning myths.
>
> We have evidence to easily tell why some people back then did what they
> did.
why they did it.
> If we hear that a person 50 years ago went to the market and bought
> a loaf of bread and brought it home, we can easily tell that they intended
> to eat bread soon after that purchase. I someone bought a rifle but did
> NOT buy ammunition and only took photos with the rifle and threw in a damp
> garage, we can pretty well se that he didn't intend to shoot anyone with
> it.
> The fact that Oswald also didn't practice with the rifle or he would
> have found the various faults the MC rifle had and he would have fixed
> them.
> When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald
> did not practicing.
>
intended target in 3 shots.
Do you consider 3 shots in 8 to 9 seconds to be rapid fire?
> Simple deduction that anyone can do.
bigdog
Mar 24, 2015, 11:32:06 AM3/24/15
to
On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> What he did was when he received the rifle, he took his photo with the
> rifle and his revolver and some communist literature to show what a rough,
> tough rebel he was. That was all to impress others that he was trying to
> get in with. After taking his photo he rolled the rifle up in a blanket
> and threw it into a damp garage, where it stayed until someone gave him a
> reason to bring it to work one day. Maybe to sell it, trade it, or just
> to show an odd Italian carbine, but who knows why. And since he didn't
> put the rifle out the 6th floor window and shoot it, there was another
> employee that did do it, and was probably the person that convinced Oswald
> to bring the MC rifle in.
>
Really? Which TSBD employee's whereabouts were not accounted for at the
>
> What he did was when he received the rifle, he took his photo with the
> rifle and his revolver and some communist literature to show what a rough,
> tough rebel he was. That was all to impress others that he was trying to
> get in with. After taking his photo he rolled the rifle up in a blanket
> and threw it into a damp garage, where it stayed until someone gave him a
> reason to bring it to work one day. Maybe to sell it, trade it, or just
> to show an odd Italian carbine, but who knows why. And since he didn't
> put the rifle out the 6th floor window and shoot it, there was another
> employee that did do it, and was probably the person that convinced Oswald
> to bring the MC rifle in.
>
time the shots were fired? I know of one.
David Emerling
Mar 24, 2015, 11:34:15 AM3/24/15
to
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 1:34:22 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> Oswald ORDERED the rifle. A. HIDELL ordered it.
Are you serious? You are rejecting that "A. Hidell" was Oswald's alias. He
> Oswald ORDERED the rifle. A. HIDELL ordered it.
had the fake ID card in his wallet, for crissakes! Even Marina was
familiar with that alias.
> It was mailed to HIS PO Box. IT WAS PLANTED THERE.
> SOMEBODY picked up that rifle. A HIDELL PICKED IT UP.
that. The fact that you reject "A. Hidell" as Oswald's alias is an amazing
illustration of delusional denial.
> His wife said he ordered and OWNED a rifle. HIS WIFE WAS LYING BECAUSE SHE
> DID NOT WANT TO BE DEPORTED.
she was certain he owned A rifle. If it wasn't the Mannlicher-Carcano that
was discovered on the 6th floor, then where is the ACTUAL rifle that
Oswald owned? Don't you find it odd that is "actual" rifle simply
disappeared?
You have no proof that Marina was lying. Everything she said about Oswald
owning a rifle was corroborated. He ordered one! She took photos of him
with the rifle!
> We have PHOTOGRAPHS of him with the rifle. THE PHOTOS ARE FAKES AND MARINA
> LIED.
> The rifle was found at HIS place of employment. THE RIFLE WAS PLANTED.
>
> The rifle has PRINTS on it. THE PRINTS WERE PLANTED.
do not think you do.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
Mar 24, 2015, 5:51:49 PM3/24/15
to
Sandy McCroskey
Mar 24, 2015, 5:52:06 PM3/24/15
to
Anthony Marsh
Mar 24, 2015, 5:54:00 PM3/24/15
to
tom...@cox.net
Mar 24, 2015, 9:08:47 PM3/24/15
to
===== THERE WERE MANY MISSING EMPLOYEES AFTER THE SHOOTING....MANY WERE NOT
ALLOWED BACK INTO THE BUILDING ! ! ! SEE>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/missing_employees.htm
===========================================================================
=======
bigdog
Mar 25, 2015, 10:55:19 AM3/25/15
to
mainframetech
Mar 25, 2015, 10:55:59 AM3/25/15
to
Chris
mainframetech
Mar 25, 2015, 10:56:47 AM3/25/15
to
bring you along often, but really!
We both know that Oswald was missing. And it was clear, since he
didn't do any shooting that he figured that he was going to be set up and
he decided to give himself some running room and he got out of there.
The person that fired the rifle out the window (who also had to be an
employee), waited until a reasonable time to leave. They should have
looked at a list of employees that left the TSBD employ soon after the
murder.
Chris
mainframetech
Mar 25, 2015, 11:00:02 AM3/25/15
to
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 11:31:45 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:37:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 10:03:27 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Much of the above is true as far as I know. However, Oswald did NOT
> > > > fire the rifle out the window and he had no intention of using the rifle
> > > > to shoot anyone.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is where Chris shows off his remarkable power to read the minds of
> > > people who have been dead for over 50 years.
> >
> >
> >
> > Naah! This is where bd embarrasses himself by making guesses he can't
> > back up and spinning myths.
> >
> > We have evidence to easily tell why some people back then did what they
> > did.
>
> No we don't. We have evidence of what "some people" did. You are guessing
> why they did it.
>
This shows how limited your thinking is. Most people know certain
> On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:37:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 10:03:27 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 10:06:06 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Much of the above is true as far as I know. However, Oswald did NOT
> > > > fire the rifle out the window and he had no intention of using the rifle
> > > > to shoot anyone.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is where Chris shows off his remarkable power to read the minds of
> > > people who have been dead for over 50 years.
> >
> >
> >
> > Naah! This is where bd embarrasses himself by making guesses he can't
> > back up and spinning myths.
> >
> > We have evidence to easily tell why some people back then did what they
> > did.
>
> No we don't. We have evidence of what "some people" did. You are guessing
> why they did it.
>
things about other people once they see or hear some things about them.
If a person is seen collecting many empty books of matches, folks will
assume they have a matchbook collection. There may be some other reason,
but that is the most logical and will be assumed by most people. I see
certain things that Oswald did or did NOT do, and UI make certain educated
guesses about him .One of those is once we see what Oswald did when about
purchasing ammunitiomn, and what he did about practicing with his rifle,
and what he did with the rifle when he was done with it after taking a
photo, and what condition the rifle was in when tested the nest day, well,
it all comes down to Oswald not wishing to shoot anyone with his rifle.
And that includes Walker, since the bullet that was fired at Walker was
NOT the type for the MC rifle. That one was was STEEL jacketed!
> > If we hear that a person 50 years ago went to the market and bought
> > a loaf of bread and brought it home, we can easily tell that they intended
> > NOT buy ammunition and only took photos with the rifle and threw in a damp
> > garage, we can pretty well see that he didn't intend to shoot anyone with
> > it.
>
> Oh, this is where you pretend to know he didn't buy ammo.
>
Nope, WRONG as usual! I assume he didn't buy ammo based on the
>
> Oh, this is where you pretend to know he didn't buy ammo.
>
evidence we have seen. That he refused buying it from Klein's when it was
offered, and when the FBI looked all over the area for shops that sold the
special ammo needed for the MC rifle, they found only 2, both of whom said
they never sold to Oswald. Along with the information that Oswald didn't
practice with his rifle, but threw in a corner of a garage, we can easily
see that he didn't intend to shoot anyone.
An interesting fact is that there were only 4 shells available for the
MC rifle. If Oswald had bought some, wouldn't he be smart enough to have
more than 4 shells with him to give him more chances to hit a target if
time allowed?
> > The fact that Oswald also didn't practice with the rifle or he would
> > have found the various faults the MC rifle had and he would have fixed
> > them.
>
> Oh, this is where you pretend you know Oswald didn't practice.
>
comments! We don't need to 'know', since we have the information from the
FBI tester (Frazier) and the army fellow (Simmons) to tell us the
condition of the MC rifle. That condition wasn't anywhere near ready for
shooting at JFK, or even aiming for rapid shooting. Oswald wasn't a
dummy. Therefore it's easy to surmise that he did his usual thing and
never bothered to practice. Since he also showed no interest in
ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
can make a number of solid educated guesses.
> > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald
> >
>
> Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> intended target in 3 shots.
>
Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
>
> Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> intended target in 3 shots.
>
The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
> Do you consider 3 shots in 8 to 9 seconds to be rapid fire?
>
> > Simple deduction that anyone can do.
>
> Then why are you the only one who does it?
Chris
bigdog
Mar 25, 2015, 8:41:10 PM3/25/15
to
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 10:56:47 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 11:32:06 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > What he did was when he received the rifle, he took his photo with the
> > > rifle and his revolver and some communist literature to show what a rough,
> > > tough rebel he was. That was all to impress others that he was trying to
> > > get in with. After taking his photo he rolled the rifle up in a blanket
> > > and threw it into a damp garage, where it stayed until someone gave him a
> > > reason to bring it to work one day. Maybe to sell it, trade it, or just
> > > to show an odd Italian carbine, but who knows why. And since he didn't
> > > put the rifle out the 6th floor window and shoot it, there was another
> > > employee that did do it, and was probably the person that convinced Oswald
> > > to bring the MC rifle in.
> > >
> >
> > Really? Which TSBD employee's whereabouts were not accounted for at the
> > time the shots were fired? I know of one.
>
>
> Why are you always WRONG? That a silly question. I know I have to
> bring you along often, but really!
>
If you think I am always wrong, that is a pretty good indication I am
> On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 11:32:06 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > What he did was when he received the rifle, he took his photo with the
> > > rifle and his revolver and some communist literature to show what a rough,
> > > tough rebel he was. That was all to impress others that he was trying to
> > > get in with. After taking his photo he rolled the rifle up in a blanket
> > > and threw it into a damp garage, where it stayed until someone gave him a
> > > reason to bring it to work one day. Maybe to sell it, trade it, or just
> > > to show an odd Italian carbine, but who knows why. And since he didn't
> > > put the rifle out the 6th floor window and shoot it, there was another
> > > employee that did do it, and was probably the person that convinced Oswald
> > > to bring the MC rifle in.
> > >
> >
> > Really? Which TSBD employee's whereabouts were not accounted for at the
> > time the shots were fired? I know of one.
>
>
> Why are you always WRONG? That a silly question. I know I have to
> bring you along often, but really!
>
always right.
> We both know that Oswald was missing. And it was clear, since he
> didn't do any shooting that he figured that he was going to be set up and
> he decided to give himself some running room and he got out of there.
> The person that fired the rifle out the window (who also had to be an
> employee), waited until a reasonable time to leave. They should have
> looked at a list of employees that left the TSBD employ soon after the
> murder.
>
the rifle out the window. So it would have to be someone whose whereabouts
were unaccounted for at the time of the shooting. Got any suspsects
besides the obvious one?
This also raises another dilemma for your Oswald-was-a-patsy story. Not
only would the conspirators have had to know to place Oswald in the TSBD
well before the the motorcade route was known, they would also have had to
have one of their own employed by the TSBD before the motorcade route was
known. So which of the conspirators do you think that would have been and
do you think they just had the guy working away at a menial job in the
TSBD hoping that maybe JFK might ride past the building someday?
This is the problem with trying to fill in details in a JFK conspiracy
theory. Invariably you will come up with something such as this which
makes no sense and to explain it, you will be forced to come up with
something even more nonsensical. After a while, these conspiracy theories
start to grow arms and legs. That's why most conspiracy hobbyists such as
Marsh refrain from being too detailed with their theories. Better to
remain as vague as possible so you don't paint yourself into a corner as
you have just done.
bigdog
Mar 25, 2015, 8:43:29 PM3/25/15
to
but they are still guesses. I have my own guess as to why Oswald shot JFK
but I have no idea if it is correct or not. Sometimes my guesses are
pretty good, such as when I filled out my ESPN March Madness bracket this
year. Right now I'm in the 98.6 percentile. That means a only about
167,000 people are ahead of me. But it also means I'm ahead of about 11.8
million. It's not because I am a great prognosticator. I haven't watch a
college basketball game all season. I just guessed better than almost
everyone else.
> An interesting fact is that there were only 4 shells available for the
> MC rifle. If Oswald had bought some, wouldn't he be smart enough to have
> more than 4 shells with him to give him more chances to hit a target if
> time allowed?
>
maybe several, and he used all but four of them up before the
assassination. As it was with his choice of weapon, he used what he had at
hand. As it turned out it was one more than he needed and probably as many
as he could have fired accurately in the time the limo was on Elm St.
>
>
> > > The fact that Oswald also didn't practice with the rifle or he would
> > > have found the various faults the MC rifle had and he would have fixed
> > > them.
> >
> > Oh, this is where you pretend you know Oswald didn't practice.
> >
>
>
>
> Once again you're WRONG! You should learn not to jump in and make silly
> comments! We don't need to 'know', since we have the information from the
> FBI tester (Frazier) and the army fellow (Simmons) to tell us the
> condition of the MC rifle. That condition wasn't anywhere near ready for
> shooting at JFK, or even aiming for rapid shooting.
accurate enough. Most people wouldn't call 3 shots in 8 or more seconds to
be rapid fire.
> Oswald wasn't a
> dummy. Therefore it's easy to surmise that he did his usual thing and
> never bothered to practice.
> Since he also showed no interest in
> ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
> can make a number of solid educated guesses.
> > > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald
> > > did no practicing.
> > >
> >
> > Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> > intended target in 3 shots.
> >
> Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
> The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
> wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
>
don't trump the evidence.
>
> > Do you consider 3 shots in 8 to 9 seconds to be rapid fire?
> >
> I consider it rapid firing without aiming to any good degree.
>
>
>
> > > Simple deduction that anyone can do.
> >
> > Then why are you the only one who does it?
>
> Huh? Are you OK? What's that supposed to mean? Do you know?
>
any ammo?
Anthony Marsh
Mar 25, 2015, 8:49:56 PM3/25/15
to
an APB for him.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 25, 2015, 8:50:28 PM3/25/15
to
Oswald's Carcano, but I think they are.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 25, 2015, 9:11:11 PM3/25/15
to
tom...@cox.net
Mar 25, 2015, 9:16:21 PM3/25/15
to
it was supposed to be senator ralph yarborough in the lmo with jfk
connally's doctor said connally may have bee hit by two or, even three
bullets ! ! !
===========================================================================
mainframetech
Mar 26, 2015, 9:55:34 AM3/26/15
to
didn't hit or hurt anyone. And no one can prove otherwise.
Chris
David Von Pein
Mar 26, 2015, 9:56:26 AM3/26/15
to
Re: The Bullets.....
It never occurs to CTers who reside in the "HE COULDN'T GET ANY BULLETS"
camp that it would be ludicrous for Klein's to be selling rifles to
customers that could never be used if no bullets were available to put
into those rifles.
And the CTers also ignore the fact that Klein's THEMSELVES were selling
Carcano bullets in 1963. If Oswald had chosen to, he could have bought 108
Carcano bullets for $7.50 directly from Klein's, using the same magazine
coupon he used to order the rifle & scope. ----->
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdK
VRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s1600/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-
1963.jpg
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html
It never occurs to CTers who reside in the "HE COULDN'T GET ANY BULLETS"
camp that it would be ludicrous for Klein's to be selling rifles to
customers that could never be used if no bullets were available to put
into those rifles.
And the CTers also ignore the fact that Klein's THEMSELVES were selling
Carcano bullets in 1963. If Oswald had chosen to, he could have bought 108
Carcano bullets for $7.50 directly from Klein's, using the same magazine
coupon he used to order the rifle & scope. ----->
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdK
VRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s1600/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-
1963.jpg
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html
mainframetech
Mar 26, 2015, 1:03:54 PM3/26/15
to
you have a certain amount of evidence and a knowledge of people so that
you can easily determine what the next step is in a case. Basketball
games are far more iffy, and your success proves it.
> > An interesting fact is that there were only 4 shells available for the
> > MC rifle. If Oswald had bought some, wouldn't he be smart enough to have
> > more than 4 shells with him to give him more chances to hit a target if
> > time allowed?
> >
>
> I guess you didn't think of the possibility he bought a whole box of ammo,
> maybe several, and he used all but four of them up before the
> assassination. As it was with his choice of weapon, he used what he had at
> hand. As it turned out it was one more than he needed and probably as many
> as he could have fired accurately in the time the limo was on Elm St.
>
and buy more. If he had planned to shoot someone because he made the
paper bag to bring his rifle in to the TSBD, he could just as easily have
gone and bought more ammunition to give himself the best chance of hitting
his target. It's all bull. He didn't intend to shoot anyone, and you're
just building a house of cards as usual.
> >
> >
> > > > The fact that Oswald also didn't practice with the rifle or he would
> > > > have found the various faults the MC rifle had and he would have fixed
> > > > them.
> > >
> > > Oh, this is where you pretend you know Oswald didn't practice.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Once again you're WRONG! You should learn not to jump in and make silly
> > comments! We don't need to 'know', since we have the information from the
> > FBI tester (Frazier) and the army fellow (Simmons) to tell us the
> > condition of the MC rifle. That condition wasn't anywhere near ready for
> > shooting at JFK, or even aiming for rapid shooting.
>
> The evidence says JFK was hit twice by ammo from that rifle. It was
> accurate enough. Most people wouldn't call 3 shots in 8 or more seconds to
> be rapid fire.
>
shot from the MC rifle! Not one! The rifle was proven to be inaccurate
by testers who said the sticky bolt kept pulling the rifle off its aim.
And it's easy to rapidly fire off shots with a bolt action, if you're not
really aiming too carefully. Which was the case, since firing the MC
rifle out the window was strictly for effect. Other shooters did the real
task of killing.
Of the 2 bullets that we know came from the MC rifle, the CE399 bullet
was a test bullet that replaced the original bullet that was shaped
differently than the MC round nosed ammunition, and so didn't kill anyone.
And the other was 2 fragments found supposedly in the front seat of the
limousine. Possibly from the primary bullet strike on the chrome overhead
of the limo, which was probably backed with steel. That one also hit or
hurt no one.
