JFK's Assassination: As It Happened
David Von Pein
A PERSON AT "YOU TUBE" SAID:
>>> "It's gonna take me a few days to work through the footage you have
kindly uploaded. I will pay particular attention to the coverage of the
[JFK] assassination as it happened, as historically it only took a couple
of hours before the "whole matter" was cleared up and two days before the
truth was buried, with the lapse in security and therefore the tragic
death of Mr. LHO." <<<
DVP SAID:
The truth wasn't "buried" at all. The truth all comes out in my as-
it's-happening footage. And the "truth" is: Oswald shot JFK and almost
certainly did it alone.
In fact, a very good way to become a lone-assassin believer pretty
quickly is to watch (or listen to) the as-it's-happening coverage of
11/22/63.
When watching the raw footage from November 22nd (or listening to the
radio reports), you won't be able to come within a thousand miles of
the kind of crazy multi-gun assassination plot that features 6
gunshots (per a kook named Oliver Stone).
And you won't be able to get within a million miles of the shooting
scenario endorsed by a mega-kook named Robert J. Groden. Groden thinks
there were at least EIGHT shots fired in Dealey Plaza, and possibly as
many as TEN. Good luck finding a single 11/22/63 radio or television
report that comes even close to Groden's "10 Shots" nonsense.
www.JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/addeb5d529d1fb03
davidemerling
> In fact, a very good way to become a lone-assassin believer pretty
> quickly is to watch (or listen to) the as-it's-happening coverage of
> 11/22/63.
Another thing you rapidly learn by watching as-it-happens footage is all
the mis-reported "facts." The reporters are constantly making mistakes and
you can readily see that they are honest mistakes, a direct result of the
mass confusion and the urge to get something on- the-air without
absolutely confirming its authenticity. There is no sense that these are
sinister reporters or stooges who are being duped. It's pandemonium - and
nothing more.
Of course, years later, the conspiracy kooks thrive on all these
misstatements and read into them sinister meanings. Some of these mistakes
are even made by members of the DPD, the attorney general's office, and,
of course, witnesses. This will eventually become the fuel that runs the
conspiracy engine. We just didn't realize it at the time.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
yeuhd
> The truth wasn't "buried" at all. The truth all comes out in my as-
> it's-happening footage. And the "truth" is: Oswald shot JFK and almost
> certainly did it alone.
One surprise in the ABC News coverage is that within a half hour of
the assassination, one reporter speculated that Kennedy and Connally
were struck by the same bullet.
Robert Harris
<ed87e741-a887-4dd9...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> A PERSON AT "YOU TUBE" SAID:
>
> >>> "It's gonna take me a few days to work through the footage you have
> kindly uploaded. I will pay particular attention to the coverage of the
> [JFK] assassination as it happened, as historically it only took a couple
> of hours before the "whole matter" was cleared up and two days before the
> truth was buried, with the lapse in security and therefore the tragic
> death of Mr. LHO." <<<
>
>
> DVP SAID
>
> The truth wasn't "buried" at all. The truth all comes out in my as-
> it's-happening footage. And the "truth" is: Oswald shot JFK and almost
> certainly did it alone.
Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Downloadable files:
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7x7co2jkkg
Robert Harris
<reharris1-B0E4B...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I know you're a busy guy David, could you just give us the top two or
three?
Robert Harris
>
>
> Robert Harris
bigdog
Interesting. I have the DVD of the ABC coverage and I must have missed
that. I'll have to replay it. I also have the first 3 hours of the CBS
coverage. Several things about the coverage that I found very interesting.
One is that almost from the beginning it was thought that JFK had likely
suffered a fatal head wound. I didn't get that impression at the time
because of the way the news was announced at our school. We were simply
told that the President and governor had been shot in Texas and that both
were in serious condition. Our teacher immediately turned on the radio and
it seemed like just minutes later that the announcement came that he was
dead. I don't think it was until the WC came out that I understood that
JFK had been shot through the head and there was no chance he could have
survived the wound. I know now that the official announcement by Malcom
Kilduff stated he had been shot through the head but I never saw that
until many years later.
The other thing that struck me was how primitive TV news coverage was at
the time. The initial bulletins simply had a voice over the network logos
and after the first bulletins, CBS returned to their soap opera broadcast.
I don't think it was until the third bulletin that CBS remained on the air
with Cronkite first appearing on camera. Then there were the wire service
photos that were printed off and mounted to poster board to show to the
camera. No canned footage of the motorcade as I believe back then, news
footage had to be flown back to New York for broadcast. There was some
live video from the local affiliates in Dallas, but what the news centers
had available was precious little. Then there is the almost comical scene
of Frank McGee trying to hook up a speaker to the telephone so that Robert
MacNeil could report live to the TV audience. After several failed
attempts, McGee simply relayed MacNeil's report to the TV audience word
for word, including the announcement of JFK's death.
I believe it was on the 40th anniversary of the assassination that THC
rebroadcast all 40 hours of NBC's original coverage as it happened. I
always regretted not taping that at the time although given the shelf life
of video tape, it would probably not be any good any more. I would love to
see this put out in a boxed DVD set.
bigdog
The early reports were a classic example of "the fog of war" syndrome.
Reliable information is hard to come by in such situations and as much
misinformation as good information comes through. Fast forward to the
Reagan shooting when it was reported that Reagan had not been hit and Jim
Brady had died.
John McAdams
There was a report on 9/11 that the State Department had been hit.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
davidemerling
> Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
>
> Robert Harris
The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman. Why add more
assassins into the mix when there is no evidence to support it? The proof
is the LACK of evidence of a second party.
If you could prove to me that there was a second gunman, then how would
you respond to my challenge, "Proof that there wasn't a THIRD gunman!" My
guess is that you'd probably say, "Well, there's no evidence of a third
gunman." And if we could agree that there really was no such evidence to
support a third gunman - you would have proved your point.
The issue with regards to a second gunman is that there always seems to be
disagreements on what is valid evidence and what certain pieces of
evidence/testimony mean. For instance, a conspiracy advocate typically
will drone on, at length, about all those who heard a shot from the grassy
knoll. To them, that is PROOF of a second gunman. On the other hand, an
advocate of the single gunman viewpoint would challenge the validity of
those "observations" for reasons that the conspiracy advocate will not
accept. A stalemate results. Nothing is proved to anybody's satisfaction.
There's a REASON this thing has dragged on as long as it has.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
yeuhd
> On Sep 12, 10:59 am, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One surprise in the ABC News coverage is that within a half hour of
> > the assassination, one reporter speculated that Kennedy and Connally
> > were struck by the same bullet.
>
> Interesting. I have the DVD of the ABC coverage and I must have missed
> that. I'll have to replay it.
> The other thing that struck me was how primitive TV news coverage was at
> the time.
In the ABC News coverage, the set is literally being assembled on the
air behind the reporter as stands in the bare studio addressing the
camera.
> No canned footage of the motorcade as I believe back then, news
> footage had to be flown back to New York for broadcast.
No, it didn't have to be flown to New York. The news departments of the
local affiliates shot and processed 16 mm footage on a daily basis; it
could be on the air within an hour of it being photographed. On the
afternoon of the assassination, ABC News showed motorcade footage taken by
WFAA cameraman Mal Couch, and NBC News showed motorcade footage taken by
Dave Wiegman.
slats
news:ccb5fa67-1562-4af5...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 12, 10:55?am, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which brings to mind Frank Reynolds' famous blowup. Wikipedia:
One infamous moment in Reynolds' career occurred on March 30, 1981 during
live news coverage of the assassination attempt on U.S. President Ronald
Reagan. White House Press Secretary James Brady, a close friend of
Reynolds, had been erroneously reported by all three networks as having
died from the head wound he suffered in the incident, and, further, they
reported that Reagan had not been struck at all. Upon learning that the
information was incorrect, Reynolds suddenly appeared noticeably upset
and, looking around at staffers in the background, angrily burst out:
"Let's get it nailed down...somebody...let's find out! Let's get it
straight so we can report this thing accurately!"
The network quickly moved to a break and upon return, Ted Koppel was
seated next to Reynolds to share anchor duties and, perhaps, be a calming
influence on his clearly agitated co-worker. It was one of the few times
in television history that viewers witnessed an otherwise professional
veteran anchor become angry on air. Reynolds nonetheless emerged from the
incident with his reputation unscathed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reynolds kerfuffle can be viewed at the 4:30 mark of this tribute
video:
John McAdams
Angrily demanding that the facts be sorted out so they can be reported
accurately isn't exactly shameful for somebody purporting to be a
journalist.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
<c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
Really?
How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
Are you clairvoyant??
Robert Harris
bigdog
>
I witnesses Frank Reynolds blow up since ABC was the network we had on at
work and I understood Reynolds' frustration. Here was a professional
broadcast journalist who was being conflicted on air by the demand for
instant information and a reporter's natural instinct to get the story
right before reporting it. I remember it like it was yesterday when
Reynolds learned that Reagan had been shot and I think his exact words
were, "Oh my God, he was hit". Then came the news that Jim Brady had not
died. I really think Reynolds handled a very difficult situation well.
Sadly, I believe Reynolds died from cancer a few years later.
bigdog
> In article
> <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
>
> Really?
>
> How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
>
> You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
>
> Are you clairvoyant??
>
> Robert Harris
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years, no one has
produced any credible evidence of a second gunman. Theoretically, it is
possible such evidence exists but has not yet been discovered.
Realistically, the odds of such evidence surfacing after so long a time
becomes increasingly remote with each passing year.
yeuhd
> No canned footage of the motorcade as I believe back then, news
> footage had to be flown back to New York for broadcast.
NBC News picks up from WBAP-TV, Fort Worth, with unedited Dave Wiegman
footage of the motorcade, circa 2:50 p.m. CT (3:50 p.m. ET) Nov. 22.
davidemerling
> In article
> <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
>
> Really?
>
> How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
>
> You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
>
> Are you clairvoyant??
>
> Robert Harris
It's not an issue of clairvoyance. What the heck does that have to do with
anything?
Don't pull you arm out of its socket patting yourself on the back, Bob. I
have read/viewed better conspiratorial arguments than those presented by
you. You're hardly at the tip of the conspiratorial spear. I find your
videos interesting and I respect your efforts, but I have never found them
compelling. And the reason I don't is because of the MOUNTAIN of evidence
that tells us what happened. You just nitpick away at minutia that never
seems to add up to anything or go anywhere. There's a lot of speculation
in your work - things you accept as facts.
Yet, I guess the real issue is that you and I have a different world view.
I confess to being biased toward the notion that things are generally just
as they seem to be. Oh sure, time and again, I'm a bit surprised how
things take an unexpected turn -or- they end up NOT being as I originally
thought. But those are usually isolated instances. The case for Oswald's
guilt does not hinge on any isolated piece of evidence. There are MANY
things that point toward his guilt and I have NEVER heard/read a
compelling argument that Oswald was being manipulated by dark forces. I
have NEVER heard/read a compelling argument for a second gunman.
Oh, believe me, I used to believe in a lot of that crap a long time ago.
But I continued reading, did some of my own research, listened to people
much smarter than myself on certain issues, and I'm now convinced that
Oswald acted alone. I've been convinced of that for quite a while now. I
found it within me to look myself in the mirror one day and say three
simple words, "I am wrong."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
<b5bba800-1f18-4f53...@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 10:44?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ?davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
> >
> > You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
> >
> > Are you clairvoyant??
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> It's not an issue of clairvoyance. What the heck does that have to do with
> anything?
Let me answer that question for you in detail, David. You stated,
"The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman."
The fact that you deleted that statement before asking me what this has to
do with anything, suggests that you already knew the answer, but I will
elaborate for you.
I would like to know how you confirmed that there was no such evidence,
especially since you have refused to examine evidence which proves exactly
that.
Before we address your insults, why don't you answer this very simple
question?
Please be very specific.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<3484dce5-0baf-4d6f...@o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:44�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
> >
> > You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
> >
> > Are you clairvoyant??
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years, no one has
> produced any credible evidence of a second gunman.
Really?
I have posted videos which prove exactly that and after 1.5 million
viewers, they have gotten an average of almost 100% approval.
Now, I am sure that you will be eager to tell us that all those people
were gullible fools, whom I conned, but will you explain to us why you
and your partners are totally unable to post rebuttals, proving me
wrong??
Can you explain why you cannot even try??
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<reharris1-FCBFD...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, David, I don't want to embarass you so let's lower the bar even
more. Can you produce just ONE piece of evidence that proves Oswald
acted alone??
Surely, you can come up with just one, to support the absolute certainty
you are claiming.
Can't you do that David??
Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 12, 11:44 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
>>>> seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
>>>> Robert Harris
>>> The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
>> Really?
>>
>> How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
>>
>> You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
>>
>> Are you clairvoyant??
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years, no one has
> produced any credible evidence of a second gunman. Theoretically, it is
Perhaps if would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years you have
never looked at the evidence in this case.
Anthony Marsh
Funny, I think I was instantly on the phone with Bob Cutler and told him
that Reagan had been wounded by a bullet which ricocheted off the car
frame. Luckily that flattened the bullet without causing it to explode.
But it did come very close to his heart.
Robert
BigCon, the BODY showed there was a second gunmAn, and YOU FORGOT TO
MENTION YOU NEVER PROVED LHO WAS THE FIRST GUNMAN!
davidemerling
> I would like to know how you confirmed that there was no such evidence,
> especially since you have refused to examine evidence which proves exactly
> that.
You're asking me how I KNOW, for sure, that something does NOT exist?
I'm a rational person. I have examined the evidence in this case - even
the evidence/testimony that seems out of place and does not fit neatly
into the lone gunman viewpoint. But, being a rational person, I understand
that everything does not always fit together neatly and that there will
always be things that can never be known with certainty; nonetheless,
rational conclusions can still be drawn. Instead of hyper-focusing on the
outlying oddities of the case (which are inevitable), I take a step back
and query my own common sense. What happened? What is all this telling me?
It tells me that Lee Oswald shot his rifle at our 35th president and
killed him.
Were there other shooters? I don't see any compelling evidence of it. The
medical evidence does not support it. The physical evidence does not
support it. And the bulk of the witness testimony does not support it.
> Before we address your insults, why don't you answer this very simple
> question?
It seems you feel personally insulted whenever anybody simply disagrees
with your conclusions and the methods you use to draw your conclusions. To
YOU, that's the equivalent to name-calling. You're going to have to
develop some thicker skin.
> Please be very specific.
You want me to be specific about the evidence that I think does NOT
exist?
Am I the only one who thinks that this is a silly question?
The better approach is for you to tell me the evidence that you think DOES
exist and THEN we could have a discussion. But my confidence is low that
any new revelations or breakthroughs will emerge from that. I all
likelihood, we're just going to disagree what is valid and compelling.
What you think is evidence - I will probably disagree with. Haven't you
been doing this long enough to understand why there are two camps in this
debate? It really comes down to different standards of what we find
compelling. You'll probably come up with somebody who said, "such and
such" and then I'll say that he is wrong because there is so much that
contradicts those observations. I might even say, "Then why did he wait
15-yrs to say that?" And then you'll say that he feared for his life. And
we go 'round and 'round in circles.
Or, you might show me a photograph that you interpret in a certain way.
I'll challenge your interpretation by stating that countless experts have
seen that photograph and did NOT draw that conclusion. Then, maybe, you'll
cite a few "experts" who have challenged their conclusions. I'll say my
experts are better than yours. You'll probably claim that "my" experts
were participating in a cover-up. And here we go again ...
On the other hand, I can tell you the evidence that EXISTS that indicates
Oswald DID it. But I doubt you really want to hear that because you've
heard it all before. If I recall, I think we would probably agree with
much of that.
I don't know where to begin with regards to evidence that does NOT exist
with regards to the lack of a 2nd gunman.
I also cannot prove that aliens did not kill Kennedy. I'm very confident
they did not. But I wouldn't know how to begin to PROVE it to someone who
insists that aliens DID kill Kennedy. I would be more interested in
hearing THEIR evidence.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> Ok, David, I don't want to embarass you so let's lower the bar even
> more. Can you produce just ONE piece of evidence that proves Oswald
> acted alone??
That's the same question as "Can you prove that there wasn't somebody
in addition to Oswald shooting at the motorcade?"
Rewording it doesn't change anything. You're still asking me to prove
a negative.
Oh, what the hell ... I'll play!
Hmmm ...
Let's start with a few easy items:
I think Oswald was the lone gunman because every bullet and fragment
recovered was consistent with Oswald's rifle.
I think Oswald was the lone gunman because nobody saw another gunman.
I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the trajectories, as
determined by the autopsy, are all consistent with being shot from one
direction.
I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
witnesses heard shots from only behind.
I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
witnesses heard only three shots - the exact number of expended shells
lying on the floor in the sniper's nest.
I think Oswald was the lone gunman because there is no compelling
evidence that Oswald had an accomplice, either PRIOR to the
assassination or AFTER the assassination.