> > Oswald wasn't a
> > dummy. Therefore it's easy to surmise that he did his usual thing and
> > never bothered to practice.
>
> So you are saying that only dummies practice?
>
that is that Oswald was a smart guy and if he wanted to shoot someone, he
would have practiced.
> > Since he also showed no interest in
> > ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
> > can make a number of solid educated guesses.
>
>
> And then there are the ones you have made.
>
> > > > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > > > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald did no practicing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> > > intended target in 3 shots.
> > >
>
> > Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
> > The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
> > wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
> >
>
> You have offered no such evidence, just arguments, and your arguments
> don't trump the evidence.
>
there. The rifle was his and that's where it stops. He didn't buy
ammunition and you can't prove that he did. The MC rifle bullets didn't
hit or hurt anyone, and you can't prove that they did. You can't even
prove it was Oswald at the 6th floor window!
> >
> > > Do you consider 3 shots in 8 to 9 seconds to be rapid fire?
> > >
> > I consider it rapid firing without aiming to any good degree.
> >
>
> So you don't think someone can aim and fire a rifle every 4 or 5 seconds?
>
expertise that Oswald had at the time of the shooting. Some experts were
able to get off shots in a short time in the CBS trial, but the target was
enlarged, and the experts had time for each of them to familiarize with
the MC type of rifle. We don't even know if the rifles they used were
also double-pull and had sticky bolts! Who you trying to kid?
>
> >
> >
> > > > Simple deduction that anyone can do.
> > >
> > > Then why are you the only one who does it?
> >
> > Huh? Are you OK? What's that supposed to mean? Do you know?
> >
>
> Who else has come up with the ridiculous argument that Oswald never bought
> any ammo?
and be logical instead of WRONG. And, of course, you have to try to
discredit it by calling it ridiculous, but it will ring true to some
folks, and they might want to rethink the whole case.
Chris
mainframetech
Mar 26, 2015, 1:04:52 PM3/26/15
to
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 8:41:10 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 10:56:47 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 11:32:06 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What he did was when he received the rifle, he took his photo with the
> > > > rifle and his revolver and some communist literature to show what a rough,
> > > > tough rebel he was. That was all to impress others that he was trying to
> > > > get in with. After taking his photo he rolled the rifle up in a blanket
> > > > and threw it into a damp garage, where it stayed until someone gave him a
> > > > reason to bring it to work one day. Maybe to sell it, trade it, or just
> > > > to show an odd Italian carbine, but who knows why. And since he didn't
> > > > put the rifle out the 6th floor window and shoot it, there was another
> > > > employee that did do it, and was probably the person that convinced Oswald
> > > > to bring the MC rifle in.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really? Which TSBD employee's whereabouts were not accounted for at the
> > > time the shots were fired? I know of one.
> >
> >
> > Why are you always WRONG? That a silly question. I know I have to
> > bring you along often, but really!
> >
>
> If you think I am always wrong, that is a pretty good indication I am
> always right.
>
Naah. Just wrong.
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 10:56:47 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 11:32:06 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 23, 2015 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What he did was when he received the rifle, he took his photo with the
> > > > rifle and his revolver and some communist literature to show what a rough,
> > > > tough rebel he was. That was all to impress others that he was trying to
> > > > get in with. After taking his photo he rolled the rifle up in a blanket
> > > > and threw it into a damp garage, where it stayed until someone gave him a
> > > > reason to bring it to work one day. Maybe to sell it, trade it, or just
> > > > to show an odd Italian carbine, but who knows why. And since he didn't
> > > > put the rifle out the 6th floor window and shoot it, there was another
> > > > employee that did do it, and was probably the person that convinced Oswald
> > > > to bring the MC rifle in.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really? Which TSBD employee's whereabouts were not accounted for at the
> > > time the shots were fired? I know of one.
> >
> >
> > Why are you always WRONG? That a silly question. I know I have to
> > bring you along often, but really!
> >
>
> If you think I am always wrong, that is a pretty good indication I am
> always right.
>
> > We both know that Oswald was missing. And it was clear, since he
> > didn't do any shooting that he figured that he was going to be set up and
> > he decided to give himself some running room and he got out of there.
> > The person that fired the rifle out the window (who also had to be an
> > employee), waited until a reasonable time to leave. They should have
> > looked at a list of employees that left the TSBD employ soon after the
> > murder.
> >
>
> You dodged the question. You claim it was another TSBD employee who fired
> the rifle out the window. So it would have to be someone whose whereabouts
> were unaccounted for at the time of the shooting. Got any suspsects
> besides the obvious one?
>
anyone let a friend in to watch the motorcade from the top floor. That
may be a mystery unless new information comes in.
> This also raises another dilemma for your Oswald-was-a-patsy story. Not
> only would the conspirators have had to know to place Oswald in the TSBD
> well before the the motorcade route was known, they would also have had to
> have one of their own employed by the TSBD before the motorcade route was
> known. So which of the conspirators do you think that would have been and
> do you think they just had the guy working away at a menial job in the
> TSBD hoping that maybe JFK might ride past the building someday?
>
brain when you want to use it...:) And how soon the motorcade route was
known might be up in the air. The route through Dealey Plaza might have
been a necessary path to take for where they had to go.
> This is the problem with trying to fill in details in a JFK conspiracy
> theory. Invariably you will come up with something such as this which
> makes no sense and to explain it, you will be forced to come up with
> something even more nonsensical. After a while, these conspiracy theories
> start to grow arms and legs. That's why most conspiracy hobbyists such as
> Marsh refrain from being too detailed with their theories. Better to
> remain as vague as possible so you don't paint yourself into a corner as
> you have just done.
normal detectives. That does NOT make it nonsensical, which shows how
little you know of these things. Stop trying to make the filling in out
to be as dumb as the WC 'theories'.
And no one has been "painted into a corner". The answers are there
above.
Chris
Steve Barber
Mar 26, 2015, 1:08:29 PM3/26/15
to
On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 4:47:18 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> === OPEN YOUR GOOD EYE
>
> IT'S STAMPED ON THE POSTAL SEAL
> SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/orderingreceiving_weapons.htm
> ===========================================================================
> ==
>
>
> What in God's holy name are you blathering about? Postal seal? If you are
> talking about the stamp the post office puts over the postage stamp, that
> is not done until the item has been collected from the drop box, which, as
> I said, could be hours after the item was placed there by the mailer.
Thank you for exposing Rossley's ineptitude.
> === OPEN YOUR GOOD EYE
>
> IT'S STAMPED ON THE POSTAL SEAL
> SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/orderingreceiving_weapons.htm
> ===========================================================================
> ==
>
>
> What in God's holy name are you blathering about? Postal seal? If you are
> talking about the stamp the post office puts over the postage stamp, that
> is not done until the item has been collected from the drop box, which, as
> I said, could be hours after the item was placed there by the mailer.
Thank you for exposing Rossley's ineptitude.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 26, 2015, 4:51:49 PM3/26/15
to
On 3/26/2015 9:56 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Re: The Bullets.....
>
> It never occurs to CTers who reside in the "HE COULDN'T GET ANY BULLETS"
> camp that it would be ludicrous for Klein's to be selling rifles to
> customers that could never be used if no bullets were available to put
> into those rifles.
>
> And the CTers also ignore the fact that Klein's THEMSELVES were selling
> Carcano bullets in 1963. If Oswald had chosen to, he could have bought 108
Except that I have written about that a few hundred times. Klein's only
> Re: The Bullets.....
>
> It never occurs to CTers who reside in the "HE COULDN'T GET ANY BULLETS"
> camp that it would be ludicrous for Klein's to be selling rifles to
> customers that could never be used if no bullets were available to put
> into those rifles.
>
> And the CTers also ignore the fact that Klein's THEMSELVES were selling
> Carcano bullets in 1963. If Oswald had chosen to, he could have bought 108
sold the old WWII SMI ammo, which was very unreliable. You'd know why if
you knew anything about guns.
> Carcano bullets for $7.50 directly from Klein's, using the same magazine
> coupon he used to order the rifle & scope. ----->
> VRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s1600/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-=
> 1963.jpg
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html
>
Anthony Marsh
Mar 26, 2015, 9:00:02 PM3/26/15
to
Anthony Marsh
Mar 26, 2015, 9:00:31 PM3/26/15
to
way you know how to argue.
Someone else had a theory that the 3 black men fired the rifle out of the
window.
> This also raises another dilemma for your Oswald-was-a-patsy story. Not
> only would the conspirators have had to know to place Oswald in the TSBD
> well before the the motorcade route was known, they would also have had to
> have one of their own employed by the TSBD before the motorcade route was
> known. So which of the conspirators do you think that would have been and
> do you think they just had the guy working away at a menial job in the
> TSBD hoping that maybe JFK might ride past the building someday?
>
> This is the problem with trying to fill in details in a JFK conspiracy
> theory. Invariably you will come up with something such as this which
> makes no sense and to explain it, you will be forced to come up with
> something even more nonsensical. After a while, these conspiracy theories
> start to grow arms and legs. That's why most conspiracy hobbyists such as
> Marsh refrain from being too detailed with their theories. Better to
> remain as vague as possible so you don't paint yourself into a corner as
> you have just done.
>
muzzle velocity of the grass knoll and the shooter.
David Von Pein
Mar 26, 2015, 9:06:36 PM3/26/15
to
TONY MARSH SAID:
Klein's only sold the old WWII SMI ammo, which was very unreliable.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Klein's only sold the old WWII SMI ammo, which was very unreliable.
So?
You think Oswald would have known that little fact when he ordered his
Carcano rifle in March of '63?
And is that why he didn't purchase a box of 108 bullets from
Klein's--because he *knew for a fact* that the bullets he'd be getting
from Klein's were "very unreliable"? How would Oswald have known any such
thing by just looking at the American Rifleman magazine ad?
Anyway, the point is --- Carcano bullets *were* obviously readily and
widely available to purchase and obtain in 1963. And this '63 Klein's ad
proves that fact....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdKVRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s700/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-1963.jpg
OHLeeRedux
Mar 26, 2015, 9:42:56 PM3/26/15
to
mainframetech
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Oswald didn't put 2 rounds from his rifle into anything. The MC rifle
didn't hit or hurt anyone. And no one can prove otherwise.
Chris
What's the weather like in that little world of yours, Chris?
didn't hit or hurt anyone. And no one can prove otherwise.
Chris
bigdog
Mar 26, 2015, 9:45:35 PM3/26/15
to
JFK would be within range of his rifle, four good shots would be the best
he could hope for and probably more than he would need. Oswald had no car.
Going places was not that easy. He had what he needed. A rifle and four
bullets. He figured that woud be enough. He figured correctly.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The fact that Oswald also didn't practice with the rifle or he would
> > > > > have found the various faults the MC rifle had and he would have fixed
> > > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, this is where you pretend you know Oswald didn't practice.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Once again you're WRONG! You should learn not to jump in and make silly
> > > comments! We don't need to 'know', since we have the information from the
> > > FBI tester (Frazier) and the army fellow (Simmons) to tell us the
> > > condition of the MC rifle. That condition wasn't anywhere near ready for
> > > shooting at JFK, or even aiming for rapid shooting.
> >
> > The evidence says JFK was hit twice by ammo from that rifle. It was
> > accurate enough. Most people wouldn't call 3 shots in 8 or more seconds to
> > be rapid fire.
> >
>
>
> Nope, not a shred of evidence says that JFK was hit by even a single
> shot from the MC rifle! Not one! The rifle was proven to be inaccurate
> by testers who said the sticky bolt kept pulling the rifle off its aim.
> And it's easy to rapidly fire off shots with a bolt action, if you're not
> really aiming too carefully. Which was the case, since firing the MC
> rifle out the window was strictly for effect. Other shooters did the real
> task of killing.
>
the Carcano was the murder weapon and the fragmented bullet found in the
limo was the kill shot. Your silly fantasies on the other hand can be
created in lieu of evidence.
> Of the 2 bullets that we know came from the MC rifle, the CE399 bullet
> was a test bullet that replaced the original bullet that was shaped
> differently than the MC round nosed ammunition, and so didn't kill anyone.
> And the other was 2 fragments found supposedly in the front seat of the
> limousine. Possibly from the primary bullet strike on the chrome overhead
> of the limo, which was probably backed with steel. That one also hit or
> hurt no one.
>
>
>
> > > Oswald wasn't a
> > > dummy. Therefore it's easy to surmise that he did his usual thing and
> > > never bothered to practice.
> >
> > So you are saying that only dummies practice?
> >
>
>
> WRONG. Don't you feel foolish asking that? The point to be taken from
> that is that Oswald was a smart guy and if he wanted to shoot someone, he
> would have practiced.
>
We know he fired 3 more at JFK. We know he left one in the chamber. That's
five bullets accounted for. Since Carcano bullets are not sold in 5 round
lots, it is likely that sometime, somewhere between the Walker shooting,
Oswald probably did some practicing. How much is anybody's guess. I think
it's safe to say from the time he learned of the motorcade route until the
time he fetched his rifle and smuggled it into the TSBD, he would not have
had the opportunity to practice. Apparently he didn't need to.
>
>
>
> > > Since he also showed no interest in
> > > ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
> > > can make a number of solid educated guesses.
> >
> >
> > And then there are the ones you have made.
> >
> > > > > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > > > > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald did no practicing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> > > > intended target in 3 shots.
> > > >
> >
> > > Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
> > > The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
> > > wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
> > >
> >
> > You have offered no such evidence, just arguments, and your arguments
> > don't trump the evidence.
> >
>
>
> There is NO evidence that does the job of convicting Oswald.
sentenced to die in the electric chair. Whether that sentence would have
been carried out before SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty laws is
anybody's guess.
> It isn't
> there. The rifle was his and that's where it stops. He didn't buy
> ammunition and you can't prove that he did. The MC rifle bullets didn't
> hit or hurt anyone, and you can't prove that they did. You can't even
> prove it was Oswald at the 6th floor window!
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > Do you consider 3 shots in 8 to 9 seconds to be rapid fire?
> > > >
> > > I consider it rapid firing without aiming to any good degree.
> > >
> >
> > So you don't think someone can aim and fire a rifle every 4 or 5 seconds?
> >
>
>
> Not the type of rifle we're talking about, and not with the level of
> expertise that Oswald had at the time of the shooting. Some experts were
> able to get off shots in a short time in the CBS trial, but the target was
> enlarged, and the experts had time for each of them to familiarize with
> the MC type of rifle. We don't even know if the rifles they used were
> also double-pull and had sticky bolts! Who you trying to kid?
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Simple deduction that anyone can do.
> > > >
> > > > Then why are you the only one who does it?
> > >
> > > Huh? Are you OK? What's that supposed to mean? Do you know?
> > >
> >
> > Who else has come up with the ridiculous argument that Oswald never bought
> > any ammo?
>
>
>
> Who did or did not come up with that realization has no bearing. Try
> and be logical instead of WRONG.
> And, of course, you have to try to
> discredit it by calling it ridiculous,
> but it will ring true to some
> folks, and they might want to rethink the whole case.
mainframetech
Mar 27, 2015, 10:47:32 AM3/27/15
to
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Re: The Bullets.....
>
> It never occurs to CTers who reside in the "HE COULDN'T GET ANY BULLETS"
> camp that it would be ludicrous for Klein's to be selling rifles to
> customers that could never be used if no bullets were available to put
> into those rifles.
>
Sorry fella. It occurs to this CT. Check the ad from Klein's that
> Re: The Bullets.....
>
> It never occurs to CTers who reside in the "HE COULDN'T GET ANY BULLETS"
> camp that it would be ludicrous for Klein's to be selling rifles to
> customers that could never be used if no bullets were available to put
> into those rifles.
>
Oswald used to purchase the rifle. You'll see that it also offers
ammunition for the rifle and it could have been bought with the rifle if
Oswald chose. Since he didn't choose to buy any ammo, that's the first
piece in the evidence that he didn't intend to shoot anyone with the
rifle.
> And the CTers also ignore the fact that Klein's THEMSELVES were selling
> Carcano bullets in 1963. If Oswald had chosen to, he could have bought 108
> Carcano bullets for $7.50 directly from Klein's, using the same magazine
> coupon he used to order the rifle & scope. ----->
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdK
> VRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s1600/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-
> 1963.jpg
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html
Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
ammunition to Oswald. Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend
to shoot anyone. Next, When Oswald got the rifle home that he ordered, he
had his photo taken with it and with his revolver and some communist
literature, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in a
damp garage never to be picked up until he was given a reason just before
he brought it into work. Another piece of evidence that he never intended
to shoot anyone.
When the rifle was tested the next day by the FBI and later by the
army, their report of the condition of the rifle was that it was so bad
that it couldn't be aimed properly until they gave it to their gunsmith
who shimmed the scope up to make it possible to sight the rifle in. As
well, the rifle had a double-pull trigger, and a sticky bolt that made
aiming during rapid firing difficult if not impossible at Oswald's level
of ability. Since these errors in the rifle would have been found and
fixed if Oswald had practiced with the rifle, he must not have done any
practicing. Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend to shoot
anyone.
Whoever fired the rifle out the 6th floor window didn't care if they hit
anything or not. Only that they fire the rifle out the window for
forensic purposes. The real shooting was from other locations, and was
with the intention of killing.
Chris
bigdog
Mar 27, 2015, 4:50:24 PM3/27/15
to
> Someone else had a theory that the 3 black men fired the rifle out of the
> window.
>
> > This also raises another dilemma for your Oswald-was-a-patsy story. Not
> > only would the conspirators have had to know to place Oswald in the TSBD
> > well before the the motorcade route was known, they would also have had to
> > have one of their own employed by the TSBD before the motorcade route was
> > known. So which of the conspirators do you think that would have been and
> > do you think they just had the guy working away at a menial job in the
> > TSBD hoping that maybe JFK might ride past the building someday?
> >
>
> No, just pretend to be a SS agent. Or a reporter.
>
> > This is the problem with trying to fill in details in a JFK conspiracy
> > theory. Invariably you will come up with something such as this which
> > makes no sense and to explain it, you will be forced to come up with
>
> You have the problem by making up silly strawman arguments.