I think Oswald was the lone gunman because I found it convincing that
people smarter than me, who specifically addressed this issue, found
nothing compelling to suggest a second gunman.
* * * * *
It's not just one of these things - it's their totality.
There's probably more, these are just off the top of my head.
Have fun, Bob! I'm sure this will give you many moments of pleasure.
You have somebody to play with!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <3484dce5-0baf-4d6f...@o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 12, 11:44 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
>>>>> seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
>>>>> Robert Harris
>>>> The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
>>>
>>> You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
>>>
>>> Are you clairvoyant??
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years, no one has
>> produced any credible evidence of a second gunman.
>
> Really?
>
> I have posted videos which prove exactly that and after 1.5 million
> viewers, they have gotten an average of almost 100% approval.
>
Stop patting you on your own back. Only people who are predisposed to
believing any conspiracy theory have bothered to look at your videos and
agreed with you. Are you including the videos which you recently
admitted were lies and which you took down?
> Now, I am sure that you will be eager to tell us that all those people
> were gullible fools, whom I conned, but will you explain to us why you
> and your partners are totally unable to post rebuttals, proving me
> wrong??
>
> Can you explain why you cannot even try??
>
Because it is not worth the effort to tell you exactly the same thing a
million time. It doesn't get through your skull.
bigdog
>
> > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years, no one has
> > produced any credible evidence of a second gunman.
>
> Really?
>
> I have posted videos which prove exactly that and after 1.5 million
> viewers, they have gotten an average of almost 100% approval.
>
Nothing like preaching to the choir.
yeuhd
> BigCon, the BODY showed there was a second gunmAn, and YOU FORGOT TO
> MENTION YOU NEVER PROVED LHO WAS THE FIRST GUNMAN!
Vincent Bugliosi spelled it out well, giving 53 pieces of evidence of
Oswald's guilt. Among them:
35. A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, 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 but 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.
34. Firearms identification experts from the Warren Commission and the
HSCA concluded that two large bullet fragments found in the presidential
limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Likewise, the firearms experts found that
the whole bullet recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, believed
to be the stretcher Governor Connally was on, was fired from Oswald's
rifle to the exclusion of all others.
35. Firearms experts determined that the three expended cartridge shells
found on the floor beneath the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository Building were fired in and ejected from Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
So we know, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, that
Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon, the weapon that fired the bullets
that struck down the thirty-fifth president of the United States. If there
were no other evidence against Oswald, the fact that the murder weapon
belonged to him, and that there was no evidence or even likelihood that
anyone else had come into possession of the weapon, would be devastating
evidence of his guilt.
Robert Harris
<d6da4a61-0608-4eab...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 8:36?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to know how you confirmed that there was no such evidence,
> > especially since you have refused to examine evidence which proves exactly
> > that.
>
> You're asking me how I KNOW, for sure, that something does NOT exist?
Yes, David. And why do you continually, delete your own statement?
"The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman."
>
> I'm a rational person.
David, would you mind answering the question?
> I have examined the evidence in this case - even
> the evidence/testimony that seems out of place and does not fit neatly
> into the lone gunman viewpoint. But, being a rational person, I understand
> that everything does not always fit together neatly and that there will
> always be things that can never be known with certainty; nonetheless,
> rational conclusions can still be drawn. Instead of hyper-focusing on the
> outlying oddities of the case (which are inevitable), I take a step back
> and query my own common sense. What happened? What is all this telling me?
That's nice, David. Here is what you said,
"The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman."
Please explain how you confirmed that there is no evidence of a second
gunman.
>
> It tells me that Lee Oswald shot his rifle at our 35th president and
> killed him.
David, I am please that the evidence is telling you things, because in
the last dozen messages you have addressed to me, you have failed to
cite a single piece of evidence. You only present vague, sweeping
generalizations.
>
> Were there other shooters? I don't see any compelling evidence of it.
Of course not, especially since you usually refuse to examine evidence
that contradicts your theory.
But David, when do you intend to answer my question?
Please tell us how you confirmed that Oswald acted alone.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Ok, David, I don't want to embarass you[,] so let's lower the bar
acted alone??" <<<
You're being silly now, Bob. And you're turning logic on its head (as all
CTers always do).
I.E.,
Bob is saying (apparently) that since all of the evidence points to ONE
single individual named Oswald -- and, of course, it does -- this somehow
indicates that it's likely that MORE than just the one individual named
Oswald was involved in the President's murder.
This is the (il)logic of the CT world (at least here at the aaj/acj fora).
So, to answer your very, very silly inquiry, Bob --- EVERY single piece of
evidence in the whole case is evidence that indicates that Oswald acted
ALONE.
Why?
Because every one of those pieces of evidence leads straight to only ONE
person--Oswald.
(Why does this even need to be uttered, Bob? Isn't this the most basic of
elementary stuff here?)
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 14, 10:54 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, David, I don't want to embarass you so let's lower the bar even
>> more. Can you produce just ONE piece of evidence that proves Oswald
>> acted alone??
>
> That's the same question as "Can you prove that there wasn't somebody
> in addition to Oswald shooting at the motorcade?"
>
> Rewording it doesn't change anything. You're still asking me to prove
> a negative.
>
> Oh, what the hell ... I'll play!
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> Let's start with a few easy items:
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because every bullet and fragment
> recovered was consistent with Oswald's rifle.
>
Tell me where the missed shot went and show me that bullet.
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because nobody saw another gunman.
>
So, by your logic if no one saw the gunman there was no gunman?
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the trajectories, as
> determined by the autopsy, are all consistent with being shot from one
> direction.
>
It depends on which theory you are talking about. No SBT has worked yet.
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
> witnesses heard shots from only behind.
>
Wrong. More people thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. So
therefore by your logic this proves that the shots came from the grassy
knoll.
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
> witnesses heard only three shots - the exact number of expended shells
> lying on the floor in the sniper's nest.
>
Wow, and the acoustical evidence PROVES that exactly three shots were
fired from the sniper's nest. What an amazing coincidence.
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because there is no compelling
> evidence that Oswald had an accomplice, either PRIOR to the
> assassination or AFTER the assassination.
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because I found it convincing that
> people smarter than me, who specifically addressed this issue, found
> nothing compelling to suggest a second gunman.
>
By people smarter than you should we assume that means the top acoustical
scientists in the world who found evidence of a second gunman? You are
going to match them PhD for PhD?
> * * * * *
>
> It's not just one of these things - it's their totality.
>
> There's probably more, these are just off the top of my head.
>
What? You're not going to include the fact that Oswald was left-handed?
Or that he beat up his wife?
Slacker!
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 13, 8:36 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to know how you confirmed that there was no such evidence,
>> especially since you have refused to examine evidence which proves exactly
>> that.
>
> You're asking me how I KNOW, for sure, that something does NOT exist?
>
> I'm a rational person. I have examined the evidence in this case - even
If you are going to develop a logical argument, it might help if you
could start with a valid premise. You reach false conclusions when you
start with false premises.
> the evidence/testimony that seems out of place and does not fit neatly
> into the lone gunman viewpoint. But, being a rational person, I understand
> that everything does not always fit together neatly and that there will
> always be things that can never be known with certainty; nonetheless,
> rational conclusions can still be drawn. Instead of hyper-focusing on the
> outlying oddities of the case (which are inevitable), I take a step back
> and query my own common sense. What happened? What is all this telling me?
>
> It tells me that Lee Oswald shot his rifle at our 35th president and
> killed him.
>
> Were there other shooters? I don't see any compelling evidence of it. The
> medical evidence does not support it. The physical evidence does not
> support it. And the bulk of the witness testimony does not support it.
>
You constantly misrepresent the evidence.
Oh, you mean like the Betzner and Willis photos which your fellow WC
defenders does not show a figure we call the Black Dog Man? And they say
it is a tree trunk? Or the Moorman photo which you can not admit shows a
person behind the fence?
davidemerling
> > I think Oswald was the lone gunman because nobody saw another gunman.
>
> So, by your logic if no one saw the gunman there was no gunman?
Don't be silly, Tony. The FACT is that nobody saw another gunman. Does
that, in itself, PROVE that there wasn't a another gunman - of course not!
But it is certainly a critical piece of the tapestry - wouldn't you agree?
> > I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the trajectories, as
> > determined by the autopsy, are all consistent with being shot from one
> > direction.
>
> It depends on which theory you are talking about. No SBT has worked yet.
CE903 seems to work pretty well, wouldn't you agree? And it is
completely consistent with the autopsy photos.
What do you find faulty with the trajectory depicted in CE903?
>
> > I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
> > witnesses heard shots from only behind.
>
> Wrong. More people thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. So
> therefore by your logic this proves that the shots came from the grassy
> knoll.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I dispute
your claim.
> > I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
> > witnesses heard only three shots - the exact number of expended shells
> > lying on the floor in the sniper's nest.
>
> Wow, and the acoustical evidence PROVES that exactly three shots were
> fired from the sniper's nest. What an amazing coincidence.
OK - good. So we're in agreement on this point. Three shots were fired
from the sniper's nest.
> > I think Oswald was the lone gunman because I found it convincing that
> > people smarter than me, who specifically addressed this issue, found
> > nothing compelling to suggest a second gunman.
>
> By people smarter than you should we assume that means the top acoustical
> scientists in the world who found evidence of a second gunman? You are
> going to match them PhD for PhD?
Apparently some acoustical experts are better than others. Just like some
athletes are better than others.
What's your point? Are you saying that subsequent analysis of the
acoustical data did NOT invalidate the original study? Should this be our
new topic? I'd be quite pleased to debate you on the acoustical analysis
and, yes, I *will* borrow information from the people who are both smarter
than Bolt, Beranek and Newman *and* me.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David Von Pein
>>> "What do you [Anthony Marsh] find faulty with the trajectory depicted
in CE903?" <<<
Oh Lord, David! Don't get Tony Marsh started on CE903 again! It's a
downright howl when he starts in on that!
Tony evidently thinks that Arlen Specter shouild have impaled the JFK
stand-in with the metal rod that is seen in CE903, so that the rod could
then have been placed THROUGH the MIDDLE part of the stand-in's back.
This, of course, WOULD have been the ideal thing to do for Mr. Specter and
the Warren Commission in CE903.
But, since Specter didn't feel like murdering a human being by driving a
metal rod through his body, then Specter had to settle for the next best
thing, which is just what we find in CE903, which is a WC exhibit that
provides excellent support (of a demonstrative and photographic nature)
that the Single-Bullet Theory WORKS.
If Specter's rod were to be moved a little to the LEFT of where we see it
in CE903 (to the "left", that is, from Specter's POV), it would place the
bullet entry wound in the middle portion of the UPPER BACK of the JFK
stand-in (not the "neck" of the stand-in), proving that the WC did not
require the entry wound in Kennedy's upper back to be "moved" up into the
"neck" in order for the SBT to work.
Robert
> On Sep 14, 3:47 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > BigCon, the BODY showed there was a second gunmAn, and YOU FORGOT TO
> > MENTION YOU NEVER PROVED LHO WAS THE FIRST GUNMAN!
>
> On Sep 14, 3:47 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > BigCon, the BODY showed there was a second gunmAn, and YOU FORGOT TO
> > MENTION YOU NEVER PROVED LHO WAS THE FIRST GUNMAN!
>
> Vincent Bugliosi spelled it out well, giving 53 pieces of evidence of
> Oswald's guilt. Among them:
Oh boy, we can't ever discuss this case WITHOUT MENTIONING Bugliosi!
> 35. A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, 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.
Show us how this is common with such a SMALL sample. The note to
"Hunt" had a much larger sample and you LNers deny it was LHO's hand.
> And the seller
> shipped the rifle to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.
They did?? Where is your evidence for this? I ask because the WC
failed to give it to us. Also, what type of rifle was shipped
allegedly? I mean ALL the evidence the WC gave us points to a 36"
Carbine, NOT a 40" Carcano short rifle.
> So Oswald owned
> the Carcano.
He did??? Where is the evidence for this? And, WHICH rifle are we
discussing?
> 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.
First of all, the rifle in those supposed BY photos is NOT the same
one found in the TSBD. Secondly, there are numerous issues showing
the photos are probably faked and none jumps out more for me than the
chin -- it simply was NOT the type of chin he had.
Show us the chain of custody for the palmprint. Then explain how
Latona said the rifle was NEVER processed and he saw NO indication of
a lift.
> So, we know that Oswald not only owned but possessed the subject rifle.
We do??? ALL I see are bunch of claims, but NO evidence supporting
them.
> 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.
And those could NOT be matched to the alleged blanket in the Paine's
garage so all you have is a claim again.
> 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.
But he was NOT wearing that shirt at the TSBD at the time of the
shooting, so explain for us how the shirt fibers got on the alleged
murder weapon when HE LEFT IT BACK AT THE TSBD!
> Though such fibers
> could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the
> prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt.
The probablity it did NOT come from his shirt is just as equal, and
the point is -- he was NOT wearing that shirt at the time of the
assassination anyway.
> 34. Firearms identification experts from the Warren Commission and the
> HSCA concluded that two large bullet fragments found in the presidential
> limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle to the
> exclusion of all other weapons.
So? What does this prove? Where they linked to either victim in the
limo? What is the chain of custody for these two limo fragments
anyway? Also, the rifle found in the TSBD was NEVER linked to LHO in
any way, so to say it was linked to the rifle found, thus it was
linked to LHO, is NOT true.
> Likewise, the firearms experts found that
> the whole bullet recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, believed
> to be the stretcher Governor Connally was on, was fired from Oswald's
> rifle to the exclusion of all others.
Ditto.
> 35. Firearms experts determined that the three expended cartridge shells
> found on the floor beneath the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor
> of the Book Depository Building were fired in and ejected from Oswald's
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
YOU again or applying ownership when NONE has been proven. Also, who
is your witness for LHO firing from there again?
> So we know, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, that
> Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon, the weapon that fired the bullets
> that struck down the thirty-fifth president of the United States.
We know NO such thing as all you gave us, as ALL LNers give us, is a
bunch of claims, speculaton and assertions with NO evidence supporting
it.
> If there
> were no other evidence against Oswald, the fact that the murder weapon
> belonged to him, and that there was no evidence or even likelihood that
> anyone else had come into possession of the weapon, would be devastating
> evidence of his guilt.
LOL!! Even if you proved he owned it, and you can't, how does that
prove he took it to work on 11/22/63 and fired three shots at JFK at
12:30 PM CST?????
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 14, 9:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because nobody saw another gunman.
>> So, by your logic if no one saw the gunman there was no gunman?
>
> Don't be silly, Tony. The FACT is that nobody saw another gunman. Does
> that, in itself, PROVE that there wasn't a another gunman - of course not!
> But it is certainly a critical piece of the tapestry - wouldn't you agree?
No.
>
>>> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the trajectories, as
>>> determined by the autopsy, are all consistent with being shot from one
>>> direction.
>> It depends on which theory you are talking about. No SBT has worked yet.
>
> CE903 seems to work pretty well, wouldn't you agree? And it is
> completely consistent with the autopsy photos.
It works very well to prove the SBT impossible.
>
> What do you find faulty with the trajectory depicted in CE903?
The rod is ABOVE where Kennedy's back wound was.
>
>>> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
>>> witnesses heard shots from only behind.
>> Wrong. More people thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. So
>> therefore by your logic this proves that the shots came from the grassy
>> knoll.
>
> Then we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I dispute
> your claim.
Six Seconds in Dallas.
>
>>> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
>>> witnesses heard only three shots - the exact number of expended shells
>>> lying on the floor in the sniper's nest.
>> Wow, and the acoustical evidence PROVES that exactly three shots were
>> fired from the sniper's nest. What an amazing coincidence.
>
> OK - good. So we're in agreement on this point. Three shots were fired
> from the sniper's nest.
>
Yes, and it confirms the accuracy of the acoustical analysis. Pinpoints
the location of the rifle to a foot.
>>> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because I found it convincing that
>>> people smarter than me, who specifically addressed this issue, found
>>> nothing compelling to suggest a second gunman.
>> By people smarter than you should we assume that means the top acoustical
>> scientists in the world who found evidence of a second gunman? You are
>> going to match them PhD for PhD?
>
> Apparently some acoustical experts are better than others. Just like some
> athletes are better than others.
>
The HSCA asked the AJA for the BEST acoustical scientists in the world
and got them.
> What's your point? Are you saying that subsequent analysis of the
> acoustical data did NOT invalidate the original study? Should this be our
> new topic? I'd be quite pleased to debate you on the acoustical analysis
> and, yes, I *will* borrow information from the people who are both smarter
> than Bolt, Beranek and Newman *and* me.
>
Have at it. You won't find any acoustical experts smarter than BBN and
W&A. You may find some CIA hacks or Geologists.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
bigdog
Robert, go over to acj where I gave this claim of yours the response it
deserved. I couldn't do it on this forum and stay within the guidelines.