>
> > something even more nonsensical. After a while, these conspiracy theories
> > start to grow arms and legs. That's why most conspiracy hobbyists such as
> > Marsh refrain from being too detailed with their theories. Better to
> > remain as vague as possible so you don't paint yourself into a corner as
> > you have just done.
> >
>
> I'm the only one telling you the exact frames of each shot, even the
> muzzle velocity of the grass knoll and the shooter.
mainframetech
Mar 27, 2015, 5:04:37 PM3/27/15
to
JFK to shake some hands or something. But with his skill, it wouldn't
matter, because he had no experience at shooting at a moving target with a
bolt action rifle. He never showed any real interest in guns, and that
was borne out by his actions or lack of them from when he bought his
rifle. He never practiced with the rifle just took his photo with it and
rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in a damp corner of a garage.
Oswald wasn't even on the 6th floor when the shots rang out.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The fact that Oswald also didn't practice with the rifle or he would
> > > > > > have found the various faults the MC rifle had and he would have fixed
> > > > > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, this is where you pretend you know Oswald didn't practice.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Once again you're WRONG! You should learn not to jump in and make silly
> > > > comments! We don't need to 'know', since we have the information from the
> > > > FBI tester (Frazier) and the army fellow (Simmons) to tell us the
> > > > condition of the MC rifle. That condition wasn't anywhere near ready for
> > > > shooting at JFK, or even aiming for rapid shooting.
> > >
> > > The evidence says JFK was hit twice by ammo from that rifle. It was
> > > accurate enough. Most people wouldn't call 3 shots in 8 or more seconds to
> > > be rapid fire.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, not a shred of evidence says that JFK was hit by even a single
> > shot from the MC rifle! Not one! The rifle was proven to be inaccurate
> > by testers who said the sticky bolt kept pulling the rifle off its aim.
> > And it's easy to rapidly fire off shots with a bolt action, if you're not
> > really aiming too carefully. Which was the case, since firing the MC
> > rifle out the window was strictly for effect. Other shooters did the real
> > task of killing.
> >
>
> I know you aren't a fan of real evidence but the real evidence tells us
> the Carcano was the murder weapon and the fragmented bullet found in the
> limo was the kill shot. Your silly fantasies on the other hand can be
> created in lieu of evidence.
>
is all the time you've had a chance to do that. Why would anyone believe
you now? You'll come up with the same tired old excuses for why you can't
prove how the MC rifle fired bullets that reached Kennedy. And it doesn't
work. The 2 bullets found can't be shown to have hit or hurt anyone. Go
ahead try again to repeat all the same old stuff. You won't prove it.
> > Of the 2 bullets that we know came from the MC rifle, the CE399 bullet
> > was a test bullet that replaced the original bullet that was shaped
> > differently than the MC round nosed ammunition, and so didn't kill anyone.
> > And the other was 2 fragments found supposedly in the front seat of the
> > limousine. Possibly from the primary bullet strike on the chrome overhead
> > of the limo, which was probably backed with steel. That one also hit or
> > hurt no one.
> >
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
As is known by many, the bullet found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland, was
later replaced during FBUI custody, and when 4 men were asked to identify
it, they all refused. One even said the bullet from custody (C399) was
the wrong shape, irt was round nosed like the MC ammunition, but the
bullet he had handled was pointy nosed like many other bullets.
> >
> >
> > > > Oswald wasn't a
> > > > dummy. Therefore it's easy to surmise that he did his usual thing and
> > > > never bothered to practice.
> > >
> > > So you are saying that only dummies practice?
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG. Don't you feel foolish asking that? The point to be taken from
> > that is that Oswald was a smart guy and if he wanted to shoot someone, he
> > would have practiced.
> >
>
> As far as we can determine, he did. We know he fired one shot at Walker.
> We know he fired 3 more at JFK. We know he left one in the chamber. That's
> five bullets accounted for. Since Carcano bullets are not sold in 5 round
> lots, it is likely that sometime, somewhere between the Walker shooting,
> Oswald probably did some practicing. How much is anybody's guess. I think
> it's safe to say from the time he learned of the motorcade route until the
> time he fetched his rifle and smuggled it into the TSBD, he would not have
> had the opportunity to practice. Apparently he didn't need to.
>
that, please. The one case where someone said he had practiced was
debunked and rejected by the WC, your buddies. We know that he DID NOT
fire anything at Walker, since the Walker bullet as per the DPD was a
STEEL jacketed bullet, and when Walker tried to get them to retract a
false bullet they had shown as the Walker bullet, (since he had seen the
bullet that was fired at him), they ignored him, probably wanting to have
some evidence against Oswald showing his violent tendencies. They had
tried to show a bullet like the MC ammunition.
> > > > Since he also showed no interest in
> > > > ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
> > > > can make a number of solid educated guesses.
> > >
> > >
> > > And then there are the ones you have made.
> > >
> > > > > > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > > > > > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald did no practicing.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> > > > > intended target in 3 shots.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
> > > > The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
> > > > wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have offered no such evidence, just arguments, and your arguments
> > > don't trump the evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There is NO evidence that does the job of convicting Oswald.
>
> Only because he's dead. Had he lived, he would have been convicted and
> sentenced to die in the electric chair. Whether that sentence would have
> been carried out before SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty laws is
> anybody's guess.
>
do away with him. He would make a mess out of the 'lone nut' theory that
was desired to get all the conspirators off scot free. And even much of
the evidence of the body and the limousine had failed the chain of custody
when they were stolen from Dallas. They both had been away from custody
while other people were around, and anyone could have messed with the body
and the limo, which they did, which could be proven by the record. Give
up your odd ideas.
> > It isn't
> > there. The rifle was his and that's where it stops. He didn't buy
> > ammunition and you can't prove that he did. The MC rifle bullets didn't
> > hit or hurt anyone, and you can't prove that they did. You can't even
> > prove it was Oswald at the 6th floor window!
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Do you consider 3 shots in 8 to 9 seconds to be rapid fire?
> > > > >
> > > > I consider it rapid firing without aiming to any good degree.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you don't think someone can aim and fire a rifle every 4 or 5 seconds?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Not the type of rifle we're talking about, and not with the level of
> > expertise that Oswald had at the time of the shooting. Some experts were
> > able to get off shots in a short time in the CBS trial, but the target was
> > enlarged, and the experts had time for each of them to familiarize with
> > the MC type of rifle. We don't even know if the rifles they used were
> > also double-pull and had sticky bolts! Who you trying to kid?
> >
>
> The Carcano was the murder weapon. Deal with it.
>
dealing with the evidence presented at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Simple deduction that anyone can do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why are you the only one who does it?
> > > >
> > > > Huh? Are you OK? What's that supposed to mean? Do you know?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Who else has come up with the ridiculous argument that Oswald never bought
> > > any ammo?
> >
> >
> >
> > Who did or did not come up with that realization has no bearing. Try
> > and be logical instead of WRONG.
>
> Irony alert!
>
> > And, of course, you have to try to
> > discredit it by calling it ridiculous,
>
> I don't have to call it ridiculous. It is ridiculous.
>
> > but it will ring true to some
> > folks, and they might want to rethink the whole case.
>
> Yes, there are lots of illogical conspiracy hobbyists in this world.
Chris
mainframetech
Mar 27, 2015, 5:05:00 PM3/27/15
to
Chris
mainframetech
Mar 27, 2015, 5:06:03 PM3/27/15
to
around Dallas and could find only 2 places that sold the special
ammunition for the odd rifle, and the ammunition was old. They checked
the 2 places and found that neither had sold to Oswald. So we have
Klein's where Oswald refused the offer of ammunition for the MC rifle, and
we have no proof of him buying any more anywhere. Yet there were 4 shells
with the rifle in the 6th floor!!
Oswald also did not know the condition of his rifle either. After the
murder the FBI and later the army looked the rifle over and found faults.
One was that the scope was misaligned. It had been put on with 2 screws
instead of the 3 that were supposed to be used. The scope couldn't be
sighted in. As well, the bolt was very sticky, and the trigger was a
double-pull type, all things that would hamper anyone trying to do rapid
firing with the rifle and still aim it.
So since the rifle had the faults, it shows that Oswald never practiced
with it, or he would have fixed the faults. That leaves us with Oswald
who doesn't want any ammunition, that gets his rifle and simply has his
photo taken with it and rolls it up in a blanket and throws it in a damp
garage. He doesn't bother with it until someone gives him a reason to
bring it in to the TSBD. Perhaps to sell it, or show it, or whatever.
Oswald had no intent to kill anyone.
Even the Walker shooting was falsely laid at his door. The Walker
bullet turns out to be STEEL jacketed, and not like the ammo for the MC
rifle!! And when Walker himself saw the bullet they put on display, he
wrote to them and told them to withdraw the bullet they had shown, since
it was NOT the right bullet, that he had seen the day he was shot at.
They ignored him, since they really wanted to show history of violence in
Oswald.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Mar 27, 2015, 10:13:58 PM3/27/15
to
On 3/26/2015 9:06 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Klein's only sold the old WWII SMI ammo, which was very unreliable.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> So?
>
> You think Oswald would have known that little fact when he ordered his
> Carcano rifle in March of '63?
>
Of course not, unless Alba told him.
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Klein's only sold the old WWII SMI ammo, which was very unreliable.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> So?
>
> You think Oswald would have known that little fact when he ordered his
> Carcano rifle in March of '63?
>
> And is that why he didn't purchase a box of 108 bullets from
> Klein's--because he *knew for a fact* that the bullets he'd be getting
> from Klein's were "very unreliable"? How would Oswald have known any such
> thing by just looking at the American Rifleman magazine ad?
>
Maybe from asking Alba or reading articles about the Carcano.
Maybe even books.
> Anyway, the point is --- Carcano bullets *were* obviously readily and
> widely available to purchase and obtain in 1963. And this '63 Klein's ad
> proves that fact....
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdKVRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s700/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-1963.jpg
>
ammo.
bigdog
Mar 27, 2015, 10:22:32 PM3/27/15
to
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO ammunition from
> Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
> find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
> places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
> ammunition to Oswald.
Why do you have to try to deceive people with half truths. The FBI found
> Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO ammunition from
> Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
> find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
> places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
> ammunition to Oswald.
no record that those stores sold Oswald ammunition. That does not prove
they didn't sell ammunition to Oswald since records aren't kept of
ammunition purchases. If you had a case to make, you could do it honestly.
> Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend
> to shoot anyone. Next, When Oswald got the rifle home that he ordered, he
> had his photo taken with it and with his revolver and some communist
> literature, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in a
> damp garage never to be picked up until he was given a reason just before
> he brought it into work. Another piece of evidence that he never intended
> to shoot anyone.
>
used a blanket to store his rifle in. That tells us nothing about how many
times he took the rifle out of the blanket. You simply assume he never
took it out even though you couldn't possibly know how many times he took
it out.
> When the rifle was tested the next day by the FBI and later by the
> army, their report of the condition of the rifle was that it was so bad
> that it couldn't be aimed properly until they gave it to their gunsmith
> who shimmed the scope up to make it possible to sight the rifle in. As
> well, the rifle had a double-pull trigger, and a sticky bolt that made
> aiming during rapid firing difficult if not impossible at Oswald's level
> of ability. Since these errors in the rifle would have been found and
> fixed if Oswald had practiced with the rifle, he must not have done any
> practicing. Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend to shoot
> anyone.
make the ballistics evidence go away that proves it was the rifle that
fired the shots that killed JFK.
bigdog
Mar 28, 2015, 11:31:31 AM3/28/15
to
except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
11/22/63.
> The one case where someone said he had practiced was
> debunked and rejected by the WC, your buddies.
that he did. Carcano ammo was not sold in boxes of five and we can only
account for five. Common sense would tell you he fired the rest of the box
or boxes somewhere and sometime. Of course there is no requirement that
you use common sense.
> We know that he DID NOT
> fire anything at Walker,
> since the Walker bullet as per the DPD was a
> STEEL jacketed bullet, and when Walker tried to get them to retract a
> false bullet they had shown as the Walker bullet, (since he had seen the
> bullet that was fired at him), they ignored him, probably wanting to have
> some evidence against Oswald showing his violent tendencies. They had
> tried to show a bullet like the MC ammunition.
>
that other than that it was true. Nobody had connected Oswald to the
Walker shooting until she provided that information to the investigators.
>
>
>
> > > > > Since he also showed no interest in
> > > > > ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
> > > > > can make a number of solid educated guesses.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And then there are the ones you have made.
> > > >
> > > > > > > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > > > > > > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald did no practicing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> > > > > > intended target in 3 shots.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
> > > > > The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
> > > > > wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You have offered no such evidence, just arguments, and your arguments
> > > > don't trump the evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is NO evidence that does the job of convicting Oswald.
> >
> > Only because he's dead. Had he lived, he would have been convicted and
> > sentenced to die in the electric chair. Whether that sentence would have
> > been carried out before SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty laws is
> > anybody's guess.
> >
>
>
> There would be no conviction of Oswald. That was one reason they had to
> do away with him.
> He would make a mess out of the 'lone nut' theory that
> was desired to get all the conspirators off scot free. And even much of
> the evidence of the body and the limousine had failed the chain of custody
> when they were stolen from Dallas. They both had been away from custody
> while other people were around, and anyone could have messed with the body
> and the limo, which they did, which could be proven by the record. Give
> up your odd ideas.
>
defended him and tell them that they would only get paid if they won the
case. The over/under for how many would choose to prosecute would be 99
and I would bet the over.
>
>
> > > It isn't
> > > there. The rifle was his and that's where it stops. He didn't buy
> > > ammunition and you can't prove that he did. The MC rifle bullets didn't
> > > hit or hurt anyone, and you can't prove that they did. You can't even
> > > prove it was Oswald at the 6th floor window!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you consider 3 shots in 8 to 9 seconds to be rapid fire?
> > > > > >
> > > > > I consider it rapid firing without aiming to any good degree.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you don't think someone can aim and fire a rifle every 4 or 5 seconds?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not the type of rifle we're talking about, and not with the level of
> > > expertise that Oswald had at the time of the shooting. Some experts were
> > > able to get off shots in a short time in the CBS trial, but the target was
> > > enlarged, and the experts had time for each of them to familiarize with
> > > the MC type of rifle. We don't even know if the rifles they used were
> > > also double-pull and had sticky bolts! Who you trying to kid?
> > >
> >
> > The Carcano was the murder weapon. Deal with it.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Not a response on the topic. Just the usual running away, no
> dealing with the evidence presented at all.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Simple deduction that anyone can do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then why are you the only one who does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Huh? Are you OK? What's that supposed to mean? Do you know?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Who else has come up with the ridiculous argument that Oswald never bought
> > > > any ammo?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Who did or did not come up with that realization has no bearing. Try
> > > and be logical instead of WRONG.
> >
> > Irony alert!
> >
>
>
> Oh, are you about to be ironeous?
>
>
>
>
> > > And, of course, you have to try to
> > > discredit it by calling it ridiculous,
> >
> > I don't have to call it ridiculous. It is ridiculous.
> >
> > > but it will ring true to some
> > > folks, and they might want to rethink the whole case.
> >
> > Yes, there are lots of illogical conspiracy hobbyists in this world.
>
>
>
> Calling them names won't stop them from examining the evidence.
>
mainframetech
Mar 28, 2015, 9:52:58 PM3/28/15
to
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:22:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO ammunition from
> > Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
> > find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
> > places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
> > ammunition to Oswald.
>
> Why do you have to try to deceive people with half truths. The FBI found
> no record that those stores sold Oswald ammunition. That does not prove
> they didn't sell ammunition to Oswald since records aren't kept of
> ammunition purchases. If you had a case to make, you could do it honestly.
>
I'm not producing the deception, you are. You know very well that the
> On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO ammunition from
> > Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
> > find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
> > places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
> > ammunition to Oswald.
>
> Why do you have to try to deceive people with half truths. The FBI found
> no record that those stores sold Oswald ammunition. That does not prove
> they didn't sell ammunition to Oswald since records aren't kept of
> ammunition purchases. If you had a case to make, you could do it honestly.
>
FBI questioned the people in the 2 shops, not just looked at their
records. But because of the success of Gil Jesus in documenting his case,
you don't want to mention that part. That's covering up evidence, so you
get another 'bd' award!
> > Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend
> > to shoot anyone. Next, When Oswald got the rifle home that he ordered, he
> > had his photo taken with it and with his revolver and some communist
> > literature, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in a
> > damp garage never to be picked up until he was given a reason just before
> > he brought it into work. Another piece of evidence that he never intended
> > to shoot anyone.
> >
>
> More half truths. Yes he had his picture taken with the rifle. Yes, he
> used a blanket to store his rifle in. That tells us nothing about how many
> times he took the rifle out of the blanket. You simply assume he never
> took it out even though you couldn't possibly know how many times he took
> it out.
>
rifle out of the blanket. We have NO such information, and by suggesting
something that has NO proof YOU have created a half-truth that didn't
exist until you opened your mouth.
>
>
> > When the rifle was tested the next day by the FBI and later by the
> > army, their report of the condition of the rifle was that it was so bad
> > that it couldn't be aimed properly until they gave it to their gunsmith
> > who shimmed the scope up to make it possible to sight the rifle in. As
> > well, the rifle had a double-pull trigger, and a sticky bolt that made
> > aiming during rapid firing difficult if not impossible at Oswald's level
> > of ability. Since these errors in the rifle would have been found and
> > fixed if Oswald had practiced with the rifle, he must not have done any
> > practicing. Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend to shoot
> > anyone.
>
> You can point to all the alleged defects in the rifle you want, you can't
> make the ballistics evidence go away that proves it was the rifle that
> fired the shots that killed JFK.
>
the MC rifle killed or even hurt ANY person! Stop trying to create
evidence that doesn't exist!
Now, as to your attempt to cover up the defects in the rifle, anyone
can go through the WC sworn testimony of Robert Frazier (FBI agent) and
Ronald Simmons (army firearms specialist) and learn about the defects that
were in the rifle AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER! A big 'bd' award to you for
trying again to cover up evidence.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 28, 2015, 10:07:26 PM3/28/15
to
On 3/27/2015 10:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO ammunition from
>> Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
>> find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
>> places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
>> ammunition to Oswald.