David Von Pein
>>> "I [Robert "Z285" Harris] am quite sure that I did not suggest that
all evidence points to "one single individual named Oswald"." <<<
Of course you didn't. It was I [DVP] who suggested that. And that's
because it's a fact. Like it or not.
>>> "And in fact, there is a vast quantity of evidence which proves
exactly the opposite." <<<
Only in the subjective minds of conspiracy seekers, Bob. Nowhere else.
But to a person who has the capability of assessing the TOTALITY of the
evidence (with this "totality" including NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE anywhere
other than stuff that is screaming "OSWALD"), the conclusions that must be
reached are the following ones:
1.) Lee Oswald killed JFK....and Oswald very, very likely did it alone
(with no help from anybody else).
2.) Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit....and Oswald absolutely, positively did
it alone.
3.) Jack Ruby killed Lee Oswald....and Ruby absolutely, positively did it
alone.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "What do you [Anthony Marsh] find faulty with the trajectory depicted
> in CE903?" <<<
>
> Oh Lord, David! Don't get Tony Marsh started on CE903 again! It's a
> downright howl when he starts in on that!
>
> Tony evidently thinks that Arlen Specter shouild have impaled the JFK
> stand-in with the metal rod that is seen in CE903, so that the rod could
> then have been placed THROUGH the MIDDLE part of the stand-in's back.
>
I think he shouldn't have done it in the first place. Simple lie,
obvious propaganda.
> This, of course, WOULD have been the ideal thing to do for Mr. Specter and
> the Warren Commission in CE903.
>
> But, since Specter didn't feel like murdering a human being by driving a
> metal rod through his body, then Specter had to settle for the next best
Who says it would murder the man? The SBT supposedly missed Kennedy's
heart and did not kill HIM.
> thing, which is just what we find in CE903, which is a WC exhibit that
> provides excellent support (of a demonstrative and photographic nature)
> that the Single-Bullet Theory WORKS.
>
> If Specter's rod were to be moved a little to the LEFT of where we see it
> in CE903 (to the "left", that is, from Specter's POV), it would place the
> bullet entry wound in the middle portion of the UPPER BACK of the JFK
> stand-in (not the "neck" of the stand-in), proving that the WC did not
> require the entry wound in Kennedy's upper back to be "moved" up into the
> "neck" in order for the SBT to work.
>
Huh? If you object to skewering the FBI standin then Specter has to put
the rod some place other than through the point where the bullet actually
hit. So then you put it to the right of the actual location or above the
actual location or both.
No matter what you choose it is a misrepresentation.
yeuhd
> > Vincent Bugliosi spelled it out well, giving 53 pieces of evidence of
> > Oswald's guilt. Among them:
>
> Oh boy, we can't ever discuss this case WITHOUT MENTIONING Bugliosi!
>
> > 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.
>
> Show us how this is common with such a SMALL sample. The note to
> "Hunt" had a much larger sample and you LNers deny it was LHO's hand.
>
> > And the seller
> > shipped the rifle to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.
>
> They did?? Where is your evidence for this? I ask because the WC
> failed to give it to us. Also, what type of rifle was shipped
> allegedly? I mean ALL the evidence the WC gave us points to a 36"
> Carbine, NOT a 40" Carcano short rifle.
The Carcano *is* an Italian carbine.
From the Warren Report, Chapter 4:
Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository Building, agents of the FBI learned from
retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City,
was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles.
During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of the records of
Crescent Firearms revealed that the firm had shipped an Italian carbine,
serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., of Chicago, Ill.
Affidavit of Louis Feldsott:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=45&relPageId=215
After searching their records from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. the officers of
Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing serial number C2766 had been
shipped to one A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex., on March 20,
1963.
Testimony of William J. Waldman:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=17974
Testimony of Mitchell J. Scibor:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=17980
Klein's order blank indicating the order:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143127
According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a
rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963
issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed,
in handprinting, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas."
Photograph of a mail order for a rifle in the name "A. Hidell," and
the envelope in which it was sent:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139461
It was sent in an envelope bearing the same name and return address in
handwriting. Document examiners for the Treasury Department and the FBI
testified unequivocally that the bold printing on the face of the
mail-order coupon was in the handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald and that
the writing on the envelope was also his.
Testimony of James C. Cadigan:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=430
Testimony of Alwyn Cole:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13581
According to the vice president of Klein's, William Waldman, the scope
was mounted on the rifle by a gunsmith employed by Klein's, and the
rifle was shipped fully assembled in accordance with customary company
procedures.
Testimony of William J. Waldman:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=376
Klein's order blank indicating the order:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143127
FBI report of interview of Mitchell Scibor at Chicago, Dec. 9, 1963:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1142&relPageId=473
The specific rifle shipped against the order had been received by
Klein's from Crescent on February 21, 1963. It bore the manufacturer's
serial number C2766. On that date, Klein's placed an internal control
number VC836 on this rifle.
Testimony of William J. Waldman:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=375
Klein's order blank indicating the order:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143127
Envelope postmarked March 12, 1963:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143128
Photograph of a mail order for a rifle in the name "A. Hidell," and
the envelope in which it was sent:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139461
U.S. postal money order which accompanied the mail order:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139503
According to Klein's shipping order form, one Italian carbine 6.5 X-4
x scope, control number VC836, serial number C2766, was shipped parcel
post to "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas," on March 20, 1963.
Testimony of William J. Waldman:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=371
Purchase order from Klein's Sporting Goods to Crescent Firearms:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143116
Handwritten list of serial numbers of rifles shipped:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143118
List of control numbers of Carcano 6.5-caliber rifles:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143123
Information received from the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence
Service has established that this particular rifle was the only rifle
of its type bearing serial number C2766.
Klein's order blank indicating the order:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143127
FBI memorandum dated March 17, 1964, concerning identification of
rifle owned bv Lee Harvey Oswald:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144201
The post office box to which the rifle was shipped was rented to "Lee
H. Oswald" from October 9, 1962, to May 14, 1963.
Change of address card for Lee Harvey Oswald, dated Oct. 11, 1963:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141738
Undated portion of an application for post office box 6225 and a
portion of an application for post office box 2915:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141054
Testimony of Harry D. Holmes:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=305
FBI report dated July 7, 1964, at Dallas, Tex., re tracing of various
items of physical evidence:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=437
Experts on handwriting identification from the Treasury Department and
the FBI testified that the signature and other writing on the
application for that box were in the handwriting of Lee Harvey
Oswald,
Testimony of Alwyn Cole:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13585
Portion of an application for Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.,
dated Oct. 9, 1962:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139505
as was a change-of-address card dated May 12, 1963,
Testimony of Alwyn Cole:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13587
Testimony of James C. Cadigan:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=18035
Change of address card relating to Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139506
by which Oswald requested that mail addressed to that box be forwarded
to him in New Orleans, where he had moved on April 24.
Testimony of Ruth Paine:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=16065
Testimony of Marina Oswald:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=15030
Since the rifle was shipped from Chicago on March 20, 1963, it was
received in Dallas during the period when Oswald rented and used the
box.
> First of all, the rifle in those supposed BY photos is NOT the same
> one found in the TSBD. Secondly, there are numerous issues showing
> the photos are probably faked and none jumps out more for me than the
> chin -- it simply was NOT the type of chin he had.
Marina Oswald said in 1964, again in 1969, again in 1977, again in 1978,
again in 1996, and again in 2000 that she took the photographs at the
request of her husband, and that they are authentic. The HSCA photographic
panel examined all three existing photographs and declared that they are
authentic. I will take their word over yours.
> > 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.
>
> And those could NOT be matched to the alleged blanket in the Paine's
> garage so all you have is a claim again.
No one is alleging the fibers in the crevice between the butt plate
and the wooden stock *were* blanket fibers. So what are you talking
about?
> > 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.
>
> But he was NOT wearing that shirt at the TSBD at the time of the
> shooting,
Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History", endnotes, p. 458n:
There is no unanimity as to what type or color of shirt Oswald was wearing
*at the time* of the assassination, as opposed to when he was arrested.
For example, when shown Commission Exhibit No. 150 (a rust brown
long-sleeved shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest) by
Commission counsel, Marina Oswald testified, “I *think* he wore this
shirt” when he came out to Irving on Thursday night, and said he was
wearing it on the morning of the assassination. However, before she was
shown Exhibit No. 150 she said she did not remember what he was wearing on
the morning of the assassination. (1 H 121–122; picture of shirt: CE
150, 16 H 515; wearing at time of arrest: 15 H 694, WCT Lyndal L.
Shaneyfelt) When shown Commission Exhibit No. 150, Wesley Frazier, who
drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination, told the
Commission he had never seen Oswald wear that shirt (2 H 238). Officer
Marrion Baker, who confronted Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom right
after the shooting, told the Commission he believed Oswald was wearing
Exhibit No. 150, then quickly added, “I wouldn’t be sure of that”
and, in an imprecise answer that was further induced by terribly sloppy
questioning by Commission counsel, seemed to say he felt that Oswald’s
shirt was a lighter brown than the Commission exhibit (3 H 257). Cabdriver
William Whaley said Exhibit No. 150 was the shirt worn by the man he drove
in his taxi (2 H 259).
Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper at Oswald’s rooming house, told the
Commission that when Oswald came back to the rooming house at around 1:00
p.m. that day, “I couldn’t tell you whether it was a long- sleeved
shirt [he was wearing] or what color it was or nothing” (6 H 439). Per
FBI agent James W. Bookhout, Oswald himself told Captain Will Fritz that
when he went back to the rooming house he changed his shirt and trousers
because they were dirty (WR, p.622, Report of FBI agent James W.
Bookhout). In Captain Fritz’s report of the interview he only mentions
Oswald saying he changed his trousers (WR, p.601). However, in Captain
Fritz’s handwritten notes taken at the very time of the interview, he
wrote, “at Apt. changed shirt+ tr. Put in dirty clothes—long sleeve
red sh + gray tr.” And we do have the testimony of Officer Marrion
Baker, who was asked by Warren Commission commissioner Allen Dulles, “Do
you recall whether or not [Oswald] was wearing the same clothes . . . when
you saw him in the police station [after his arrest] as when you saw him
in the lunchroom?” and said he didn’t think he was (3 H 262–263).
Strong evidence that Oswald was wearing the same shirt at the time of his
arrest as at the time he shot Kennedy is the Warren Commission testimony
of Mary E. Bledsoe, Oswald’s former landlady, who identified Exhibit No.
150 as being the shirt she saw Oswald wearing on the Marsalis bus,
remembering the shirt being brown, but mostly identifying it because of a
hole in the right elbow area, which Exhibit No. 150 has (6 H 409, 413).
Earlier, when the FBI first showed Mrs. Bledsoe the shirt, she said,
“No, no. That is not the shirt” Oswald was wearing. But the FBI report
of the December 4, 1963, interview by Special Agents Carl Brown and Robert
Butler goes on to say, “She then inquired as to whether the shirt had a
ragged elbow. Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole
in the right elbow of the shirt, at which time she quickly stated, ‘Yes,
yes. This is the shirt.’” But “ragged” is not necessarily
synonymous wit h the word hole. And although the Warren Report (p.159)
said that Bledsoe indicated that the hole she saw was on Oswald’s
“right” elbow , there is no indication in the FBI report, written
*before* her Commission testimony, that she mentioned the right elbow to
the agents before being shown the shirt, thereby introducing the
possibility that she had no independent recollection it was the right
elbow.…
There appears to be no conclusive way to determine what shirt Oswald was
wearing at the time of the assassination.
> > 34. Firearms identification experts from the Warren Commission and the
> > HSCA concluded that two large bullet fragments found in the presidential
> > limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle to the
> > exclusion of all other weapons.
>
> So? What does this prove? Where they linked to either victim in the
> limo? What is the chain of custody for these two limo fragments
> anyway?
FBI report dated July 7, 1964, at Dallas, Tex., re tracing of various
items of physical evidence:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=431
Robert Harris
<6b9d3da2-b539-4114...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Ok, David, I don't want to embarass you[,] so let's lower the bar
> even more. Can you produce just ONE piece of evidence that proves Oswald
> acted alone??" <<<
>
> You're being silly now, Bob.
Why am I being silly, David? What's wrong with asking you to defend your
theory?
Why don't you try a simple test?
Ask me to show you a DOZEN pieces of evidence which proves that Oswald
DIDN'T act alone?
Let's see if I handle the question the same way you do.
> And you're turning logic on its head (as all
> CTers always do).
Really?
So, asking you to defend your position is illogical???
>
> I.E.,
>
> Bob is saying (apparently) that since all of the evidence points to ONE
> single individual named Oswald
BZZZZZTT!!
"Bob" is NOT saying that all the evidence points to one, single
individual.
I'm sure that was just a misunderstanding David. Perhaps I wasn't being
clear enough.
> -- and, of course, it does -- this somehow
> indicates that it's likely that MORE than just the one individual named
> Oswald was involved in the President's murder.
No, David. I am not sure that it is likely that more than one individual
named Oswald was involved.
I am quite sure that the others had different names. But thanks for the
sparkling logic:-)
>
> This is the (il)logic of the CT world (at least here at the aaj/acj fora).
LOL!!
I think you have shown us exactly who has problems with logic, as well
as evidence.
>
> So, to answer your very, very silly inquiry, Bob --- EVERY single piece of
> evidence in the whole case is evidence that indicates that Oswald acted
> ALONE.
>
> Why?
>
> Because every one of those pieces of evidence leads straight to only ONE
> person--Oswald.
So, you are claiming that the evidence which supports the shot at frame
285, and the evidence which demonstrates involvement by the mafia, and the
evidence that the early shots were silenced, all point to Oswald acting
alone???
>
> (Why does this even need to be uttered, Bob? Isn't this the most basic of
> elementary stuff here?)
Well, yes it isn't all that complicated.
Now, would you like to discuss this evidence or would you rather
continue to evade it??
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<453c048a-bbba-421f...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 10:54?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, David, I don't want to embarass you so let's lower the bar even
> > more. Can you produce just ONE piece of evidence that proves Oswald
> > acted alone??
>
> That's the same question as "Can you prove that there wasn't somebody
> in addition to Oswald shooting at the motorcade?"
I agree, so why do you and Mr. Von Pein claim that you can prove exactly
that???
Why don't you state that in your opinion, the evidence you have seen so
far, does not convince you that there was a conspiracy??
What is wrong with being honest and logical about the evidence, David?
>
> Rewording it doesn't change anything. You're still asking me to prove
> a negative.
>
> Oh, what the hell ... I'll play!
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> Let's start with a few easy items:
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because every bullet and fragment
> recovered was consistent with Oswald's rifle.
Sorry, that doesn't work, David.
To PROVE that Oswald acted alone, you must be able to demonstrate that the
bullets came from Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all others.
Even CE399 is not valid evidence, since the facts demonstrate that it
probably was never fired during the attack.
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because nobody saw another gunman.
Silly argument - first, because witnesses DID claim to see someone on the
6th floor with Oswald during the shooting, and second, because it does not
take into consideration that other shooters probably tried to remain out
of view during the attack.
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the trajectories, as
> determined by the autopsy, are all consistent with being shot from one
> direction.
Utter nonsense. The final shot clearly, came from the rear. There was
massive damage to the BOH which did not appear until well after the
explosion at 313.
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
> witnesses heard shots from only behind.
"behind"??
The witnesses were split almost evenly, that shots came from the East or
West ends of DP, with perhaps a slight majority favoring the East.
Obviously, that's because shots came from both directions.
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because the vast majority of
> witnesses heard only three shots - the exact number of expended shells
> lying on the floor in the sniper's nest.
Weapons experts have argued that only two of those shells could have been
fired that day.
More importantly however, the shots at 160 and 223 could not have been
fired from Oswald's rifle. If they had, the limo passengers would have
been exposed to sound levels that were 16 times louder than those used by
psychologists, to provoke startle reactions.
They would have reacted as they did within 6 frames following 285 and 312,
David, only more so because they were closer to Oswald then. Watch the
Zfilm David and you will see what I mean.
And the overwhelming majority of witnesses only noticed the first "noise"
at 160, and then nothing until the very end of the attack. That's because
the shots at 160 and 223 were silenced and witnesses heard the 160 shot
shatter when it hit the pavement, creating a "firecracker" sound, which
was much weaker than the shots at 285 and 312.
But no-one heard the shot at 223, David - not even Governor Connally, who
testified that he never heard the shot that hit him.
Neither did anyone else, David. That's why there were no startle
reactions to 223 and why most witnesses only heard a single noise, prior
to the end of the attack.
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because there is no compelling
> evidence that Oswald had an accomplice, either PRIOR to the
> assassination or AFTER the assassination.
That is absolutely untrue David.
I'm not going to write you a book, but you desperately need to watch my
videos on Oswald, parts one and two.
>
> I think Oswald was the lone gunman because I found it convincing that
> people smarter than me, who specifically addressed this issue, found
> nothing compelling to suggest a second gunman.
Sometimes, it isn't about how smart you are David.