>
> Why do you have to try to deceive people with half truths. The FBI found
> no record that those stores sold Oswald ammunition. That does not prove
> they didn't sell ammunition to Oswald since records aren't kept of
> ammunition purchases. If you had a case to make, you could do it honestly.
>
They weren't looking for ANY store that sold ANY ammunition. They were
> On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO ammunition from
>> Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
>> find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
>> places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
>> ammunition to Oswald.
>
> Why do you have to try to deceive people with half truths. The FBI found
> no record that those stores sold Oswald ammunition. That does not prove
> they didn't sell ammunition to Oswald since records aren't kept of
> ammunition purchases. If you had a case to make, you could do it honestly.
>
trying to find which stores sold the WCC ammunition.
mainframetech
Mar 29, 2015, 2:27:32 PM3/29/15
to
Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
have them, which I doubt. As well, as per the police 'Offense Report' and
the Dallas Morning news (detective Ira Van Cleave), the DPD said the
bullet was STEEL jacketed that was fired at Walker, and also a .30.06.
From the facts we have, there's not much chance for you to get Oswald
shooting at Walker. I don't know if they set him up with a lot of
'evidence' in his belongings after he was gone, but what matters is that
he wasn't the one that fired at Walker, so he wasn't the violent person
they wanted him to look like.
> > The one case where someone said he had practiced was
> > debunked and rejected by the WC, your buddies.
>
> It is hardly necessary to prove Oswald practiced but the likelihood is
> that he did. Carcano ammo was not sold in boxes of five and we can only
> account for five. Common sense would tell you he fired the rest of the box
> or boxes somewhere and sometime. Of course there is no requirement that
> you use common sense.
>
with a rifle for a long, long time, it would be a necessity for him to
practice if he were going to shoot someone. Since the MC rifle had
various faults that existed when the rifle was tested by the FBI and the
army, Oswald didn't fix the faults, meaning that he didn't practice. If
he knew of the problems with the rifle, he would realize that he could not
aim properly and shoot rapidly enough to hit anything. The faults with
the rifle were such that they made rapid fire impossible when trying to
aim at the same time. Whoever fired out the window from the 6th floor
didn't care if they hit anything, since there were other shooters around
Dealey Plaza to take up the slack and finish the job. Firing the MC rifle
out the window was only a forensic necessity to lay blame on Oswald.
> > We know that he DID NOT
> > fire anything at Walker,
>
> WE know no such thing. YOU think you know that. As usual, you are wrong.
>
> > since the Walker bullet as per the DPD was a
> > STEEL jacketed bullet, and when Walker tried to get them to retract a
> > false bullet they had shown as the Walker bullet, (since he had seen the
> > bullet that was fired at him), they ignored him, probably wanting to have
> > some evidence against Oswald showing his violent tendencies. They had
> > tried to show a bullet like the MC ammunition.
> >
>
> His own wife gave him up on that and there was no reason for her to do
> that other than that it was true. Nobody had connected Oswald to the
> Walker shooting until she provided that information to the investigators.
>
Testimony of Robert Oswald:
> > STEEL jacketed bullet, and when Walker tried to get them to retract a
> > false bullet they had shown as the Walker bullet, (since he had seen the
> > bullet that was fired at him), they ignored him, probably wanting to have
> > some evidence against Oswald showing his violent tendencies. They had
> > tried to show a bullet like the MC ammunition.
> >
>
> His own wife gave him up on that and there was no reason for her to do
> that other than that it was true. Nobody had connected Oswald to the
> Walker shooting until she provided that information to the investigators.
>
"Mr. JENNER. In your presence?
Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle
man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a
harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that
time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir. And they
implied in so many words, as I sat there--if I might state--with Secret
Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.--we were opening the first batch
of mail that had come to Marina and Lee's attention, and we were perhaps
just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this
interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did
not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps--I say,
again, I am implying--in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her
from the United States and back to Russia."
The threat was always there.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > Since he also showed no interest in
> > > > > > ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
> > > > > > can make a number of solid educated guesses.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And then there are the ones you have made.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > > > > > > > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald did no practicing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> > > > > > > intended target in 3 shots.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
> > > > > > The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
> > > > > > wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You have offered no such evidence, just arguments, and your arguments
> > > > > don't trump the evidence.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is NO evidence that does the job of convicting Oswald.
> > >
> > > Only because he's dead. Had he lived, he would have been convicted and
> > > sentenced to die in the electric chair. Whether that sentence would have
> > > been carried out before SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty laws is
> > > anybody's guess.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There would be no conviction of Oswald. That was one reason they had to
> > do away with him.
>
> "They"??? <snicker>
>
given you names that are probable in the conspiracy. It's easier to say
they and them.
> > He would make a mess out of the 'lone nut' theory that
> > was desired to get all the conspirators off scot free. And even much of
> > the evidence of the body and the limousine had failed the chain of custody
> > when they were stolen from Dallas. They both had been away from custody
> > while other people were around, and anyone could have messed with the body
> > and the limo, which they did, which could be proven by the record. Give
> > up your odd ideas.
> >
>
> Ask 100 trial laywers if they would rather have prosecuted Oswald or
> defended him and tell them that they would only get paid if they won the
> case. The over/under for how many would choose to prosecute would be 99
> and I would bet the over.
>
case would see immediately that almost all the important evidence would be
barred from the court. And the fooling around that the FBI did in
changing statements and doing other intimidating things for witnesses to
change their statements would go badly for the prosecution. The fact that
Oswald didn't fire out the window would be helpful too.
> >
> >
> > > > It isn't
> > > > there. The rifle was his and that's where it stops. He didn't buy
> > > > ammunition and you can't prove that he did. The MC rifle bullets didn't
> > > > hit or hurt anyone, and you can't prove that they did. You can't even
> > > > prove it was Oswald at the 6th floor window!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you consider 3 shots in 8 to 9 seconds to be rapid fire?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I consider it rapid firing without aiming to any good degree.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So you don't think someone can aim and fire a rifle every 4 or 5 seconds?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not the type of rifle we're talking about, and not with the level of
> > > > expertise that Oswald had at the time of the shooting. Some experts were
> > > > able to get off shots in a short time in the CBS trial, but the target was
> > > > enlarged, and the experts had time for each of them to familiarize with
> > > > the MC type of rifle. We don't even know if the rifles they used were
> > > > also double-pull and had sticky bolts! Who you trying to kid?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Carcano was the murder weapon. Deal with it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Not a response on the topic. Just the usual running away, no
> > dealing with the evidence presented at all.
> >
>
> It's the elephant in the room you want to pretend isn't there.
>
that day. And there's no way you can prove otherwise, and you have
already tried and failed. You can't guarantee the CE399 bullet wasn't a
test bullet, and you can't show that the 2 fragments in the limo actually
hit anyone, if they were even found in the limo.
> > > > > > > > Simple deduction that anyone can do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then why are you the only one who does it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Huh? Are you OK? What's that supposed to mean? Do you know?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Who else has come up with the ridiculous argument that Oswald never bought
> > > > > any ammo?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Who did or did not come up with that realization has no bearing. Try
> > > > and be logical instead of WRONG.
> > >
> > > Irony alert!
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oh, are you about to be ironeous?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > And, of course, you have to try to
> > > > discredit it by calling it ridiculous,
> > >
> > > I don't have to call it ridiculous. It is ridiculous.
> > >
> > > > but it will ring true to some
> > > > folks, and they might want to rethink the whole case.
> > >
> > > Yes, there are lots of illogical conspiracy hobbyists in this world.
> >
> >
> >
> > Calling them names won't stop them from examining the evidence.
> >
>
> And screwing it all up. They've been at it for over 50 years.
satisfaction, and you can be sure I'll come here and let you know all of
it...:)
Chris
bigdog
Mar 30, 2015, 12:41:37 AM3/30/15
to
On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 9:52:58 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:22:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO ammunition from
> > > Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
> > > find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
> > > places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
> > > ammunition to Oswald.
> >
> > Why do you have to try to deceive people with half truths. The FBI found
> > no record that those stores sold Oswald ammunition. That does not prove
> > they didn't sell ammunition to Oswald since records aren't kept of
> > ammunition purchases. If you had a case to make, you could do it honestly.
> >
>
>
> I'm not producing the deception, you are. You know very well that the
> FBI questioned the people in the 2 shops, not just looked at their
> records.
Do you think they talked to ever single person who worked the counters at
> On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:22:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO ammunition from
> > > Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who tried to
> > > find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They found 2
> > > places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold any
> > > ammunition to Oswald.
> >
> > Why do you have to try to deceive people with half truths. The FBI found
> > no record that those stores sold Oswald ammunition. That does not prove
> > they didn't sell ammunition to Oswald since records aren't kept of
> > ammunition purchases. If you had a case to make, you could do it honestly.
> >
>
>
> I'm not producing the deception, you are. You know very well that the
> FBI questioned the people in the 2 shops, not just looked at their
> records.
those two shops? Do you think everyone who worked at those counters would
remember someone buying ammo 8 months prior to the assassination?
> But because of the success of Gil Jesus in documenting his case,
> you don't want to mention that part. That's covering up evidence, so you
> get another 'bd' award!
>
Your confusion should come as no suprise given the Gil Jesus seems to be
your guru.
>
>
> > > Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend
> > > to shoot anyone. Next, When Oswald got the rifle home that he ordered, he
> > > had his photo taken with it and with his revolver and some communist
> > > literature, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in a
> > > damp garage never to be picked up until he was given a reason just before
> > > he brought it into work. Another piece of evidence that he never intended
> > > to shoot anyone.
> > >
> >
> > More half truths. Yes he had his picture taken with the rifle. Yes, he
> > used a blanket to store his rifle in. That tells us nothing about how many
> > times he took the rifle out of the blanket. You simply assume he never
> > took it out even though you couldn't possibly know how many times he took
> > it out.
> >
>
>
> There is NO half-truth if there is no proof that he ever took the
> rifle out of the blanket.
out of the blanket. Did you think he wrote it in a log every time he did
that. What proof would you expect there to be?
> We have NO such information, and by suggesting
> something that has NO proof YOU have created a half-truth that didn't
> exist until you opened your mouth.
>
think there should be evidence of each time Oswald took his rifle from his
blanket. Just what form do you think that evidence would take?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > When the rifle was tested the next day by the FBI and later by the
> > > army, their report of the condition of the rifle was that it was so bad
> > > that it couldn't be aimed properly until they gave it to their gunsmith
> > > who shimmed the scope up to make it possible to sight the rifle in. As
> > > well, the rifle had a double-pull trigger, and a sticky bolt that made
> > > aiming during rapid firing difficult if not impossible at Oswald's level
> > > of ability. Since these errors in the rifle would have been found and
> > > fixed if Oswald had practiced with the rifle, he must not have done any
> > > practicing. Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend to shoot
> > > anyone.
> >
> > You can point to all the alleged defects in the rifle you want, you can't
> > make the ballistics evidence go away that proves it was the rifle that
> > fired the shots that killed JFK.
> >
>
>
> Nope, WRONG again! There is NO proof of ANY kind that ANY bullet from
> the MC rifle killed or even hurt ANY person! Stop trying to create
> evidence that doesn't exist!
>
> Now, as to your attempt to cover up the defects in the rifle, anyone
> can go through the WC sworn testimony of Robert Frazier (FBI agent) and
> Ronald Simmons (army firearms specialist) and learn about the defects that
> were in the rifle AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER! A big 'bd' award to you for
> trying again to cover up evidence.
>
That's all you.
bigdog
Mar 30, 2015, 3:59:07 PM3/30/15
to
On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > 11/22/63.
> >
>
> I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> have them, which I doubt.
Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > 11/22/63.
> >
>
> I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> have them, which I doubt.
murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
> As well, as per the police 'Offense Report' and
> the Dallas Morning news (detective Ira Van Cleave), the DPD said the
> bullet was STEEL jacketed that was fired at Walker, and also a .30.06.
> From the facts we have, there's not much chance for you to get Oswald
> shooting at Walker.
tested to see what kind of metal it actually consisted of.
> I don't know if they set him up with a lot of
> 'evidence' in his belongings after he was gone, but what matters is that
> he wasn't the one that fired at Walker, so he wasn't the violent person
> they wanted him to look like.
>
>
>
> > > The one case where someone said he had practiced was
> > > debunked and rejected by the WC, your buddies.
> >
> > It is hardly necessary to prove Oswald practiced but the likelihood is
> > that he did. Carcano ammo was not sold in boxes of five and we can only
> > account for five. Common sense would tell you he fired the rest of the box
> > or boxes somewhere and sometime. Of course there is no requirement that
> > you use common sense.
> >
>
>
> Nope. WRONG. Your schooling follows: Given his lack of practicing
> with a rifle for a long, long time, it would be a necessity for him to
> practice if he were going to shoot someone.
with my guns in the past year? That's another of those things that only
silly conpsiracy hobbyists think it is necessary to prove.
> Since the MC rifle had
> various faults that existed when the rifle was tested by the FBI and the
> army, Oswald didn't fix the faults, meaning that he didn't practice. If
> he knew of the problems with the rifle, he would realize that he could not
> aim properly and shoot rapidly enough to hit anything. The faults with
> the rifle were such that they made rapid fire impossible when trying to
> aim at the same time. Whoever fired out the window from the 6th floor
> didn't care if they hit anything, since there were other shooters around
> Dealey Plaza to take up the slack and finish the job. Firing the MC rifle
> out the window was only a forensic necessity to lay blame on Oswald.
>
them that, they only knew he had shot Kennedy, Connally, and Tippit.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Since he also showed no interest in
> > > > > > > ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
> > > > > > > can make a number of solid educated guesses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And then there are the ones you have made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > > > > > > > > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald did no practicing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> > > > > > > > intended target in 3 shots.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
> > > > > > > The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
> > > > > > > wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have offered no such evidence, just arguments, and your arguments
> > > > > > don't trump the evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is NO evidence that does the job of convicting Oswald.
> > > >
> > > > Only because he's dead. Had he lived, he would have been convicted and
> > > > sentenced to die in the electric chair. Whether that sentence would have
> > > > been carried out before SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty laws is
> > > > anybody's guess.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There would be no conviction of Oswald. That was one reason they had to
> > > do away with him.
> >
> > "They"??? <snicker>
> >
>
>
> Nope. Your schooling follows: We've discussed that before and I've
> given you names that are probable in the conspiracy. It's easier to say
> they and them.
>
>
>
> > > He would make a mess out of the 'lone nut' theory that
> > > was desired to get all the conspirators off scot free. And even much of
> > > the evidence of the body and the limousine had failed the chain of custody
> > > when they were stolen from Dallas. They both had been away from custody
> > > while other people were around, and anyone could have messed with the body
> > > and the limo, which they did, which could be proven by the record. Give
> > > up your odd ideas.
> > >
> >
> > Ask 100 trial laywers if they would rather have prosecuted Oswald or
> > defended him and tell them that they would only get paid if they won the
> > case. The over/under for how many would choose to prosecute would be 99
> > and I would bet the over.
> >
>
>
> WRONG again. Your schooling follows: Any lawyer that looked into the
> case would see immediately that almost all the important evidence would be
> barred from the court. And the fooling around that the FBI did in
> changing statements and doing other intimidating things for witnesses to
> change their statements would go badly for the prosecution. The fact that
> Oswald didn't fire out the window would be helpful too.
>
lawyer worth his salt would know that. I their payment depended on winning
the case, I'd bet every last one would choose to prosecute.
> I've still got much more to uncover for my
> satisfaction, and you can be sure I'll come here and let you know all of
> it...:)
>
because you have already rejected the one and only correct answer.
mainframetech
Mar 30, 2015, 10:42:55 PM3/30/15
to
nothing to do with his ability to document his topic. I've seen his work,
and it far exceeds what most others here have attempted. As I've noted
before, you will dislike anyone that does a good job if pushing the
conspiracy version of the JFK murder. Therefore on that basis alone,
you've given Gil Jesus high marks. Thank you for verifying my belief.
> >
> >
> > > > Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend
> > > > to shoot anyone. Next, When Oswald got the rifle home that he ordered, he
> > > > had his photo taken with it and with his revolver and some communist
> > > > literature, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in a
> > > > damp garage never to be picked up until he was given a reason just before
> > > > he brought it into work. Another piece of evidence that he never intended
> > > > to shoot anyone.
> > > >
> > >
> > > More half truths. Yes he had his picture taken with the rifle. Yes, he
> > > used a blanket to store his rifle in. That tells us nothing about how many
> > > times he took the rifle out of the blanket. You simply assume he never
> > > took it out even though you couldn't possibly know how many times he took
> > > it out.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There is NO half-truth if there is no proof that he ever took the
> > rifle out of the blanket.
>
> Why would you expectt here to be proof of how many times he took the rifle
> out of the blanket. Did you think he wrote it in a log every time he did
> that. What proof would you expect there to be?
>
course!
> > We have NO such information, and by suggesting
> > something that has NO proof YOU have created a half-truth that didn't
> > exist until you opened your mouth.
> >
>
> It shows how desperate you are to support your silly beliefs. You actually
> think there should be evidence of each time Oswald took his rifle from his
> blanket. Just what form do you think that evidence would take?
>
showing it to someone, or selling or trading it, hunting with it or
considering it. Don't pretend to be dumb. You make a lot of mistakes,
but you're not of low IQ.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > When the rifle was tested the next day by the FBI and later by the
> > > > army, their report of the condition of the rifle was that it was so bad
> > > > that it couldn't be aimed properly until they gave it to their gunsmith
> > > > who shimmed the scope up to make it possible to sight the rifle in. As
> > > > well, the rifle had a double-pull trigger, and a sticky bolt that made
> > > > aiming during rapid firing difficult if not impossible at Oswald's level
> > > > of ability. Since these errors in the rifle would have been found and
> > > > fixed if Oswald had practiced with the rifle, he must not have done any
> > > > practicing. Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend to shoot
> > > > anyone.
> > >
> > > You can point to all the alleged defects in the rifle you want, you can't
> > > make the ballistics evidence go away that proves it was the rifle that
> > > fired the shots that killed JFK.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, WRONG again! There is NO proof of ANY kind that ANY bullet from
> > the MC rifle killed or even hurt ANY person! Stop trying to create
> > evidence that doesn't exist!
> >
>
> Oh, that's right. I forgot. You don't believe in using common sense.