Sometimes it's about how objective you are and how hard you are willing to
work to get it right.
Robert Harris
Jas
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-FFF79...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Why do you play word games? What do you want, a PowerPoint graphic
demonstration? That's already been done by experts in the field many moons
ago.
You have everything back-assward. YOU'RE the one with the burden of proof
to prove the official findings wrong because you're the one challenging
it.
The proof is that -- based on the totality of all the evidence -- all the
shots have been determined to have originated from the 6th floor TSBD
sountheastern window where Oswald was seen firing at the motorcade, and
where the sniper's nest was discovered.
Now if you want to start speculating as in "there is a 2nd gunman hiding
somewhere else in Dealey," go ahead, that's your prerogative -- you're
free to speculate all you want.
...but until YOU can prove it, and convince the DOJ, FBI, and all other
current law enforcement organizations, the official conclusions stand.
James
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 15, 3:52 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 8:29 pm, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Vincent Bugliosi spelled it out well, giving 53 pieces of evidence of
>>> Oswald's guilt. Among them:
>> Oh boy, we can't ever discuss this case WITHOUT MENTIONING Bugliosi!
>>
>>> 33. A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, 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.
>> Show us how this is common with such a SMALL sample. The note to
>> "Hunt" had a much larger sample and you LNers deny it was LHO's hand.
>>
>>> And the seller
>>> shipped the rifle to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.
>> They did?? Where is your evidence for this? I ask because the WC
>> failed to give it to us. Also, what type of rifle was shipped
>> allegedly? I mean ALL the evidence the WC gave us points to a 36"
>> Carbine, NOT a 40" Carcano short rifle.
>
> The Carcano *is* an Italian carbine.
>
Which Carcano do you mean? Oswald's Carcano was a short rifle, not a
carbine. He ordered the carbine from the magazine ad, but Klein's ran
out of carbines and substituted a short rifle.
> From the Warren Report, Chapter 4:
>
> Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository Building, agents of the FBI learned from
> retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City,
> was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles.
> During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of the records of
> Crescent Firearms revealed that the firm had shipped an Italian carbine,
> serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., of Chicago, Ill.
>
More government lies. It was not a carbine. It was a short rifle.
> Affidavit of Louis Feldsott:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=45&relPageId=215
>
> After searching their records from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. the officers of
> Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing serial number C2766 had been
> shipped to one A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex., on March 20,
> 1963.
>
Rifle, not carbine.
> Testimony of William J. Waldman:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=17974
>
> Testimony of Mitchell J. Scibor:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=17980
>
> Klein's order blank indicating the order:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143127
>
> According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a
> rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963
> issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed,
> in handprinting, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas."
>
> Photograph of a mail order for a rifle in the name "A. Hidell," and
> the envelope in which it was sent:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139461
>
The mail order coupon was for the carbine. They sent him a short rifle.
The HSCA also proved by examining the wear marks that it is the same
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.
>> And those could NOT be matched to the alleged blanket in the Paine's
>> garage so all you have is a claim again.
>
> No one is alleging the fibers in the crevice between the butt plate
> and the wooden stock *were* blanket fibers. So what are you talking
> about?
>
>
>>> 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.
>> But he was NOT wearing that shirt at the TSBD at the time of the
>> shooting,
>
> Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History", endnotes, p. 458n:
>
> There is no unanimity as to what type or color of shirt Oswald was wearing
> *at the time* of the assassination, as opposed to when he was arrested.
> For example, when shown Commission Exhibit No. 150 (a rust brown
> long-sleeved shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest) by
> Commission counsel, Marina Oswald testified, ?I *think* he wore this
> shirt? when he came out to Irving on Thursday night, and said he was
> wearing it on the morning of the assassination. However, before she was
> shown Exhibit No. 150 she said she did not remember what he was wearing on
> the morning of the assassination. (1 H 121?122; picture of shirt: CE
> 150, 16 H 515; wearing at time of arrest: 15 H 694, WCT Lyndal L.
> Shaneyfelt) When shown Commission Exhibit No. 150, Wesley Frazier, who
> drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination, told the
> Commission he had never seen Oswald wear that shirt (2 H 238). Officer
> Marrion Baker, who confronted Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom right
> after the shooting, told the Commission he believed Oswald was wearing
> Exhibit No. 150, then quickly added, ?I wouldn?t be sure of that?
> and, in an imprecise answer that was further induced by terribly sloppy
> questioning by Commission counsel, seemed to say he felt that Oswald?s
> shirt was a lighter brown than the Commission exhibit (3 H 257). Cabdriver
> William Whaley said Exhibit No. 150 was the shirt worn by the man he drove
> in his taxi (2 H 259).
>
> Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper at Oswald?s rooming house, told the
> Commission that when Oswald came back to the rooming house at around 1:00
> p.m. that day, ?I couldn?t tell you whether it was a long- sleeved
> shirt [he was wearing] or what color it was or nothing? (6 H 439). Per
> FBI agent James W. Bookhout, Oswald himself told Captain Will Fritz that
> when he went back to the rooming house he changed his shirt and trousers
> because they were dirty (WR, p.622, Report of FBI agent James W.
> Bookhout). In Captain Fritz?s report of the interview he only mentions
> Oswald saying he changed his trousers (WR, p.601). However, in Captain
> Fritz?s handwritten notes taken at the very time of the interview, he
> wrote, ?at Apt. changed shirt+ tr. Put in dirty clothes?long sleeve
> red sh + gray tr.? And we do have the testimony of Officer Marrion
> Baker, who was asked by Warren Commission commissioner Allen Dulles, ?Do
> you recall whether or not [Oswald] was wearing the same clothes . . . when
> you saw him in the police station [after his arrest] as when you saw him
> in the lunchroom?? and said he didn?t think he was (3 H 262?263).
>
> Strong evidence that Oswald was wearing the same shirt at the time of his
> arrest as at the time he shot Kennedy is the Warren Commission testimony
> of Mary E. Bledsoe, Oswald?s former landlady, who identified Exhibit No.
> 150 as being the shirt she saw Oswald wearing on the Marsalis bus,
> remembering the shirt being brown, but mostly identifying it because of a
> hole in the right elbow area, which Exhibit No. 150 has (6 H 409, 413).
> Earlier, when the FBI first showed Mrs. Bledsoe the shirt, she said,
> ?No, no. That is not the shirt? Oswald was wearing. But the FBI report
> of the December 4, 1963, interview by Special Agents Carl Brown and Robert
> Butler goes on to say, ?She then inquired as to whether the shirt had a
> ragged elbow. Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole
> in the right elbow of the shirt, at which time she quickly stated, ?Yes,
> yes. This is the shirt.?? But ?ragged? is not necessarily
> synonymous wit= the word hole. And although the Warren Report (p.159)
> said that Bledsoe indicated that the hole she saw was on Oswald?s
> ?right? elbow= , there is no indication in the FBI report, written
> *before* her Commission testimony, that she mentioned the right elbow to
> the agents before being shown the shirt, thereby introducing the
> possibility that she had no independent recollection it was the right
> elbow.?
>
> There appears to be no conclusive way to determine what shirt Oswald was
> wearing at the time of the assassination.
>
Hey, maybe he wasn't wearing any shirt at the time of the assassination.
Robert Harris
wrote:
It is hardly a "word game" to ask someone to support their claims.
Of course, you and David know very well that no such evidence exists,
and yet you continue to make that bogus claim.
> What do you want, a PowerPoint graphic
> demonstration?
Well yes, that would be good.
I do that kind of thing all the time, although I use a bit better
software than Powerpoint.
Just do a Youtube search for bobharris77.
You can also view most of them at my website, jfkhistory.com
> That's already been done by experts in the field many moons
> ago.
Oh yes. "experts" from the WC were totally contradicted by "experts"
from the HSCA, not only on the question of conspiracy, but on numerous
details about the shooting.
Then Posner came along and proposed a shooting scenario that totally
contradicted by the WC and the HSCA.
And then Bugliosi told us that Posner was FOS.
And these are the "experts" you want me to rely on???
>
> You have everything back-assward. YOU'RE the one with the burden of proof
> to prove the official findings wrong because you're the one challenging
> it.
I have proven them wrong over and over again and none of you have the
testicular abundance to even try to refute me.
But I do NOT have the burden of proof when one of you make the
outrageously false claim that all the evidence proves Oswald acted
alone. In fact, there is not a single, legitimate reason to assume that,
and you know it.
>
> The proof is that -- based on the totality of all the evidence -- all the
> shots have been determined to have originated from the 6th floor TSBD
> sountheastern window where Oswald was seen firing at the motorcade, and
> where the sniper's nest was discovered.
James, you cannot prove one unsupported assertion with another.
You have ZERO evidence which connects the Tague wound with Oswald. And
you have no connection whatsoever, to Oswald for the probable missed
shot at 160.
And the evidence is overwhelming that CE399 was never fired during the
assassination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio
The evidence is overwhelmingly against you, James. From the fact that
the final shots were much too closely spaced to have been fired by
Oswald to the fact that we now know that the mafia was involved in the
attack. And those are only a small part of the evidence.
In rebuttal to that, you have absolute ZERO evidence that suggests
Oswald acted alone.
This one isn't even close, James.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
It [Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle; CE139] was not a
carbine. It was a short rifle.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
A "carbine" is a "rifle". Simple as that.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine
car⋅bine
–noun
1. a light, gas-operated semiautomatic rifle.
2. (formerly) a short rifle used in the cavalry.
Why do CTers continually ignore the fact that a carbine IS a "rifle"?
HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
A rifle with a manually operated bolt is not a carbine.
DVP SAID:
Is that why every dictionary in the world says that a "Carbine" is a
"Rifle", Herb?
HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
The definition that you cited asserted that a carbine is a gas- operated
semiautomatic rifle. So according to your source[,] the statement that a
carbine is a rifle is consistent with my statement that a rifle with a
manually operated bolt is not a carbine.
DVP SAID:
So, Herb, you must think that Klein's Sporting Goods (circa 1963) didn't
have the slightest idea what they were doing when they placed the
following words in their magazine ads (linked below). And these are words
that appear TOGETHER in the VERY SAME ad:
"6.5 Italian Carbine"
and
"Turned-down bolt".
Klein's quite obviously considered a rifle with a "turned-down
bolt" (i.e., "a rifle with a manually operated bolt") to also be a
"carbine".
What about it, Herbert? Didn't Klein's know what they were selling? Or
should they have contacted a conspiracy kook before placing the words
"turned-down bolt" and "carbine" in the very same ad?
ShutterBun
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/122aa.+KLEIN%27S+AD+FE...
>
> Klein's quite obviously considered a rifle with a "turned-down
> bolt" (i.e., "a rifle with a manually operated bolt") to also be a
> "carbine".
>
> What about it, Herbert? Didn't Klein's know what they were selling? Or
> should they have contacted a conspiracy kook before placing the words
> "turned-down bolt" and "carbine" in the very same ad?
The problem is that while there is a "general" definition of "carbine,"
there is also a specific designation in the case of a Carcano. The 40"
model (such as Oswald's) was known as a "Fucile corto," or short rifle.
Then there was a 36" version, called a "Moschetto Truppe Speciali," or
Troop's Special Carbine. (there are also the "Long rifle" and Cavalry
Carbine variations, but they are unmistakably different than the others,
and unlikely to be confused)
I noticed that Bugliosi consistently refers to Oswald's gun as a
"carbine." While this is generally correct (in that it was a somewhat
shorter than normal rifle) it could lead to some confusion for readers,
since his was not a Moschetto model.
It would appear that Klein's wasn't terribly concerned with the difference
between the two, as they advertised both the same, the only difference
being the length, and part number. As a matter of fact, Oswald actually
ordered the 36" version, but was shipped the 40" version.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 17, 8:50 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>
>> It [Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle; CE139] was not a
>> carbine. It was a short rifle.
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> A "carbine" is a "rifle". Simple as that.
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine
>>
>> ???noun
Of course there is a specific definition. A legal definition. A Carbine
has a barrel length of about 18 inches. 16 inches or less and it becomes
a pistol. More than about 18 inches and it becomes a rifle.
> there is also a specific designation in the case of a Carcano. The 40"
> model (such as Oswald's) was known as a "Fucile corto," or short rifle.
> Then there was a 36" version, called a "Moschetto Truppe Speciali," or
> Troop's Special Carbine. (there are also the "Long rifle" and Cavalry
> Carbine variations, but they are unmistakably different than the others,
> and unlikely to be confused)
>
> I noticed that Bugliosi consistently refers to Oswald's gun as a
> "carbine." While this is generally correct (in that it was a somewhat
That's because Bugliosi is an idiot. Did I also mention that he is a liar?
> shorter than normal rifle) it could lead to some confusion for readers,
> since his was not a Moschetto model.
>
> It would appear that Klein's wasn't terribly concerned with the difference
> between the two, as they advertised both the same, the only difference
No, that is not true. They did not advertise both and give the customer
the choice between the two. They started with the carbine which they
advertised as 38 inches overall. Then a couple of months later when they
realized that they were running out of carbines they changed the ad to say
40 inches. But they did not change the word "carbine" to "rifle." So
Oswald ordered a carbine and got a short rifle. Months later they changed
the word "carbine" to "rifle." It's called consumer fraud.
> being the length, and part number. As a matter of fact, Oswald actually
> ordered the 36" version, but was shipped the 40" version.
>
Blenner knows nothing about rifles. All he does is Google something and
believes the first thing he reads. After all if it's on the Internet, it
must be true, eh?
A carbine can be bolt action or semi-automatic.
So can a rifle.
Anthony Marsh
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> It [Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle; CE139] was not a
> carbine. It was a short rifle.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> A "carbine" is a "rifle". Simple as that.
>
Wrong. A carbine is not a rifle. That's why they are two different
words. A carbine has a barrel length of about 18 inches. A rifle has a
longer barrel than a carbine.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine
>
> car???bine
> ???noun
> 1. a light, gas-operated semiautomatic rifle.
> 2. (formerly) a short rifle used in the cavalry.
>
You're turning into a Blenner when you read something on the Internet
and assume it is the absolute truth.
> Why do CTers continually ignore the fact that a carbine IS a "rifle"?
>
> HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
>
> A rifle with a manually operated bolt is not a carbine.
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Is that why every dictionary in the world says that a "Carbine" is a
> "Rifle", Herb?
>
> HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
>
> The definition that you cited asserted that a carbine is a gas- operated
> semiautomatic rifle. So according to your source[,] the statement that a
> carbine is a rifle is consistent with my statement that a rifle with a
> manually operated bolt is not a carbine.
>
It doesn't matter a whit if the gun is bolt action or semi-automatic. The
difference between a carbine and a rifle is the length of the barrel. A
carbine barrel is about 18 inches long. A rifle barrel is longer, usually
21 inches or more.
> DVP SAID:
>
> So, Herb, you must think that Klein's Sporting Goods (circa 1963) didn't
> have the slightest idea what they were doing when they placed the
> following words in their magazine ads (linked below). And these are words
> that appear TOGETHER in the VERY SAME ad:
>
> "6.5 Italian Carbine"
>
> and
>
> "Turned-down bolt".
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/122a.+KLEIN%27S+AD+FEATURING+OSWALD%27S+RIFLE?gda=wSZ82V8AAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLhuIcBDgF-y9BnkMKQiCZ9gcGoA8CBCA5Z_mOw_ZpH8wVGBhbpnHCz4tp0K7LT-rxW2boGVP2a2KEYEsDArjyNSpxzIUqf6s0oL53Wkz8h1XQ
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/122aa.+KLEIN%27S+AD+FEATURING+OSWALD%27S+RIFLE+(FEBRUARY+1963)?gda=TJYH6XQAAADaPnAtlvPjxRWfhTgppBLhuIcBDgF-y9BnkMKQiCZ9gbspEB7aYnuU4Cpr495aenyn1zW2ZhTMJEAvXx7_RkmH7WdDsoY68MBGFpJD8IcqyviRMxjfheMgbenv6FQDuklV6u9SiETdg0Q2ffAyHU-dzc4BZkLnSFWX59nr5BxGqA
>
>
>
> Klein's quite obviously considered a rifle with a "turned-down
> bolt" (i.e., "a rifle with a manually operated bolt") to also be a
> "carbine".
>
Bolt has absolutely nothing to do with it. The only difference is barrel
length.
> What about it, Herbert? Didn't Klein's know what they were selling? Or
> should they have contacted a conspiracy kook before placing the words
> "turned-down bolt" and "carbine" in the very same ad?
>
So, are you saying that Klein's didn't know what they were selling when
they changed the ad to read "carbine" and "Only 40" overall"? They knew
exactly what they were doing. They were running out of carbines and
substituting with short rifles. It's called consumer fraud (i.e. business
as usual). Do you think Oswald realized that he had been defrauded?
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/AR_APR63_55.gif
BTW, this is one of the advantages to being an actual researcher. Having
the original magazines and being able to compare the ads from month to
month to see how Klein's changed them.