>
proof that the MC rifle fired a bullet that actually hit or hurt anyone.
It didn't happen. Why not give a 'blow by blow' recitation of the life of
a bullet that was fired out the window of the TSBD and see if you can
connect it with the body of a person. I can't wait to see this, you tried
once before and tripped all over yourself in getting it wrong. Here's a
second chance.
> > Now, as to your attempt to cover up the defects in the rifle, anyone
> > can go through the WC sworn testimony of Robert Frazier (FBI agent) and
> > Ronald Simmons (army firearms specialist) and learn about the defects that
> > were in the rifle AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER! A big 'bd' award to you for
> > trying again to cover up evidence.
> >
>
> Neither thought the defects precluded it from being the murder weapon.
> That's all you.
belly and fired. However, aiming and firing that particular weapon would
have been useless due to the faults in it. And the distance didn't lend
itself to holding the rifle against the belly of a victim. Even the rapid
firing that was a point that was very important to the WC (guess why)
could not have been done and allowed good aiming while firing that
particular rifle. The trigger pull was a double-pull type, the bolt was
sticky, which the army found would take their aim away from the target,
and the scope was misaligned with the type of fault that would be caused
by bad mounting of the scope. As proof of the above, the rifle was fired
at a short distance at a limousine containing a target, and missed
completely 3 times.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Mar 30, 2015, 11:04:32 PM3/30/15
to
mainframetech
Mar 31, 2015, 9:45:31 AM3/31/15
to
On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > > 11/22/63.
> > >
> >
> > I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> > Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> > he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> > have them, which I doubt.
>
> Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
>
WRONG! No answer there Just another wisecrack and run like hell away.
> On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > > 11/22/63.
> > >
> >
> > I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> > Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> > he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> > have them, which I doubt.
>
> Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
>
Your schooling follows: In the real world, depending on the
circumstances, the place where ammunition was purchased would be
important. In this case the FBI thought it was important enough to delve
into deeply. They went to the manufacturer as well as the gun shops that
had bought some of the odd ammunition. I suggest to you that the FHI and
there bosses know more than you about collecting evidence. They thought
it was wise to do it, and they tried hard, but were unable to show where
Oswald got any ammunition. Yet, SOMEONE got some and brought it to the
6th floor.
> > As well, as per the police 'Offense Report' and
> > the Dallas Morning news (detective Ira Van Cleave), the DPD said the
> > bullet was STEEL jacketed that was fired at Walker, and also a .30.06.
> > From the facts we have, there's not much chance for you to get Oswald
> > shooting at Walker.
>
> Yeah, the cops do make mistakes. Want to bet they never had the jacket
> tested to see what kind of metal it actually consisted of.
>
follows: I have to tell you that when a bullet is mangled beyond
recognition, the casing (if any) is torn and bent in such a way that you
can tell whether the metal is copper or steel. They have very different
colors.
> > I don't know if they set him up with a lot of
> > 'evidence' in his belongings after he was gone, but what matters is that
> > he wasn't the one that fired at Walker, so he wasn't the violent person
> > they wanted him to look like.
> >
>
> You are bound and determined to wander around aimlessly.
>
follow the odd course you've been charting. Someone has to do it, just to
get the right info in front of you. You try this and I follow and school
you on what's right. You go that way, and I follow and get the truth in
front of you.
> >
> >
> > > > The one case where someone said he had practiced was
> > > > debunked and rejected by the WC, your buddies.
> > >
> > > It is hardly necessary to prove Oswald practiced but the likelihood is
> > > that he did. Carcano ammo was not sold in boxes of five and we can only
> > > account for five. Common sense would tell you he fired the rest of the box
> > > or boxes somewhere and sometime. Of course there is no requirement that
> > > you use common sense.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope. WRONG. Your schooling follows: Given his lack of practicing
> > with a rifle for a long, long time, it would be a necessity for him to
> > practice if he were going to shoot someone.
>
> Do you think you or anyone else could prove how often I have practiced
> with my guns in the past year? That's another of those things that only
> silly conpsiracy hobbyists think it is necessary to prove.
>
rifle, we're here discussing what Oswald did with HIS rifle. And more
schooling: It's not necessary to prove that Oswald practiced for the
purposes of convicting him, but for the purpose of proving what he did
with his rifle and his time that day, it's a necessity. If he doesn't see
that a rifle can solve any of his problems, then what he was doing with it
is important.
> > Since the MC rifle had
> > various faults that existed when the rifle was tested by the FBI and the
> > army, Oswald didn't fix the faults, meaning that he didn't practice. If
> > he knew of the problems with the rifle, he would realize that he could not
> > aim properly and shoot rapidly enough to hit anything. The faults with
> > the rifle were such that they made rapid fire impossible when trying to
> > aim at the same time. Whoever fired out the window from the 6th floor
> > didn't care if they hit anything, since there were other shooters around
> > Dealey Plaza to take up the slack and finish the job. Firing the MC rifle
> > out the window was only a forensic necessity to lay blame on Oswald.
> >
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
>
Oswald would have been unable to do any aiming during rapid firing out the
window (if it had been him there) because of the faults in the rifle.
One more reason that the MC rifle didn't hit or hurt anyone.
and the Walker shooting was useful in doing that. They must not have let
the evidence get out, and when they put up the phony bullet that might
help to blame Oswald, they didn't expect Walker to write them and demand
they withdraw it because it was the wrong bullet. So we get more evidence
that they tried to rope him in with the Walker shooting too.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Since he also showed no interest in
> > > > > > > > ammunition, that put together with the lack of interest in ammunition, we
> > > > > > > > can make a number of solid educated guesses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And then there are the ones you have made.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When the rifle was found it still had the faults that made it
> > > > > > > > > > almost impossible to aim it and to do any rapid firing with it, so Oswald did no practicing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Whatever faults it had didn't prevent it from putting two rounds on the
> > > > > > > > > intended target in 3 shots.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nope, WRONG again! You've said that before and it was wrong then too.
> > > > > > > > The evidence we've been speaking of pretty much seals it up. Oswald
> > > > > > > > wasn't the guy in the window and didn't do the shooting with the MC rifle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have offered no such evidence, just arguments, and your arguments
> > > > > > > don't trump the evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is NO evidence that does the job of convicting Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only because he's dead. Had he lived, he would have been convicted and
> > > > > sentenced to die in the electric chair. Whether that sentence would have
> > > > > been carried out before SCOTUS vacated all existing death penalty laws is
> > > > > anybody's guess.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There would be no conviction of Oswald. That was one reason they had to
> > > > do away with him.
> > >
> > > "They"??? <snicker>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope. Your schooling follows: We've discussed that before and I've
> > given you names that are probable in the conspiracy. It's easier to say
> >
>
> But apparently have forgotten who they were.
>
Nope, I remember every one I mentioned. Schooling: It sounds like you
>
> But apparently have forgotten who they were.
>
did your usual and forgot though. Hard to argue a case like this with so
many ins and outs without remembering things you hear from the opposition.
> >
> >
> > > > He would make a mess out of the 'lone nut' theory that
> > > > was desired to get all the conspirators off scot free. And even much of
> > > > the evidence of the body and the limousine had failed the chain of custody
> > > > when they were stolen from Dallas. They both had been away from custody
> > > > while other people were around, and anyone could have messed with the body
> > > > and the limo, which they did, which could be proven by the record. Give
> > > > up your odd ideas.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ask 100 trial laywers if they would rather have prosecuted Oswald or
> > > defended him and tell them that they would only get paid if they won the
> > > case. The over/under for how many would choose to prosecute would be 99
> > > and I would bet the over.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG again. Your schooling follows: Any lawyer that looked into the
> > case would see immediately that almost all the important evidence would be
> > barred from the court. And the fooling around that the FBI did in
> > changing statements and doing other intimidating things for witnesses to
> > change their statements would go badly for the prosecution. The fact that
> > Oswald didn't fire out the window would be helpful too.
> >
>
> I stand by my statement. It would have been a slam dunk conviction and any
> lawyer worth his salt would know that. I their payment depended on winning
> the case, I'd bet every last one would choose to prosecute.
>
is going to pay a high class lawyer his fee for such a case, it would
probably run into hundreds of thousands of dollars even in 1963. The only
way Oswald would get the top class lawyers is if they wanted the
recognition of getting him off and volunteered to do it pro bono.
for a foil...:)
Chris
bigdog
Mar 31, 2015, 2:04:58 PM3/31/15
to
I do this for amusement only and no one is more amusing than Gillie.
Unlike Bob Harris' videos which put me to sleep, Gillie's are a laughfest.
> I've seen his work,
> and it far exceeds what most others here have attempted.
long as Gillie is around, you'll never climb higher than #2.
> As I've noted
> before, you will dislike anyone that does a good job if pushing the
> conspiracy version of the JFK murder.
> Therefore on that basis alone,
> you've given Gil Jesus high marks. Thank you for verifying my belief.
>
a solid 10.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend
> > > > > to shoot anyone. Next, When Oswald got the rifle home that he ordered, he
> > > > > had his photo taken with it and with his revolver and some communist
> > > > > literature, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in a
> > > > > damp garage never to be picked up until he was given a reason just before
> > > > > he brought it into work. Another piece of evidence that he never intended
> > > > > to shoot anyone.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > More half truths. Yes he had his picture taken with the rifle. Yes, he
> > > > used a blanket to store his rifle in. That tells us nothing about how many
> > > > times he took the rifle out of the blanket. You simply assume he never
> > > > took it out even though you couldn't possibly know how many times he took
> > > > it out.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is NO half-truth if there is no proof that he ever took the
> > > rifle out of the blanket.
> >
> > Why would you expectt here to be proof of how many times he took the rifle
> > out of the blanket. Did you think he wrote it in a log every time he did
> > that. What proof would you expect there to be?
> >
>
>
> The proof that he used the rifle anytime other than 11/22/1963, of
> course!
>
times?
>
>
> > > We have NO such information, and by suggesting
> > > something that has NO proof YOU have created a half-truth that didn't
> > > exist until you opened your mouth.
> > >
> >
> > It shows how desperate you are to support your silly beliefs. You actually
> > think there should be evidence of each time Oswald took his rifle from his
> > blanket. Just what form do you think that evidence would take?
> >
>
>
> A shooting of something or practice. Any use of the rifle, including
> showing it to someone, or selling or trading it, hunting with it or
> considering it. Don't pretend to be dumb. You make a lot of mistakes,
> but you're not of low IQ.
>
be if Oswald had practiced?
>
> > > Nope, WRONG again! There is NO proof of ANY kind that ANY bullet from
> > > the MC rifle killed or even hurt ANY person! Stop trying to create
> > > evidence that doesn't exist!
> > >
> >
> > Oh, that's right. I forgot. You don't believe in using common sense.
> >
>
>
> You're not using common sense when you attempt to pretend that there is
> proof that the MC rifle fired a bullet that actually hit or hurt anyone.
> It didn't happen. Why not give a 'blow by blow' recitation of the life of
> a bullet that was fired out the window of the TSBD and see if you can
> connect it with the body of a person. I can't wait to see this, you tried
> once before and tripped all over yourself in getting it wrong. Here's a
> second chance.
>
The first bullet missed the intended target. Lot's of theories about what
the bullet actually hit and where it went but no proof of any of them
since that bullet was never found. The second bullet struck JFK high on
his back just to the right of his spine, exited from his throat and struck
JBC who was seated right in front of him and turned slightly to his right
when the bullet hit him. That bullet entered his back below his right
armpit and exited from his chest below his right nipple taking out a large
section of rib. It went on to strike him in the right wrist shattering it
before making a shallow entrance in JBC's clothing. I did not remain
lodged and was later found at Parkland on the guerney JBC had been on.
bigdog
Mar 31, 2015, 2:05:24 PM3/31/15
to
golfers do sometimes try to shift the blame to our clubs because our bad
shots are never our fault. We try to blame the arrow instead of the
Indian.
bigdog
Mar 31, 2015, 4:55:52 PM3/31/15
to
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 9:45:31 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > > > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > > > 11/22/63.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> > > Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> > > he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> > > have them, which I doubt.
> >
> > Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> > murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! No answer there Just another wisecrack and run like hell away.
> Your schooling follows: In the real world, depending on the
> circumstances, the place where ammunition was purchased would be
> important.
Really? Can you name another murder case in which this was introduced into
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > > > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > > > 11/22/63.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> > > Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> > > he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> > > have them, which I doubt.
> >
> > Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> > murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! No answer there Just another wisecrack and run like hell away.
> Your schooling follows: In the real world, depending on the
> circumstances, the place where ammunition was purchased would be
> important.
evidence? It certainly wasn't in the murder trial on which I was a juror.
Fortunately the jury wasn't silly enough to think the lack of such
evidence was an indication the accused never intended to shoot anybody. We
convicted the guy.
> In this case the FBI thought it was important enough to delve
> into deeply.
greater effort than going around to a couple guns shops and asking if
anyone remembered selling ammo to Oswald. Why would they remember? And why
do you think they asked every clerk who might have sold that ammo to
Oswald.
> They went to the manufacturer as well as the gun shops that
> had bought some of the odd ammunition.
> I suggest to you that the FHI and
> there bosses know more than you about collecting evidence. They thought
> it was wise to do it, and they tried hard, but were unable to show where
> Oswald got any ammunition. Yet, SOMEONE got some and brought it to the
> 6th floor.
>
his ammo. Does that mean that someone didn't intend to shoot anyone
either? I don't know where that someone bought his ammo but I know who
that someone was.
>
>
>
> > > As well, as per the police 'Offense Report' and
> > > the Dallas Morning news (detective Ira Van Cleave), the DPD said the
> > > bullet was STEEL jacketed that was fired at Walker, and also a .30.06.
> > > From the facts we have, there's not much chance for you to get Oswald
> > > shooting at Walker.
> >
> > Yeah, the cops do make mistakes. Want to bet they never had the jacket
> > tested to see what kind of metal it actually consisted of.
> >
>
>
> Ah! The usual LN cry! 'They all made mistakes'...LOL! Your schooling
> follows: I have to tell you that when a bullet is mangled beyond
> recognition, the casing (if any) is torn and bent in such a way that you
> can tell whether the metal is copper or steel. They have very different
> colors.
>
tested.
>
> > > I don't know if they set him up with a lot of
> > > 'evidence' in his belongings after he was gone, but what matters is that
> > > he wasn't the one that fired at Walker, so he wasn't the violent person
> > > they wanted him to look like.
> > >
> >
> > You are bound and determined to wander around aimlessly.
> >
>
>
> Nope, WRONG again! Your schooling follows: I change course only to
> follow the odd course you've been charting. Someone has to do it, just to
> get the right info in front of you. You try this and I follow and school
> you on what's right. You go that way, and I follow and get the truth in
> front of you.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The one case where someone said he had practiced was
> > > > > debunked and rejected by the WC, your buddies.
> > > >
> > > > It is hardly necessary to prove Oswald practiced but the likelihood is
> > > > that he did. Carcano ammo was not sold in boxes of five and we can only
> > > > account for five. Common sense would tell you he fired the rest of the box
> > > > or boxes somewhere and sometime. Of course there is no requirement that
> > > > you use common sense.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. WRONG. Your schooling follows: Given his lack of practicing
> > > with a rifle for a long, long time, it would be a necessity for him to
> > > practice if he were going to shoot someone.
> >
> > Do you think you or anyone else could prove how often I have practiced
> > with my guns in the past year? That's another of those things that only
> > silly conpsiracy hobbyists think it is necessary to prove.
> >
>
>
> Wrong again! Schooling: I really don't care what you do with your
> rifle, we're here discussing what Oswald did with HIS rifle. And more
> schooling: It's not necessary to prove that Oswald practiced for the
> purposes of convicting him, but for the purpose of proving what he did
> with his rifle and his time that day, it's a necessity.
is.
> If he doesn't see
> that a rifle can solve any of his problems, then what he was doing with it
> is important.
>
>
>
> > > Since the MC rifle had
> > > various faults that existed when the rifle was tested by the FBI and the
> > > army, Oswald didn't fix the faults, meaning that he didn't practice. If
> > > he knew of the problems with the rifle, he would realize that he could not
> > > aim properly and shoot rapidly enough to hit anything. The faults with
> > > the rifle were such that they made rapid fire impossible when trying to
> > > aim at the same time. Whoever fired out the window from the 6th floor
> > > didn't care if they hit anything, since there were other shooters around
> > > Dealey Plaza to take up the slack and finish the job. Firing the MC rifle
> > > out the window was only a forensic necessity to lay blame on Oswald.
> > >
> >
> > Blah, blah, blah.
> >
>
> Sounds like you didn't understand what I said.
I rarely do.
>
> > > Since the MC rifle had
> > > various faults that existed when the rifle was tested by the FBI and the
> > > army, Oswald didn't fix the faults, meaning that he didn't practice. If
> > > he knew of the problems with the rifle, he would realize that he could not
> > > aim properly and shoot rapidly enough to hit anything. The faults with
> > > the rifle were such that they made rapid fire impossible when trying to
> > > aim at the same time. Whoever fired out the window from the 6th floor
> > > didn't care if they hit anything, since there were other shooters around
> > > Dealey Plaza to take up the slack and finish the job. Firing the MC rifle
> > > out the window was only a forensic necessity to lay blame on Oswald.
> > >
> >
> > Blah, blah, blah.
> >
>
> Sounds like you didn't understand what I said.
> The main point was that
> Oswald would have been unable to do any aiming during rapid firing out the
> window (if it had been him there) because of the faults in the rifle.
> One more reason that the MC rifle didn't hit or hurt anyone.
>
his target twice with that. And that person was Oswald.
to kill four people and only got two of them. He did almost kill a guy he
had no intention of killing.
> They must not have let
> the evidence get out, and when they put up the phony bullet that might
> help to blame Oswald, they didn't expect Walker to write them and demand
> they withdraw it because it was the wrong bullet. So we get more evidence
> that they tried to rope him in with the Walker shooting too.
>
Oswald's belongings were just from sight seeing trips.
> Schooling: It sounds like you
> did your usual and forgot though. Hard to argue a case like this with so
> many ins and outs without remembering things you hear from the opposition.
>
through.
your schooling.
mainframetech
Apr 1, 2015, 10:29:28 AM4/1/15
to
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 9:45:31 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > > > > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > > > > 11/22/63.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> > > > Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> > > > he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> > > > have them, which I doubt.
> > >
> > > Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> > > murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! No answer there Just another wisecrack and run like hell away.
> > Your schooling follows: In the real world, depending on the
> > circumstances, the place where ammunition was purchased would be
> > important.
>
> Really? Can you name another murder case in which this was introduced into
> evidence? It certainly wasn't in the murder trial on which I was a juror.
> Fortunately the jury wasn't silly enough to think the lack of such
> evidence was an indication the accused never intended to shoot anybody. We
> convicted the guy.
>
I don't keep a list of trials, so you can't get the info that way.
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 9:45:31 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > > > > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > > > > 11/22/63.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> > > > Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> > > > he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> > > > have them, which I doubt.
> > >
> > > Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> > > murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! No answer there Just another wisecrack and run like hell away.
> > Your schooling follows: In the real world, depending on the
> > circumstances, the place where ammunition was purchased would be
> > important.
>
> Really? Can you name another murder case in which this was introduced into
> evidence? It certainly wasn't in the murder trial on which I was a juror.
> Fortunately the jury wasn't silly enough to think the lack of such
> evidence was an indication the accused never intended to shoot anybody. We
> convicted the guy.
>
Are you going to try and get away with saying that there is NO trial that
ever needed them to find where ammunition was purchased, or even IF it was
purchased? I think that would be foolish of you. But in THIS case, there
is a need since it has been shown that there is a probability that Oswald
didn't intend to shoot anyone, and part of that belief is the lack of
proof of purchasing ammo, not to mention the lack of proof of him
practicing.
> > In this case the FBI thought it was important enough to delve
> > into deeply.
>
> It was a shot in the dark. Had it been important, they would have made a
> greater effort than going around to a couple guns shops and asking if
> anyone remembered selling ammo to Oswald. Why would they remember? And why
> do you think they asked every clerk who might have sold that ammo to
> Oswald.
>
investigated the gun shops that had the ammunition to se if they had sold
to Oswald, which they hadn't. There was nothing else to do.
> > They went to the manufacturer as well as the gun shops that
> > had bought some of the odd ammunition.
>
> Yeah, they know when and where the ammo was made. BFD.
>
> > I suggest to you that the FBI and
> > there bosses know more than you about collecting evidence. They thought
> > it was wise to do it, and they tried hard, but were unable to show where
> > Oswald got any ammunition. Yet, SOMEONE got some and brought it to the
> > 6th floor.
> >
>
> Yes, they did. And you don't have any evidence where that someone bought
> his ammo. Does that mean that someone didn't intend to shoot anyone
> either? I don't know where that someone bought his ammo but I know who
> that someone was.
>
WRONG again! Schooling follows: Think it through. We know that the
> > it was wise to do it, and they tried hard, but were unable to show where
> > Oswald got any ammunition. Yet, SOMEONE got some and brought it to the
> > 6th floor.
> >
>
> Yes, they did. And you don't have any evidence where that someone bought
> his ammo. Does that mean that someone didn't intend to shoot anyone
> either? I don't know where that someone bought his ammo but I know who
> that someone was.
>
FBI and the army had the MC ammunition, don't we? They had to have it to
test, and they tested the very next day, so they had it in stock, and they
didn't have to wait for an order to arrive.
Since you can't show that Oswald bought any ammo, and you can't show
that he practiced, and you can't prove that he was on the 6th floor at the
right time, and you can't show his violence with the Walker shooting,
which he didn't do, and you can't even show that the MC bullets hit or
hurt anyone, what are you going to do? Nothing. Oswald wasn't guilty of
the murder of JFK.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > As well, as per the police 'Offense Report' and
> > > > the Dallas Morning news (detective Ira Van Cleave), the DPD said the
> > > > bullet was STEEL jacketed that was fired at Walker, and also a .30.06.
> > > > From the facts we have, there's not much chance for you to get Oswald
> > > > shooting at Walker.
> > >
> > > Yeah, the cops do make mistakes. Want to bet they never had the jacket
> > > tested to see what kind of metal it actually consisted of.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ah! The usual LN cry! 'They all made mistakes'...LOL! Your schooling
> > follows: I have to tell you that when a bullet is mangled beyond
> > recognition, the casing (if any) is torn and bent in such a way that you
> > can tell whether the metal is copper or steel. They have very different
> > colors.
> >
>
> So you acknowledge the person who said "steel" never had the bullet
> tested.
>
know that it would be obvious as to whether it was copper or STEEL
jacketed by simply looking at it, so a test would be necessary. Keep
squirming, you might get out of that corner yet...:)
> >
> > > > I don't know if they set him up with a lot of
> > > > 'evidence' in his belongings after he was gone, but what matters is that
> > > > he wasn't the one that fired at Walker, so he wasn't the violent person
> > > > they wanted him to look like.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are bound and determined to wander around aimlessly.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, WRONG again! Your schooling follows: I change course only to
> > follow the odd course you've been charting. Someone has to do it, just to
> > get the right info in front of you. You try this and I follow and school
> > you on what's right. You go that way, and I follow and get the truth in
> > front of you.
> >
>
> You and the truth are total strangers.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The one case where someone said he had practiced was
> > > > > > debunked and rejected by the WC, your buddies.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hardly necessary to prove Oswald practiced but the likelihood is
> > > > > that he did. Carcano ammo was not sold in boxes of five and we can only
> > > > > account for five. Common sense would tell you he fired the rest of the box
> > > > > or boxes somewhere and sometime. Of course there is no requirement that
> > > > > you use common sense.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope. WRONG. Your schooling follows: Given his lack of practicing
> > > > with a rifle for a long, long time, it would be a necessity for him to
> > > > practice if he were going to shoot someone.
> > >
> > > Do you think you or anyone else could prove how often I have practiced
> > > with my guns in the past year? That's another of those things that only
> > > silly conpsiracy hobbyists think it is necessary to prove.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Wrong again! Schooling: I really don't care what you do with your
> > rifle, we're here discussing what Oswald did with HIS rifle. And more
> > schooling: It's not necessary to prove that Oswald practiced for the
> > purposes of convicting him, but for the purpose of proving what he did
> > with his rifle and his time that day, it's a necessity.
>
> I don't suppose you have any idea how contradictory the above statement
> is.
>
> > If he doesn't see
> > that a rifle can solve any of his problems, then what he was doing with it
> > is important.
> >
> I have no idea where you are going with this. But that is not unusual.
> >
> >
> > > > Since the MC rifle had
> > > > various faults that existed when the rifle was tested by the FBI and the
> > > > army, Oswald didn't fix the faults, meaning that he didn't practice. If
> > > > he knew of the problems with the rifle, he would realize that he could not
> > > > aim properly and shoot rapidly enough to hit anything. The faults with
> > > > the rifle were such that they made rapid fire impossible when trying to
> > > > aim at the same time. Whoever fired out the window from the 6th floor
> > > > didn't care if they hit anything, since there were other shooters around
> > > > Dealey Plaza to take up the slack and finish the job. Firing the MC rifle
> > > > out the window was only a forensic necessity to lay blame on Oswald.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Blah, blah, blah.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like you didn't understand what I said.
>
> I rarely do.
>
Schooling follows:
> > The main point was that
> > Oswald would have been unable to do any aiming during rapid firing out the
> > window (if it had been him there) because of the faults in the rifle.
> > One more reason that the MC rifle didn't hit or hurt anyone.
> >
>
> It wasn't rapid fire and the person who fired the rifle did manage to hit
> his target twice with that. And that person was Oswald.
>
Rapid fire was important to the WC and the people that carried out tests
with the MC rifle. They continually tried to see how fast they could fire
the bolt action rifle. Probably to pretend that there was only the one
rifle in Dealey Plaza, when in reality there were a number of them there.
What the onlookers heard may have prompted that, though many said the last
2 shots were too close together to be from the same bolt action rifle.
otherwise.
> > They must not have let
> > the evidence get out, and when they put up the phony bullet that might
> > help to blame Oswald, they didn't expect Walker to write them and demand
> > they withdraw it because it was the wrong bullet. So we get more evidence
> > that they tried to rope him in with the Walker shooting too.
> >
>
> So Marina just lied about it and all the photos of Walker's house in
> Oswald's belongings were just from sight seeing trips.
>
"We cannot ignore however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to
the service, the FBI, and the commission on matters which are of vital
concern to the people of this country and the world."
From: The HSCA
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39732
Page 126
conspiracy, and I see no reason to do it again at this time. I may again
do it later though. Stay tuned...:)
> > Schooling: It sounds like you
> > did your usual and forgot though. Hard to argue a case like this with so
> > many ins and outs without remembering things you hear from the opposition.
> >
>
> So you can't say who "they" are and are just trying to bluster your way
> through.
>
lot more hiding, but much of it will be found. And you'll be the first
I'll tell what I learn...:)
Chris
mainframetech
Apr 1, 2015, 10:32:02 AM4/1/15
to
derision. Not what you do for someone you respect. Schooling follows:
The typical attitude of the LN shows in your comments and attempts to
discredit anyone that has produced work that shows up the truth of the JFK
case. Since he has produced very detailed documents and logic for his
points, it must have given you a lot of work to try and oppose his
evidence and cover it up. As I've noted for you before, when you (and
other LNs) go after someone, or a particular point, I know there's
something right there that demands attention and listening.
> > I've seen his work,
> > and it far exceeds what most others here have attempted.
>
> Yes, it is funnier than just about anybody else's material. Even yours. As
> long as Gillie is around, you'll never climb higher than #2.
>
not trying to outdo Gil Jesus, whose name is Gil. Your attempt to
discredit him by making fun of his name is the usual LN gimmick of insult
and ridicule used by many LNs to discredit someone when there is no
intelligent answer to his points. Try to be decent to him and to others
that you come in contact with. If they are foolish, let them be and
others will see that foolishness. but don't step in and try to make it
happen. That ain't nice.
> > As I've noted
> > before, you will dislike anyone that does a good job of pushing the
> > conspiracy version of the JFK murder.
>
> I wouldn't know that because I've never encountered such a person.
>
>
> I wouldn't know that because I've never encountered such a person.
>
Your opinion is noted and ignored.
> > Therefore on that basis alone,
> > you've given Gil Jesus high marks. Thank you for verifying my belief.
> >
>
> Yes I do. On a scale of 1 to 10, the amusement value of Gillie's videos is
> a solid 10.
>
His name is Gil Jesus. McAdams once upbraided me for making fun of a
> > you've given Gil Jesus high marks. Thank you for verifying my belief.
> >
>
> Yes I do. On a scale of 1 to 10, the amusement value of Gillie's videos is
> a solid 10.
>
person's name, and now you've done the same. Will the hammer fall on you?
We can only wait and see. You are after all, of the same thinking of the
moderator.
Chris
> > > > > > Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend
> > > > > > to shoot anyone. Next, When Oswald got the rifle home that he ordered, he
> > > > > > had his photo taken with it and with his revolver and some communist
> > > > > > literature, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in a
> > > > > > damp garage never to be picked up until he was given a reason just before
> > > > > > he brought it into work. Another piece of evidence that he never intended
> > > > > > to shoot anyone.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > More half truths. Yes he had his picture taken with the rifle. Yes, he
> > > > > used a blanket to store his rifle in. That tells us nothing about how many
> > > > > times he took the rifle out of the blanket. You simply assume he never
> > > > > took it out even though you couldn't possibly know how many times he took
> > > > > it out.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is NO half-truth if there is no proof that he ever took the
> > > > rifle out of the blanket.
> > >
> > > Why would you expectt here to be proof of how many times he took the rifle
> > > out of the blanket. Did you think he wrote it in a log every time he did
> > > that. What proof would you expect there to be?
> > >
> >
> >
> > The proof that he used the rifle anytime other than 11/22/1963, of
> > course!
> >
>
> Do you think there would be such proof even if he had practiced numerous
> times?
>
Same as the purchase of ammunition, which they couldn't prove that Oswald
bought. These negatives all fit together very well, don't they...:)
> >
> >
> > > > We have NO such information, and by suggesting
> > > > something that has NO proof YOU have created a half-truth that didn't
> > > > exist until you opened your mouth.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It shows how desperate you are to support your silly beliefs. You actually
> > > think there should be evidence of each time Oswald took his rifle from his
> > > blanket. Just what form do you think that evidence would take?
> > >
> >
> >
> > A shooting of something or practice. Any use of the rifle, including
> > showing it to someone, or selling or trading it, hunting with it or
> > considering it. Don't pretend to be dumb. You make a lot of mistakes,
> > but you're not of low IQ.
> >
>
> I repeat my question. Just what kind of evidence would you expect there to
> be if Oswald had practiced?
>
would have had to be fixed before using it to shoot people, because he
would have found that it wasn't worth spit for aiming at anything, or
rapid shooting. Think it through.
> >
> > > > Nope, WRONG again! There is NO proof of ANY kind that ANY bullet from
> > > > the MC rifle killed or even hurt ANY person! Stop trying to create
> > > > evidence that doesn't exist!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh, that's right. I forgot. You don't believe in using common sense.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You're not using common sense when you attempt to pretend that there is
> > proof that the MC rifle fired a bullet that actually hit or hurt anyone.
> > It didn't happen. Why not give a 'blow by blow' recitation of the life of
> > a bullet that was fired out the window of the TSBD and see if you can
> > connect it with the body of a person. I can't wait to see this, you tried
> > once before and tripped all over yourself in getting it wrong. Here's a
> > second chance.
> >
>
> Again??? Well, OK. Write this down so you'll have it for future reference.
> The first bullet missed the intended target. Lot's of theories about what
> the bullet actually hit and where it went but no proof of any of them
> since that bullet was never found. The second bullet struck JFK high on
> his back just to the right of his spine, exited from his throat and struck
> JBC who was seated right in front of him and turned slightly to his right
> when the bullet hit him. That bullet entered his back below his right
> armpit and exited from his chest below his right nipple taking out a large
> section of rib. It went on to strike him in the right wrist shattering it
> before making a shallow entrance in JBC's clothing. I did not remain
> lodged and was later found at Parkland on the guerney JBC had been on.
>
that the bullet was found on was the WRONG one. As well, using the photo
of the CE399 bullet, that was supposed to be the gurney bullet proves it
is a test bullet replaced by probably the custodian of the bullet
evidence.
The bullet that missed may have been found, right below where it may
have hit on the chrome overhead and it then fell to the front seat where
it was supposedly found. Otherwise, the 'missing' bullet is gone forever
and you have no proof that it was an MC bullet.
The bullet that YOU say hit JFK in the back wasn't found, therefore you
can't say that it was an MC bullet, since there is no proof of what it
was.
Now, back to the bullet that you think was found on Connally's gurney
(It wasn't). First, we know that there was NO bullet that hit Connally
that came from the body of JFK, that's been proven by the conclusions of
prosectors and Pierre Finck, the expert you always want around. As well,
The WC photo showing the bullets from the case will help us find that you
don't know what you're talking about. Here it is:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
Note the bullet to the far left, which is CE399 (after the
replacement). Next to it is CE572, which is labeled as a 'test bullet'.
Note that the two bullets both have a slight bend in the middle, and both
have a slight flattening in the middle, and they both are missing a bit of
material at the tail end. The WC didn't think when they published this
photo showing that the CE399 was a test bullet. But they weren't of high
intelligence anyway. It wasn't needed for their job. Here's an opinion
of Cyril Wecht, an 'expert':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxZjoXf6eU
The bullet that you pointed at was a 'test bullet' and you can't say
that it hurt or hit anyone. No r can you prove otherwise. On the same
photo the far right bullet was fired into a wrist of a human cadaver.
Not very similar.
So we've taken care of all your bullets and none hit anyone.
tom...@cox.net
Apr 1, 2015, 1:49:47 PM4/1/15
to
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 10:42:55 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:41:37 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 9:52:58 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:22:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech
> > > > > wrote=
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 10:42:55 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:41:37 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 9:52:58 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:22:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:47:32 AM UTC-4, mainframetech
> :
> > > > > > Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO
> > > > > > ammunit=
> > > > > > Thank you for continuing my proof that Oswald bought NO
> ion from=20
> > > > > > Klein's and that they offered it. Next, we go to the FBI who
> > > > > > tri=
> ed to=20
> > > > > > find every place that sold that odd kind of ammunition. They
> > > > > > fou=
> nd 2=20
> > > > > > places in the Dallas area. They checked both and neither sold
> > > > > > an=
> y=20
> > > > > > ammunition to Oswald.=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Why do you have to try to deceive people with half truths. The
> > > > > FBI =
> found=20
> > > > > no record that those stores sold Oswald ammunition. That does not
> > > > > p=
> rove=20
> > > > > they didn't sell ammunition to Oswald since records aren't kept
> > > > > of=
> =20
> > > > > ammunition purchases. If you had a case to make, you could do it
> > > > > ho=
> nestly.
> > > > >
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > I'm not producing the deception, you are. You know very well
> > > > that =
> the=20
> > > > FBI questioned the people in the 2 shops, not just looked at
> > > > their=20 records. =20
> > >=20
> > > Do you think they talked to ever single person who worked the
> > > counters =
> at=20
> > > those two shops? Do you think everyone who worked at those counters
> > > wou=
> ld=20
> > > remember someone buying ammo 8 months prior to the assassination?
> > >=20
> > > > But because of the success of Gil Jesus in documenting his case,=20
> > > > you don't want to mention that part. That's covering up evidence,
> > > > so=
> you=20
> > > > get another 'bd' award!
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > "Gil Jesus" and "success" should never be written in the same
> > > sentence.=
> =20
> > > Your confusion should come as no suprise given the Gil Jesus seems to
> > > b=
> e=20
> > > your guru.
> > >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > WRONG again! Your schooling follows: Your dislike of Gil Jesus
> > has=20 nothing to do with his ability to document his topic.
>
> Where did you get the idea I disliked Gil Jesus. I've told you many times
> I do this for amusement only and no one is more amusing than Gillie.
> Unlike Bob Harris' videos which put me to sleep, Gillie's are a
> laughfest.
>
> > I've seen his work,=20
> Where did you get the idea I disliked Gil Jesus. I've told you many times
> I do this for amusement only and no one is more amusing than Gillie.
> Unlike Bob Harris' videos which put me to sleep, Gillie's are a
> laughfest.
>
> > and it far exceeds what most others here have attempted.=20
>
> Yes, it is funnier than just about anybody else's material. Even yours.
> As long as Gillie is around, you'll never climb higher than #2.
>
> > As I've noted=20
> Yes, it is funnier than just about anybody else's material. Even yours.
> As long as Gillie is around, you'll never climb higher than #2.
>
> > before, you will dislike anyone that does a good job if pushing the=20
> > conspiracy version of the JFK murder.
>
> I wouldn't know that because I've never encountered such a person.
>
> > Therefore on that basis alone,=20
>
> I wouldn't know that because I've never encountered such a person.
>
> > you've given Gil Jesus high marks. Thank you for verifying my belief.
> >=20
>
> Yes I do. On a scale of 1 to 10, the amusement value of Gillie's videos
> is a solid 10.
>
> >=20
> Yes I do. On a scale of 1 to 10, the amusement value of Gillie's videos
> is a solid 10.
>
> >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > > > Another piece of evidence that Oswald didn't intend=20
> > > > > > to shoot anyone. Next, When Oswald got the rifle home that he
> > > > > > or=
> dered, he=20
> > > > > > had his photo taken with it and with his revolver and some
> > > > > > commun=
> ist=20
> > > > > > literature, and then rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw
> > > > > > i=
> t in a=20
> > > > > > damp garage never to be picked up until he was given a reason
> > > > > > jus=
> t before=20
> > > > > > he brought it into work. Another piece of evidence that he
> > > > > > never=
> intended=20
> > > > > > to shoot anyone.
> > > > > >
> > > > >=20
> > > > > More half truths. Yes he had his picture taken with the rifle.
> > > > > Yes,=
> he=20
> > > > > used a blanket to store his rifle in. That tells us nothing about
> > > > > h=
> ow many=20
> > > > > times he took the rifle out of the blanket. You simply assume he
> > > > > ne=
> ver=20
> > > > > took it out even though you couldn't possibly know how many times
> > > > > h=
> e took=20
> > > > > it out.
> > > > >
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > There is NO half-truth if there is no proof that he ever took
> > > > the=
> =20
> > > > rifle out of the blanket.
> > >=20
> > > Why would you expectt here to be proof of how many times he took the
> > > ri=
> fle=20
> > > out of the blanket. Did you think he wrote it in a log every time he
> > > di=
> d=20
> > > that. What proof would you expect there to be?
> > >
> >=20
> > >
> >=20
> > The proof that he used the rifle anytime other than 11/22/1963, of=20
> > course!
> >=20
>
> Do you think there would be such proof even if he had practiced numerous
> times?
>
> >=20
> Do you think there would be such proof even if he had practiced numerous
> times?
>
> > =20
> > > > We have NO such information, and by suggesting=20
> > > > something that has NO proof YOU have created a half-truth that
> > > > didn't=
> =20
> > > > exist until you opened your mouth.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > It shows how desperate you are to support your silly beliefs. You
> > > actua=
> lly=20
> > > think there should be evidence of each time Oswald took his rifle
> > > from =
> his=20
> > > blanket. Just what form do you think that evidence would take?
> > >
> >=20
> > >
> >=20
> > A shooting of something or practice. Any use of the rifle,
> > including=
> =20
> > showing it to someone, or selling or trading it, hunting with it or=20
> > considering it. Don't pretend to be dumb. You make a lot of mistakes,
> > =
> =20
> > but you're not of low IQ.
> >
>
> I repeat my question. Just what kind of evidence would you expect there
> to be if Oswald had practiced?
>
> >=20
> >
>
> I repeat my question. Just what kind of evidence would you expect there
> to be if Oswald had practiced?
>
> > > > Nope, WRONG again! There is NO proof of ANY kind that ANY
> > > > bullet =
> from=20
> > > > the MC rifle killed or even hurt ANY person! Stop trying to
> > > > create=
> =20
> > > > evidence that doesn't exist!
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Oh, that's right. I forgot. You don't believe in using common sense.
> > >
> >=20
> > >
> >=20
> > You're not using common sense when you attempt to pretend that there
> > is=
> =20
> > proof that the MC rifle fired a bullet that actually hit or hurt
> > anyone. =
> =20
> > It didn't happen. Why not give a 'blow by blow' recitation of the life
> > o=
> f=20
> > a bullet that was fired out the window of the TSBD and see if you
> > can=20 connect it with the body of a person. I can't wait to see this,
> > you trie=
> d=20
> > once before and tripped all over yourself in getting it wrong. Here's
> > a=
> =20
> > second chance.
> >=20
>
> Again??? Well, OK. Write this down so you'll have it for future
> reference. The first bullet missed the intended target. Lot's of theories
> about what the bullet actually hit and where it went but no proof of any
> of them since that bullet was never found. The second bullet struck JFK
> high on his back just to the right of his spine, exited from his throat
> and struck JBC who was seated right in front of him and turned slightly
> to his right when the bullet hit him. That bullet entered his back below
> his right armpit and exited from his chest below his right nipple taking
> out a large section of rib. It went on to strike him in the right wrist
> shattering it before making a shallow entrance in JBC's clothing. I did
> not remain lodged and was later found at Parkland on the guerney JBC had
> been on.
=====================================================================
> Again??? Well, OK. Write this down so you'll have it for future
> reference. The first bullet missed the intended target. Lot's of theories
> about what the bullet actually hit and where it went but no proof of any
> of them since that bullet was never found. The second bullet struck JFK
> high on his back just to the right of his spine, exited from his throat
> and struck JBC who was seated right in front of him and turned slightly
> to his right when the bullet hit him. That bullet entered his back below
> his right armpit and exited from his chest below his right nipple taking
> out a large section of rib. It went on to strike him in the right wrist
> shattering it before making a shallow entrance in JBC's clothing. I did
> not remain lodged and was later found at Parkland on the guerney JBC had
> been on.
it went down to jbc's thigh bone where a fragment still rests today the
bullet was surgically removed later ! ! ! I have telling you for years that
you are at a very large disadvantage by not reading the official
evidence/testimony in the commission's 26 volumes ! !
===========================================================================
=====
> >=20
> >=20
> > =20
> > > > Now, as to your attempt to cover up the defects in the rifle,
> > > > anyo=
> ne=20
> > > > can go through the WC sworn testimony of Robert Frazier (FBI agent)
> > > > a=
> nd=20
> > > > Ronald Simmons (army firearms specialist) and learn about the
> > > > defects=
> that=20
> > > > were in the rifle AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER! A big 'bd' award to
> > > > you=
> for=20
> > > > trying again to cover up evidence.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Neither thought the defects precluded it from being the murder
> > > weapon.=
> =20
> > > That's all you.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Schooling follows: Most rifles can kill someone if held against
> > their=
> =20
> > belly and fired. However, aiming and firing that particular weapon
> > would=
> =20
> > have been useless due to the faults in it. And the distance didn't
> > lend=
> =20
> > itself to holding the rifle against the belly of a victim. Even the
> > rapi=
> d=20
> > firing that was a point that was very important to the WC (guess
> > why)=20 could not have been done and allowed good aiming while firing
> > that=20 particular rifle. The trigger pull was a double-pull type, the
> > bolt was=
> =20
> > sticky, which the army found would take their aim away from the target,
> > =
> =20
> > and the scope was misaligned with the type of fault that would be
> > caused=
> =20
> > by bad mounting of the scope. As proof of the above, the rifle was
> > fired=
> =20
> > at a short distance at a limousine containing a target, and missed=20
> > completely 3 times.
> >=20
> > Chris
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
bigdog
Apr 1, 2015, 5:02:07 PM4/1/15
to
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 10:29:28 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 9:45:31 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > > > > > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > > > > > 11/22/63.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> > > > > Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> > > > > he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> > > > > have them, which I doubt.
> > > >
> > > > Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> > > > murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! No answer there Just another wisecrack and run like hell away.
> > > Your schooling follows: In the real world, depending on the
> > > circumstances, the place where ammunition was purchased would be
> > > important.
> >
> > Really? Can you name another murder case in which this was introduced into
> > evidence? It certainly wasn't in the murder trial on which I was a juror.
> > Fortunately the jury wasn't silly enough to think the lack of such
> > evidence was an indication the accused never intended to shoot anybody. We
> > convicted the guy.
> >
>
>
> I don't keep a list of trials, so you can't get the info that way.
If you did, you would know proving where an accused murderer bought his
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 9:45:31 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 3:59:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > Right. I suppose it's possible that Oswald just threw away all the bullets
> > > > > > except for the one he fired at Walker and the four he had left on
> > > > > > 11/22/63.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked for 'cites' and got more wrongness. Your schooling follows:
> > > > > Oswald did not buy any ammunition anywhere as far as we know. So what did
> > > > > he shoot at Walker and where did he get it? Please show cites, if you
> > > > > have them, which I doubt.
> > > >
> > > > Only silly conspiracy hobbyists think it is important to prove where a
> > > > murderer bought his ammunition. In the real world, that isn't necessary.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! No answer there Just another wisecrack and run like hell away.
> > > Your schooling follows: In the real world, depending on the
> > > circumstances, the place where ammunition was purchased would be
> > > important.
> >
> > Really? Can you name another murder case in which this was introduced into
> > evidence? It certainly wasn't in the murder trial on which I was a juror.
> > Fortunately the jury wasn't silly enough to think the lack of such
> > evidence was an indication the accused never intended to shoot anybody. We
> > convicted the guy.
> >
>
>
> I don't keep a list of trials, so you can't get the info that way.
ammo is rarely if ever an element presented at trial. What the prosecution
must prove is what the accused did with the ammo, not where he got it.
> Are you going to try and get away with saying that there is NO trial that
> ever needed them to find where ammunition was purchased, or even IF it was
> purchased?
fact that you can't name a single one speaks to that.
> I think that would be foolish of you. But in THIS case, there
> is a need since it has been shown that there is a probability that Oswald
> didn't intend to shoot anyone, and part of that belief is the lack of
> proof of purchasing ammo, not to mention the lack of proof of him
> practicing.
>
trial and his lawyer presented such a silly argument. I wonder if they
could get a mistrial if the jury started giggling during the defense's
closing arguments.
>
>
>
> > > In this case the FBI thought it was important enough to delve
> > > into deeply.
> >
> > It was a shot in the dark. Had it been important, they would have made a
> > greater effort than going around to a couple guns shops and asking if
> > anyone remembered selling ammo to Oswald. Why would they remember? And why
> > do you think they asked every clerk who might have sold that ammo to
> > Oswald.
> >
>
>
> They wrote letters to the makers of the ammunition, and then
> investigated the gun shops that had the ammunition to se if they had sold
> to Oswald, which they hadn't. There was nothing else to do.
>
that he had bought ammo because records aren't kept of the purchaser of
ammo. A red herring argument if ever there was one.
>
>
>
> > > They went to the manufacturer as well as the gun shops that
> > > had bought some of the odd ammunition.
> >
> > Yeah, they know when and where the ammo was made. BFD.
> >
>
>
> And got from them who they had sold the ammunition to in the Dallas area.
>
>
>
> > > I suggest to you that the FBI and
> > > there bosses know more than you about collecting evidence. They thought
> > > it was wise to do it, and they tried hard, but were unable to show where
> > > Oswald got any ammunition. Yet, SOMEONE got some and brought it to the
> > > 6th floor.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, they did. And you don't have any evidence where that someone bought
> > his ammo. Does that mean that someone didn't intend to shoot anyone
> > either? I don't know where that someone bought his ammo but I know who
> > that someone was.
> >
>
>
> WRONG again! Schooling follows: Think it through. We know that the
> FBI and the army had the MC ammunition, don't we?
before. Let me think about it...OK, I thought about it. It's a stupid
idea.
> They had to have it to
> test, and they tested the very next day, so they had it in stock, and they
> didn't have to wait for an order to arrive.
>
> Since you can't show that Oswald bought any ammo, and you can't show
> that he practiced, and you can't prove that he was on the 6th floor at the
> right time, and you can't show his violence with the Walker shooting,
> which he didn't do, and you can't even show that the MC bullets hit or
> hurt anyone, what are you going to do? Nothing. Oswald wasn't guilty of
> the murder of JFK.
>
ago. Anyone with an ounce of sense who has seen that evidence knows Oswald
did it. There is no amount of proof which would satisfy the
anybody-but-Oswald crowd nor does there need to be. Those people's
opinions don't matter.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > As well, as per the police 'Offense Report' and
> > > > > the Dallas Morning news (detective Ira Van Cleave), the DPD said the
> > > > > bullet was STEEL jacketed that was fired at Walker, and also a .30.06.
> > > > > From the facts we have, there's not much chance for you to get Oswald
> > > > > shooting at Walker.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, the cops do make mistakes. Want to bet they never had the jacket
> > > > tested to see what kind of metal it actually consisted of.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah! The usual LN cry! 'They all made mistakes'...LOL! Your schooling
> > > follows: I have to tell you that when a bullet is mangled beyond
> > > recognition, the casing (if any) is torn and bent in such a way that you
> > > can tell whether the metal is copper or steel. They have very different
> > > colors.
> > >
> >
> > So you acknowledge the person who said "steel" never had the bullet
> > tested.
> >
>
>
> Nope. WRONG. I don't know if the bullet was tested or not, but I do
> know that it would be obvious as to whether it was copper or STEEL
> jacketed by simply looking at it, so a test would be necessary. Keep
> squirming, you might get out of that corner yet...:)
>
Malloy. There are a bunch of idiots with guns and badges.
how contradictory your above argument is, there is no chance I could ever
explain it to you in terms you could understand.
establish the minimum time to fire three shots. That didn't establish the
actual time taken to fire three shots and the WC never claimed it did.
> They continually tried to see how fast they could fire
> the bolt action rifle. Probably to pretend that there was only the one
> rifle in Dealey Plaza, when in reality there were a number of them there.
> What the onlookers heard may have prompted that, though many said the last
> 2 shots were too close together to be from the same bolt action rifle.
>
apart. The only way the second of Oswald shots could have missed is if the
rifle could be fired three times in that time frame. The tests established
that it could, not that it was. Had their tests determined the rifle could
not be fired that rapidly, they could have eliminated the second shot miss
scenario. Of course that didn't happen which is why they included it as a
possibility.
> > > > She didn't need to volunteer that Oswald shot at Walker Until she told
> > > > them that, they only knew he had shot Kennedy, Connally, and Tippit.
> > > >
> > > WRONG! They wanted a reason to show that Oswald was a violent killer
> > > and the Walker shooting was useful in doing that.
> >
> > Oswald was a violent killer but not a particularly skilled one. He tried
> > to kill four people and only got two of them. He did almost kill a guy he
> > had no intention of killing.
> >
>
>
> Nope. Wrong again! Oswald killed no one, and you are unable to prove
> otherwise.
>
believing that.
>
>
>
> > > They must not have let
> > > the evidence get out, and when they put up the phony bullet that might
> > > help to blame Oswald, they didn't expect Walker to write them and demand
> > > they withdraw it because it was the wrong bullet. So we get more evidence
> > > that they tried to rope him in with the Walker shooting too.
> > >
> >
> > So Marina just lied about it and all the photos of Walker's house in
> > Oswald's belongings were just from sight seeing trips.
> >
>
>
> Here are the comments to J. Lee Rankin from Norman Redlich, lawyer:
>
> "We cannot ignore however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to
> the service, the FBI, and the commission on matters which are of vital
> concern to the people of this country and the world."
>
> From: The HSCA
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39732
>
> Page 126
>
as his protege.
>
>
>
> > > Schooling: It sounds like you
> > > did your usual and forgot though. Hard to argue a case like this with so
> > > many ins and outs without remembering things you hear from the opposition.
> > >
> >
> > So you can't say who "they" are and are just trying to bluster your way
> > through.
>
> Nope, wrong again...:)
>
bluster. No substance.
> > >
> >
> > I'll bet you're a tenured professor at that clown college where you do
> > your schooling.
> >
>
>
> Only if I've schooled you long enough to become tenured...:)
>
> > >
> > > LOL! Nope! Wrong answer! I've gotten a lot closer since I've had you
> > > for a foil...:)
> > >
> >
> > Closer to what?
>
>
> The full answer to the case of the JFK murder, or course. There's a
> lot more hiding, but much of it will be found. And you'll be the first
> I'll tell what I learn...:)
>
slats
Apr 1, 2015, 10:06:12 PM4/1/15
to
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:23d11f2e-b892-402c...@googlegroups.com:
I'm beginning to understand why you once left this forum. You can only
bang your head against the wall for X amount of hours before it turns
fatal.
news:23d11f2e-b892-402c...@googlegroups.com:
bang your head against the wall for X amount of hours before it turns
fatal.
mainframetech
Apr 2, 2015, 11:50:01 AM4/2/15
to
something doesn't make it true, you need to learn that. Find some back up
or forget it. Now by just saying "rarely" you've said that you think it
DOES occur now and then. So I'll accept that you understand that in some
trials it's a requirement, like this one. I've given you the reasons, why
not argue against them? Or don't you have any intelligent comments?
>
> > Are you going to try and get away with saying that there is NO trial that
> > ever needed them to find where ammunition was purchased, or even IF it was
> > purchased?
>
> Needed, no. On rare occasions, maybe such evidence has been presented. The
> fact that you can't name a single one speaks to that.
>
up their belief with sensible investigation. Contacting the proper people
and all the rest.
> > I think that would be foolish of you. But in THIS case, there
> > is a need since it has been shown that there is a probability that Oswald
> > didn't intend to shoot anyone, and part of that belief is the lack of
> > proof of purchasing ammo, not to mention the lack of proof of him
> > practicing.
> >
>
> <snicker> Which is probably what a jury would have done had Oswald gone to
> trial and his lawyer presented such a silly argument. I wonder if they
> could get a mistrial if the jury started giggling during the defense's
> closing arguments.
>
So we have another wisecrack from you and you'll run away as soon as you
can. No intelligent answer to the point.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > In this case the FBI thought it was important enough to delve
> > > > into deeply.
> > >
> > > It was a shot in the dark. Had it been important, they would have made a
> > > greater effort than going around to a couple guns shops and asking if
> > > anyone remembered selling ammo to Oswald. Why would they remember? And why
> > > do you think they asked every clerk who might have sold that ammo to
> > > Oswald.
> > >
> >
> >
> > They wrote letters to the makers of the ammunition, and then
> > to Oswald, which they hadn't. There was nothing else to do.
> >
>
> They had no record that he had bought ammo which does nothing to establish
> that he had bought ammo because records aren't kept of the purchaser of
> ammo. A red herring argument if ever there was one.
>
When will you stop repeating that silly stuff over and over? Then you'll
> >
>
> They had no record that he had bought ammo which does nothing to establish
> that he had bought ammo because records aren't kept of the purchaser of
> ammo. A red herring argument if ever there was one.
>
complain that I answer the same all the time. Who are you trying to convince?
Not me, you know better than that. So you're trying to fool someone else
that may be lurking. Now, your schooling is here: The 2 shops that were
questioned were small enough that the people they questioned knew if they
had sold any of the 'odd' ammunition for an MC rifle. And shops keep
records of what they sell for the purposes of refilling stock. They also
sometimes keep customer's names so they can send out brochures and such.
So your argument fails.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > They went to the manufacturer as well as the gun shops that
> > > > had bought some of the odd ammunition.
> > >
> > > Yeah, they know when and where the ammo was made. BFD.
> > >
> >
> >
> > And got from them who they had sold the ammunition to in the Dallas area.
> >
>
> And those stores had no records of who they sold ammo to.
>
shops. See above where this was answered already.
> >
> >
> > > > I suggest to you that the FBI and
> > > > there bosses know more than you about collecting evidence. They thought
> > > > it was wise to do it, and they tried hard, but were unable to show where
> > > > Oswald got any ammunition. Yet, SOMEONE got some and brought it to the
> > > > 6th floor.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, they did. And you don't have any evidence where that someone bought
> > > his ammo. Does that mean that someone didn't intend to shoot anyone
> > > either? I don't know where that someone bought his ammo but I know who
> > > that someone was.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG again! Schooling follows: Think it through. We know that the
> > FBI and the army had the MC ammunition, don't we?
>
> So it was either the FBI or Army who shot JFK. That's one I hadn't heard
> before. Let me think about it...OK, I thought about it. It's a stupid
> idea.
>
army shot JFK. The point was that the government agencies had ammunition
and anyone that could visit with them could get some of that ammunition.
Since Oswald couldn't be shown to have bought any, it would be necessary
for them to buy it for him, or give it to him, so that some of it could be
shot out the window for forensic purposes. They only gave him as much as
needed, not a whole box which might have been able to be traced back.
Think it through!
> > They had to have it to
> > test, and they tested the very next day, so they had it in stock, and they
> > didn't have to wait for an order to arrive.
> >
> > Since you can't show that Oswald bought any ammo, and you can't show
> > that he practiced, and you can't prove that he was on the 6th floor at the
> > right time, and you can't show his violence with the Walker shooting,
> > which he didn't do, and you can't even show that the MC bullets hit or
> > hurt anyone, what are you going to do? Nothing. Oswald wasn't guilty of
> > the murder of JFK.
> >
>
> The elements need to prove Oswald shot JFK have been presented a long time
> ago. Anyone with an ounce of sense who has seen that evidence knows Oswald
> did it. There is no amount of proof which would satisfy the
> anybody-but-Oswald crowd nor does there need to be. Those people's
> opinions don't matter.
>
unable to get you to prove that the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone. In
actuality your opinion doesn't matter until you get updated to the present
where things are a bit different than your old tired WC talk, and you can
come up with something new that can oppose the evidence I've put ion the
table which you haven't done. Try using the official record and see what
you can come up with...:)
> > > > > > As well, as per the police 'Offense Report' and
> > > > > > the Dallas Morning news (detective Ira Van Cleave), the DPD said the
> > > > > > bullet was STEEL jacketed that was fired at Walker, and also a .30.06.
> > > > > > From the facts we have, there's not much chance for you to get Oswald
> > > > > > shooting at Walker.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, the cops do make mistakes. Want to bet they never had the jacket
> > > > > tested to see what kind of metal it actually consisted of.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah! The usual LN cry! 'They all made mistakes'...LOL! Your schooling
> > > > follows: I have to tell you that when a bullet is mangled beyond
> > > > recognition, the casing (if any) is torn and bent in such a way that you
> > > > can tell whether the metal is copper or steel. They have very different
> > > > colors.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you acknowledge the person who said "steel" never had the bullet
> > > tested.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope. WRONG. I don't know if the bullet was tested or not, but I do
> > know that it would be obvious as to whether it was copper or STEEL
> > squirming, you might get out of that corner yet...:)
> >
>
> You must think every cop is a Joe Friday. They aren't. Not even Reed and
> Malloy. There are a bunch of idiots with guns and badges.
>
Did that insult make you feel better? It certainly didn't prove
> >
>
> You must think every cop is a Joe Friday. They aren't. Not even Reed and
> Malloy. There are a bunch of idiots with guns and badges.
>
anything. It's sort of like the Amazing Randi's little skeptic forum.
They love to have what they think is a legitimate reason for insulting
people and making clever wiaecracks.
> >
> > > > If he doesn't see
> > > > that a rifle can solve any of his problems, then what he was doing with it
> > > > is important.
> > > >
> > > I have no idea where you are going with this. But that is not unusual.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Since the MC rifle had
> > > > > > various faults that existed when the rifle was tested by the FBI and the
> > > > > > army, Oswald didn't fix the faults, meaning that he didn't practice. If
> > > > > > he knew of the problems with the rifle, he would realize that he could not
> > > > > > aim properly and shoot rapidly enough to hit anything. The faults with
> > > > > > the rifle were such that they made rapid fire impossible when trying to
> > > > > > aim at the same time. Whoever fired out the window from the 6th floor
> > > > > > didn't care if they hit anything, since there were other shooters around
> > > > > > Dealey Plaza to take up the slack and finish the job. Firing the MC rifle
> > > > > > out the window was only a forensic necessity to lay blame on Oswald.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Blah, blah, blah.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like you didn't understand what I said.
> > >
> > > I rarely do.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I can believe it! Now you're getting on to what's happening!
> > Schooling follows:
> >
you don't want the lurkers to see?
> >
> > > > The main point was that
> > > > Oswald would have been unable to do any aiming during rapid firing out the
> > > > window (if it had been him there) because of the faults in the rifle.
> > > > One more reason that the MC rifle didn't hit or hurt anyone.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It wasn't rapid fire and the person who fired the rifle did manage to hit
> > > his target twice with that. And that person was Oswald.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Oswald hit nothing that day, and you can't prove otherwise.
> > Rapid fire was important to the WC and the people that carried out tests
> > with the MC rifle.
>
> They wanted to see how rapidly the rifle could have been fired. That would
> establish the minimum time to fire three shots. That didn't establish the
> actual time taken to fire three shots and the WC never claimed it did.
>
together that it HAD to be 2 rifles or more. It's the old importance of
the 'lone nut' theory that was supposed to free the conspirators from
having to worry that they would be chased through the rest of their lives.
Funny how you want to cover that up.
> > They continually tried to see how fast they could fire
> > the bolt action rifle. Probably to pretend that there was only the one
> > rifle in Dealey Plaza, when in reality there were a number of them there.
> > What the onlookers heard may have prompted that, though many said the last
> > 2 shots were too close together to be from the same bolt action rifle.
> >
>
> They knew that the shots which hit JFK came between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds
> apart. The only way the second of Oswald shots could have missed is if the
> rifle could be fired three times in that time frame. The tests established
> that it could, not that it was. Had their tests determined the rifle could
> not be fired that rapidly, they could have eliminated the second shot miss
> scenario. Of course that didn't happen which is why they included it as a
> possibility.
>
were parts that were left out. The timing is all wrong for anything using
that as a base. And since the measuring was off, you whole idea
collapses.
> > > > > She didn't need to volunteer that Oswald shot at Walker Until she told
> > > > > them that, they only knew he had shot Kennedy, Connally, and Tippit.
> > > > >
> > > > WRONG! They wanted a reason to show that Oswald was a violent killer
> > > > and the Walker shooting was useful in doing that.
> > >
> > > Oswald was a violent killer but not a particularly skilled one. He tried
> > > to kill four people and only got two of them. He did almost kill a guy he
> > > had no intention of killing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope. Wrong again! Oswald killed no one, and you are unable to prove
> > otherwise.
> >
>
> Not to the likes of you. People with common sense have no trouble
> believing that.
>
say know better. You've been shown the proofs but are so locked into your
faith in the WC that you can't consider anything else.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > They must not have let
> > > > the evidence get out, and when they put up the phony bullet that might
> > > > help to blame Oswald, they didn't expect Walker to write them and demand
> > > > they withdraw it because it was the wrong bullet. So we get more evidence
> > > > that they tried to rope him in with the Walker shooting too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So Marina just lied about it and all the photos of Walker's house in
> > > Oswald's belongings were just from sight seeing trips.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Here are the comments to J. Lee Rankin from Norman Redlich, lawyer:
> >
> > "We cannot ignore however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to
> > the service, the FBI, and the commission on matters which are of vital
> > concern to the people of this country and the world."
> >
> > From: The HSCA
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39732
> >
> > Page 126
> >
> Marina did try to hide evidence of her husband's guilt. She destroyed one of the backyard photos.
the photos. But that's fine because they are part of a proof that Oswald
didn't intend to shoot anyone with the MC rifle. He wanted to impress
some folks he wanted to get in with by letting them see his photo and
thinking he was a rough, tough rebel, ready for action. He wore his
revolver and showed some literature too.
using a number of points that he never used in the past until I made them.
But thanks anyway...:)
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Schooling: It sounds like you
> > > > did your usual and forgot though. Hard to argue a case like this with so
> > > > many ins and outs without remembering things you hear from the opposition.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you can't say who "they" are and are just trying to bluster your way
> > > through.
> >
> >
>
> Right again. You once again are unable to say who "they" are. More
> bluster. No substance.
>
WRONG! As you've been told in the past, I've given you a list of those
>
> Right again. You once again are unable to say who "they" are. More
> bluster. No substance.
>
I suspect to be in the list of conspirators at this time. It's not my
fault you didn't copy it down. That's your problem.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'll bet you're a tenured professor at that clown college where you do
> > > your schooling.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Only if I've schooled you long enough to become tenured...:)
> >
>
> You couldn't teach a flea to jump.
>
dredged up! And you seemed to hop more than 100 times your height...:)
> > > >
> > > > LOL! Nope! Wrong answer! I've gotten a lot closer since I've had you
> > > > for a foil...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Closer to what?
> >
> >
> > The full answer to the case of the JFK murder, or course. There's a
> > lot more hiding, but much of it will be found. And you'll be the first
> > I'll tell what I learn...:)
> >
>
> Oh goodie. I can hardly wait.
Chris
mainframetech
Apr 2, 2015, 2:45:43 PM4/2/15
to
it...:)
Chris
bigdog
Apr 2, 2015, 8:34:42 PM4/2/15
to
demand someone disprove it. That might be how it works in Conspiracyland
but we are back in the real world now. Here, the person making a claim has
the burden to support that claim. No one else has the burden of refuting
it. If you are going to take the silly position that a prosecutor needs to
prove where and accused murderer bought ammo, the burden clearly is on you
to establish that and just as clearly you are unable to do that.
> Now by just saying "rarely" you've said that you think it
> DOES occur now and then.
which doesn't indicate I believe that is done. Another cheap trick popular
with conspiracy hobbyists. Never quote a paragraph or even a whole
sentence. Just cherry pick a key word here or there and make it sound like
someone has said something completely different than what they actually
said.
> So I'll accept that you understand that in some
> trials it's a requirement, like this one.
anything I have said.
> I've given you the reasons, why
> not argue against them? Or don't you have any intelligent comments?
>
bought his ammo, you will get a response. Until then your argument is
simply dismissed as one more thing you have dreamed up out of thin air.
mainframetech
Apr 3, 2015, 4:44:25 PM4/3/15
to
attitudes of Oswald are of importance as are such in many other cases.
Because YOU have a goal of covering up evidence and anything that points
to the truth, doesn't mean that everyone else must fall into line behind
you. It has been raised that there is NO evidence whatsoever that Oswald
intended to shoot anyone with the MC rifle, and that is a legitimate
reason to inquire about the purchasing of ammunition which would NOT be
done by someone not intending to shoot anyone.
The same goes for inquiring into whether Oswald did any practicing with
the MC rifle, and the appearance is that he did not, since he never
repaired the faults the rifle had that would make aiming and rapid firing
viable.
Try as you might, that evidence will not be covered up and you'll get no
'bd' award for your efforts.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Apr 3, 2015, 6:35:13 PM4/3/15
to
> with conspiracy hobbyists. Never quote a paragraph or even a whole
> sentence. Just cherry pick a key word here or there and make it sound like
> someone has said something completely different than what they actually
> said.
>
>> So I'll accept that you understand that in some
>> trials it's a requirement, like this one.
>
> You are accepting your own deceitful argument. You are not accepting
> anything I have said.
>
bigdog
Apr 4, 2015, 9:52:34 AM4/4/15
to
he would have no idea he would be presented with that opportunity. There
is also no question he intended to shoot JFK on 11/22/63. His actions of
making a special trip to Irving to fetch the rifle and then smuggle it
into the TSBD is more than enough to establish malice aforethought. Oswald
didn't accidently shoot JFK and he didn't make a spur of the moment
decision to kill him. He carefully planned the assassination and coldly
carried it out.
> and that is a legitimate
> reason to inquire about the purchasing of ammunition which would NOT be
> done by someone not intending to shoot anyone.
>
> The same goes for inquiring into whether Oswald did any practicing with
> the MC rifle, and the appearance is that he did not, since he never
> repaired the faults the rifle had that would make aiming and rapid firing
> viable.
>
evidence as to how much he practiced which doesn't equate to evidence he
did not practice. Since logic is not your strong suit, you probably have a
hard time with that concept.
> Try as you might, that evidence will not be covered up and you'll get no
> 'bd' award for your efforts.
>
hobbyists. Since all the evidence points to Oswald and they don't want
Oswald to be guilty, they much invent excuses to dismiss the evidence.
bigdog
Apr 4, 2015, 9:53:45 AM4/4/15
to
logical position to take. In order for me to logically say this is NEVER
done, I would have to review every single gunshot murder trial and verify
that in not one single case in which a prosecutor introduced evidence as
to where the accused bought ammo. It makes far more sense based on the
fact I have never heard of a case in which that was done to simply say
"rarely if ever". But since conspiracy hobbyists are strangers to logic,
you probably are having a difficult time understanding that.
> > with conspiracy hobbyists. Never quote a paragraph or even a whole
> > sentence. Just cherry pick a key word here or there and make it sound like
> > someone has said something completely different than what they actually
> > said.
> >
> >> So I'll accept that you understand that in some
> >> trials it's a requirement, like this one.
> >
> > You are accepting your own deceitful argument. You are not accepting
> > anything I have said.
> >
>
> You have convicted yourself by your own words.
>
being as vague and elusive as possible about what I believe. I can defend
my positions and don't have to resort to your standard dodges which
everone here is all too familiar with.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 4, 2015, 9:18:02 PM4/4/15
to
just because you believe it. That's called Fascism.
> done, I would have to review every single gunshot murder trial and verify
> that in not one single case in which a prosecutor introduced evidence as
> to where the accused bought ammo. It makes far more sense based on the
You can't play the victim here.
> fact I have never heard of a case in which that was done to simply say
> "rarely if ever". But since conspiracy hobbyists are strangers to logic,
usual. Letting your bias guide you.
> you probably are having a difficult time understanding that.
>
>>> with conspiracy hobbyists. Never quote a paragraph or even a whole
>>> sentence. Just cherry pick a key word here or there and make it sound like
>>> someone has said something completely different than what they actually
>>> said.
>>>
>>>> So I'll accept that you understand that in some
>>>> trials it's a requirement, like this one.
>>>
>>> You are accepting your own deceitful argument. You are not accepting
>>> anything I have said.
>>>
>>
>> You have convicted yourself by your own words.
>>
>
> I stand by my words and I don't have to resort to your cheap trick of
> being as vague and elusive as possible about what I believe. I can defend
> my positions and don't have to resort to your standard dodges which
> everone here is all too familiar with.
>
>
around.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 4, 2015, 9:19:28 PM4/4/15
to
>> and that is a legitimate
>> reason to inquire about the purchasing of ammunition which would NOT be
>> done by someone not intending to shoot anyone.
>>
>> The same goes for inquiring into whether Oswald did any practicing with
>> the MC rifle, and the appearance is that he did not, since he never
>> repaired the faults the rifle had that would make aiming and rapid firing
>> viable.
>>
>
> There is no such appearance. That is your assumption. There is simply no
> evidence as to how much he practiced which doesn't equate to evidence he
> did not practice. Since logic is not your strong suit, you probably have a
> hard time with that concept.
>
inaccurate and defective.
>> Try as you might, that evidence will not be covered up and you'll get no
>> 'bd' award for your efforts.
>>
>
> There is no evidence that needs to be covered up except by conspiracy
> hobbyists. Since all the evidence points to Oswald and they don't want
> Oswald to be guilty, they much invent excuses to dismiss the evidence.
>
But that was leaked to us. You tried to cover up the autopsy photos, but
they were leaked to us.
And what's your response? You refuse to read the CBS memo and you refuse
to look at the autopsy photos.
mainframetech
Apr 5, 2015, 8:52:28 PM4/5/15
to
say. It doesn't matter how many trials you review, THIS is the 'trial'
we're working with, and the facts in THIS 'trial' are the ones that are in
discussion. It has been raised by me that Oswald did NOT buy ammunition,
and he did NOT practice with the MC rifle. Oswald was a non-violent
person who tried to use his head to get by, not a weapon.
As far as I can see, the various facts fit together including the ones
suggested by him buying the rifle in the first place. I've raised the
point, and I've backed it up with all that we have to back up the points
I've made. Now you can accept the conclusions I've made form the
evidence, or you can say something else happened, and try to back that up.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages