2 THINGS PROVE OSWALD'S GUILT by VON PEIN

[BOZ]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html



What a shame! DVP has screwed up again. The 2 facts were not anything
hard to know about. They were that the MC rifle was owned by LHO, and he
was seen sneaking it into the TSBD. And THAT'S supposed to be his
absolute proof that Oswald shot JFK! Amazing!


Except that it is agreed that the MC rifle was Oswald's and that he
snuck it into the TSBD probably that day, or soon before that day. That
does NOT prove that LHO pulled the trigger and fired at the motorcade.
In fact, there was a TSBD worker named Carolyn Arnold that saw Oswald at
about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and at about that same time 2
men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.

If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later
show it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly
legitimate reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.

As well, the rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and it
had as sticky bolt which would make it almost impossible to stay on target
while working the bolt to jack in a new shell. These were the findings of
the Army test facility when they got the rifle.

So DVP, onward and upward to find the real killer of JFK.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

CHRIS/FRAME SAID:

If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later show
it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly legitimate
reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then why did Oswald LIE to Frazier about the contents of his brown paper
package?

And under such perfectly *innocent* "show it for sale" purposes, WHY would
he even feel the need to put the rifle into a brown paper bag (or ANY type
of container) at all on 11/22/63?

Let's hear your lame excuses for all that, MainFrame.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:13:02 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
>
>
>
> What a shame! DVP has screwed up again. The 2 facts were not anything
> hard to know about. They were that the MC rifle was owned by LHO, and he
> was seen sneaking it into the TSBD. And THAT'S supposed to be his
> absolute proof that Oswald shot JFK! Amazing!
>

By itself that is pretty damning but there is so much more. Who else but
you would argue that smuggling a rifle into the building from which the
POTUS would later be shot is not strong evidence that the person who
smuggled the rifle in was involved in the crime. We have plenty of other
evidence that he not only smuggled the rifle in but that he was the one
who fired it, killing the POTUS.

>
> Except that it is agreed that the MC rifle was Oswald's and that he
> snuck it into the TSBD probably that day, or soon before that day. That
> does NOT prove that LHO pulled the trigger and fired at the motorcade.

We have an eyewitness who IDed him and also the shooting location where
the spent shells would later be found. We have his fingerprints at the
scene of the crime situated as they would be if he was facing down Elm St.
The fingerprints were on boxes that had been stacked up to form a rifle
rest. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle.
Who but a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would argue that taken as a whole
that is enough to prove Oswald was the assassin. What more do you want. A
video of him firing the shots. A signed confession. Even if you had that
you would make up excuses to dismiss that as well, just as you have with
every other piece of evidence of his guilt.

> In fact, there was a TSBD worker named Carolyn Arnold that saw Oswald at
> about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and at about that same time 2
> men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.
>

So you're willing to chuck all the evidence of Oswald's guilt based on a
15 year old estimate of what time Arnold saw Oswald which even if correct
would not preclude him from being the shooter in the nest 15 minutes
later.

> If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later
> show it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly
> legitimate reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.
>

"If" seems to be your favorite word. It is the basis for all your goofy
theories. And there isn't a scrap of evidence to support any of your
"ifs". But you assume them all to be true because you have no real
evidence to argue.

> As well, the rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and it
> had as sticky bolt which would make it almost impossible to stay on target
> while working the bolt to jack in a new shell. These were the findings of
> the Army test facility when they got the rifle.
>

Ballistics evidence (that word you hate) indicates that the only two
recovered bullets from the shooting were positively matched to Oswald's
rifle to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. But of course
you will make up silly excuses to dismiss that evidence in favor of your
baseless assumptions.

[donald willis]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 3:08:35 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:13:02 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
> >
> >
> >
> > What a shame! DVP has screwed up again. The 2 facts were not anything
> > hard to know about. They were that the MC rifle was owned by LHO, and he
> > was seen sneaking it into the TSBD. And THAT'S supposed to be his
> > absolute proof that Oswald shot JFK! Amazing!
> >
>
> By itself that is pretty damning but there is so much more. Who else but
> you would argue that smuggling a rifle into the building from which the
> POTUS would later be shot is not strong evidence that the person who
> smuggled the rifle in was involved in the crime. We have plenty of other
> evidence that he not only smuggled the rifle in but that he was the one
> who fired it, killing the POTUS.
>
> >
> > Except that it is agreed that the MC rifle was Oswald's and that he
> > snuck it into the TSBD probably that day, or soon before that day. That
> > does NOT prove that LHO pulled the trigger and fired at the motorcade.
>
> We have an eyewitness who IDed him

If you mean Brennan, it's odd that you accept his ID of Oswald yet reject
Brennan's insistence that the sniper's window was "wide open"... like
those on the 5th floor just below. ie, you accept what's convenient for
you....

dcw

[BOZ]

Why would Oswald put an apple and a cheese sandwich in such a large bag?
Why would Oswald put his lunch in the backseat of Frazier's car? How did
Oswald's gun get out of Ruth Paine's garage? How did Oswald's rifle end up
on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Oswald never said his rifle was planted.
Oswald denied owning a rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

You've been corrected on these false assumptions thousands of times, but
you just keep repeating them to prove that you are a WC defender.

>> In fact, there was a TSBD worker named Carolyn Arnold that saw Oswald at
>> about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and at about that same time 2
>> men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.
>>
>
> So you're willing to chuck all the evidence of Oswald's guilt based on a
> 15 year old estimate of what time Arnold saw Oswald which even if correct
> would not preclude him from being the shooter in the nest 15 minutes
> later.
>
>> If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later
>> show it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly
>> legitimate reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.
>>
>
> "If" seems to be your favorite word. It is the basis for all your goofy
> theories. And there isn't a scrap of evidence to support any of your
> "ifs". But you assume them all to be true because you have no real
> evidence to argue.
>
>> As well, the rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and it
>> had as sticky bolt which would make it almost impossible to stay on target
>> while working the bolt to jack in a new shell. These were the findings of
>> the Army test facility when they got the rifle.
>>
>
> Ballistics evidence (that word you hate) indicates that the only two
> recovered bullets from the shooting were positively matched to Oswald's

We have CE 399. What is your second bullet?

[Mark Florio]

It's become clear that it's impossible to reason with a CT robot. Mark

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 6:08:35 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:13:02 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
> >
> >
> >
> > What a shame! DVP has screwed up again. The 2 facts were not anything
> > hard to know about. They were that the MC rifle was owned by LHO, and he
> > was seen sneaking it into the TSBD. And THAT'S supposed to be his
> > absolute proof that Oswald shot JFK! Amazing!
> >
>
> By itself that is pretty damning but there is so much more. Who else but
> you would argue that smuggling a rifle into the building from which the
> POTUS would later be shot is not strong evidence that the person who
> smuggled the rifle in was involved in the crime. We have plenty of other
> evidence that he not only smuggled the rifle in but that he was the one
> who fired it, killing the POTUS.
>

WRONG! Somebody had to let the cat out of the bag. It's not damning to
bring a cheapo rifle into work so that someone might take it off your
hands. And since no one was hit or hurt by any MC ammunition, no one can
prove differently.

> >
> > Except that it is agreed that the MC rifle was Oswald's and that he
> > snuck it into the TSBD probably that day, or soon before that day. That
> > does NOT prove that LHO pulled the trigger and fired at the motorcade.
>

Correct so far.

> We have an eyewitness who IDed him and also the shooting location where
> the spent shells would later be found. We have his fingerprints at the

WRONG! You DO NOT have a witness that IDed Oswald. You have a witness
that saw Oswald on TV twice before going down to the lineup, and a
detective at the lineup asking Brennan if he was going to pick the second
person in the lineup, which was Oswald's position. Brennan is discredited
as a witness to anything but seeing a rifle stick out of the window, and
he even got that wrong by saying he didn't see a scope on the rifle. A
lawyer had to keep at him until he admitted that he wasn't sure about
that.

> scene of the crime situated as they would be if he was facing down Elm St.
> The fingerprints were on boxes that had been stacked up to form a rifle
> rest. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle.

Since Oswald owned the rifle, there easily could be a time when he
would put the rifle up to his shoulder, and a thread get caught on the
rifle. It could be on any day. Oswald also worked at the TSBD and
probably stacked those boxes or handled them at some time.

> Who but a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would argue that taken as a whole
> that is enough to prove Oswald was the assassin. What more do you want. A
> video of him firing the shots. A signed confession. Even if you had that
> you would make up excuses to dismiss that as well, just as you have with
> every other piece of evidence of his guilt.
>

There is NO evidence of his guilt. He wasn't even on the 6th floor
when the shots were fired. He was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor,
based on the statement of Carolyn Arnold.

> > In fact, there was a TSBD worker named Carolyn Arnold that saw Oswald at
> > about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and at about that same time 2
> > men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.
> >
>
> So you're willing to chuck all the evidence of Oswald's guilt based on a
> 15 year old estimate of what time Arnold saw Oswald which even if correct
> would not preclude him from being the shooter in the nest 15 minutes
> later.
>

The other so-called evidence said nothing about Oswald firing anything
out the window. And the paraffin test said that he had not fired a rifle.

> > If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later
> > show it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly
> > legitimate reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.
> >
>
> "If" seems to be your favorite word. It is the basis for all your goofy
> theories. And there isn't a scrap of evidence to support any of your
> "ifs". But you assume them all to be true because you have no real
> evidence to argue.
>

The evidence has been listed many times, so don't pretend you're not
aware of it.

> > As well, the rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and it
> > had as sticky bolt which would make it almost impossible to stay on target
> > while working the bolt to jack in a new shell. These were the findings of
> > the Army test facility when they got the rifle.
> >
>
> Ballistics evidence (that word you hate) indicates that the only two
> recovered bullets from the shooting were positively matched to Oswald's
> rifle to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. But of course
> you will make up silly excuses to dismiss that evidence in favor of your
> baseless assumptions.

WRONG! I don't hate the word. It has a place in solving crimes often.
And as you've been told many times, I don't dismiss evidence, but
sometimes I see it differently. The fact that the 2 bullets found match
the rifle does NOT say that Oswald was the person that fired the rifle.
And it also does not say that either of those bullets ever hit anyone at
all. One was found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland, and the other was
found in 2 pieces in the front seat of the limousine.

First, the found bullet from the WRONG gurney was CE399, the 'pristine'
bullet. It matched a test bullet almost exactly:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

See CE572 next to CE399. 572 is a test bullet. Both bullets have a
slight bend in the middle, and both have a flattening in the middle, and
also they both have a bit of the tail end missing. CE399 is a test
bullet, and there was plenty of opportunity for the FBI bullet custodian
to get up to 60 MC bullets to use to replace others to make it look like
the MC rifle shot at something.

Second, the bullet fragments found in the front of the limo were from
the bullet strike on the chrome overhead bar over the windshield:

http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg

That bullet came down at a strong angle and would not have been then
turned upward from the POTUS's body to hit the windshield. Plus the
strike was too hard to have already passed through a skull slowing it down
some.

Chris

[mainframetech]

No problem. Though Truly had rifle in his office, he wouldn't
appreciate his workers bringing in things to chat about or sell when they
should be working fetching books. So Oswald brought in his rifle, but
disguised it so that he could get it in without arousing the boss. He
kept the info from Frasier so that he would tell or let it out
accidentally.

Remember, they could not find anywhere that Oswald bought any
ammunition for his rifle, and they couldn't find anywhere that he
practiced with his rifle. As a matter of fact, there was a misalignment
in the scope due to a bad mounting, and the bolt was sticky putting the
rifle off target every time it was worked. These faults in the rifle were
never fixed, so that says that the rifle was never practiced with and the
faults never discovered. Whoever fired the rifle out the 6th floor window
of the TSBD, didn't really care if they hit anything, so the faults didn't
matter. Other shooters around Dealey plaza would do the job.

Chris

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 6:08:35 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

It's also very silly to believe Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom 15
minutes before the shooting, presumably having lunch, and then 17 minutes
later Mrs. Reid sees him walking across to the stairwell on the 2nd floor
carrying a FULL Coke bottle. What, Oswald never even took a sip during
his entire time in the lunchroom? (he said he went to the 2nd floor to buy
A Coke, not Cokes).

[mainframetech]

LOL! You haven't offered any reasons yet. How would you know? Now, I
don't hate "ballistics", they're a normal part of any real investigation,
but perhaps not cover ups. And a note, I do NOT dismiss evidence, nut at
times I might see it differently than others.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You're being ridiculous. Of course Oswald brought the rifle in the
paper bag to hide it from the boss. It was his rifle and his intentions
with it coming to work were innocuous, selling it or trading it or
something like that. But another person knew where it was hidden and used
it to shoot at the motorcade. Not to hit anything, but to satisfy the
forensics that it was fired at the motorcade. The other shooters firing
at JFK would take care of hitting him, and taking the body to a military
hospital would allow them to remove any wrong bullets from the body and do
any changes to the body to make it look more like it was hit by bullets
form the TSBD only.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 8:26:43 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 6:08:35 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:13:02 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What a shame! DVP has screwed up again. The 2 facts were not anything
> > > hard to know about. They were that the MC rifle was owned by LHO, and he
> > > was seen sneaking it into the TSBD. And THAT'S supposed to be his
> > > absolute proof that Oswald shot JFK! Amazing!
> > >
> >
> > By itself that is pretty damning but there is so much more. Who else but
> > you would argue that smuggling a rifle into the building from which the
> > POTUS would later be shot is not strong evidence that the person who
> > smuggled the rifle in was involved in the crime. We have plenty of other
> > evidence that he not only smuggled the rifle in but that he was the one
> > who fired it, killing the POTUS.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Somebody had to let the cat out of the bag. It's not damning to
> bring a cheapo rifle into work so that someone might take it off your
> hands. And since no one was hit or hurt by any MC ammunition, no one can
> prove differently.
>

And we're supposed to be it was just Oswald's shit luck that out of all
the days he could have brought his rifle into work to sell, he chose the
day the President would be shot while riding past his workplace. What are
the odds?

>
>
> > >
> > > Except that it is agreed that the MC rifle was Oswald's and that he
> > > snuck it into the TSBD probably that day, or soon before that day. That
> > > does NOT prove that LHO pulled the trigger and fired at the motorcade.
> >
>
>
> Correct so far.
>

Nice to see you agreeing with what you wrote before. Sometimes you
contradict it.

>
>
> > We have an eyewitness who IDed him and also the shooting location where
> > the spent shells would later be found. We have his fingerprints at the
>
>
>
> WRONG! You DO NOT have a witness that IDed Oswald. You have a witness
> that saw Oswald on TV twice before going down to the lineup,

and then IDed Oswald.

> and a
> detective at the lineup asking Brennan if he was going to pick the second
> person in the lineup, which was Oswald's position.

Source?

> Brennan is discredited
> as a witness to anything but seeing a rifle stick out of the window, and
> he even got that wrong by saying he didn't see a scope on the rifle. A
> lawyer had to keep at him until he admitted that he wasn't sure about
> that.
>

So he didn't notice the scope. He notice the guy looking through the
scope.

>
>
> > scene of the crime situated as they would be if he was facing down Elm St.
> > The fingerprints were on boxes that had been stacked up to form a rifle
> > rest. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle.
>
>
> Since Oswald owned the rifle, there easily could be a time when he
> would put the rifle up to his shoulder, and a thread get caught on the
> rifle. It could be on any day. Oswald also worked at the TSBD and
> probably stacked those boxes or handled them at some time.
>

And it was just more of Oswald's shit luck that he just happened to wear
the same shirt he was wearing when he put the rifle to his shoulder. And
just his shit luck that he would just happen to put his hands on the tops
of the backs oriented how they would be if he were facing down Elm St. You
want us to believe all of these things coincidentally fell into place to
make it look like Oswald was the shooter. Damn, he had to be the
unluckiest SOB that ever lived.

>
>
> > Who but a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would argue that taken as a whole
> > that is enough to prove Oswald was the assassin. What more do you want. A
> > video of him firing the shots. A signed confession. Even if you had that
> > you would make up excuses to dismiss that as well, just as you have with
> > every other piece of evidence of his guilt.
> >
>
>
> There is NO evidence of his guilt. He wasn't even on the 6th floor
> when the shots were fired. He was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor,
> based on the statement of Carolyn Arnold.
>

Yes. We know you've chosen to dismiss every bit of evidence of Oswald's
guilt base on the 15 year old memory of Carolyn Arnold which conflicts
with the statement she signed just months after the assassination.

>
>
> > > In fact, there was a TSBD worker named Carolyn Arnold that saw Oswald at
> > > about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and at about that same time 2
> > > men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.
> > >
> >
> > So you're willing to chuck all the evidence of Oswald's guilt based on a
> > 15 year old estimate of what time Arnold saw Oswald which even if correct
> > would not preclude him from being the shooter in the nest 15 minutes
> > later.
> >
>
>
> The other so-called evidence said nothing about Oswald firing anything
> out the window. And the paraffin test said that he had not fired a rifle.
>

If you would ever bother to read the WC, you would know that a paraffin
test proved no such thing and why. But since you choose to remain
willfully ignorant, I can't help you.

>
>
> > > If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later
> > > show it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly
> > > legitimate reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.
> > >
> >
> > "If" seems to be your favorite word. It is the basis for all your goofy
> > theories. And there isn't a scrap of evidence to support any of your
> > "ifs". But you assume them all to be true because you have no real
> > evidence to argue.
> >
>
>
> The evidence has been listed many times, so don't pretend you're not
> aware of it.
>

Your goofy theories have been offered many times and never with any
evidence to support them. You don't even seem to know what evidence is.

>
>
> > > As well, the rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad mounting, and it
> > > had as sticky bolt which would make it almost impossible to stay on target
> > > while working the bolt to jack in a new shell. These were the findings of
> > > the Army test facility when they got the rifle.
> > >
> >
> > Ballistics evidence (that word you hate) indicates that the only two
> > recovered bullets from the shooting were positively matched to Oswald's
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world. But of course
> > you will make up silly excuses to dismiss that evidence in favor of your
> > baseless assumptions.
>
>
> WRONG! I don't hate the word. It has a place in solving crimes often.
> And as you've been told many times, I don't dismiss evidence, but
> sometimes I see it differently. The fact that the 2 bullets found match
> the rifle does NOT say that Oswald was the person that fired the rifle.

All the evidence points to that. Every bit of it. But you will dismiss it.
Every bit of it.

> And it also does not say that either of those bullets ever hit anyone at
> all. One was found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland, and the other was
> found in 2 pieces in the front seat of the limousine.
>

Of all the excuses you've invented to dismiss evidence of Oswald's guilt,
this is hands down the silliest.

> First, the found bullet from the WRONG gurney was CE399, the 'pristine'
> bullet. It matched a test bullet almost exactly:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
>
> See CE572 next to CE399. 572 is a test bullet. Both bullets have a
> slight bend in the middle, and both have a flattening in the middle, and
> also they both have a bit of the tail end missing. CE399 is a test
> bullet, and there was plenty of opportunity for the FBI bullet custodian
> to get up to 60 MC bullets to use to replace others to make it look like
> the MC rifle shot at something.
>
> Second, the bullet fragments found in the front of the limo were from
> the bullet strike on the chrome overhead bar over the windshield:
>
> http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
>
> That bullet came down at a strong angle and would not have been then
> turned upward from the POTUS's body to hit the windshield. Plus the
> strike was too hard to have already passed through a skull slowing it down
> some.
>

Amazing the things you will dream up rather than accept the simplest
explanation which is that the reason all this evidence points to Oswald is
because Oswald was the shooter.

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's hear your lame excuses for all that, MainFrame.

CHRIS/FRAME SAID:

No problem. Though Truly had [a] rifle in his office, he wouldn't

appreciate his workers bringing in things to chat about or sell when they
should be working fetching books. So Oswald brought in his rifle, but
disguised it so that he could get it in without arousing the boss. He

kept the info from Frasier [sic] so that he would [not] tell or let it out
accidentally.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just as I thought --- lame.

So, according to your version of events, Oswald couldn't have just brought
the rifle to work to show to his co-workers ON HIS LUNCH HOUR (from 12:00
to 12:45), eh?

Were the TSBD workers prohibited from displaying rifles and talking about
them during their LUNCH BREAK too?

Your "disguised it so that he could get it in without arousing the boss"
excuse reeks of CTer desperation.

You should have just said nothing, Chris. Because you now look more
desperate than ever in your constant, year-round efforts to exonerate a
double-murderer.

Are you blushing? You should be.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I have no problem with the word 'ballistics', and I have no
idea where you heard such a silly thing. It's nice that the bullets found
came from the MC rifle, and I have no problem with that either, except
that you won't get away with saying that means somehow that Oswald pulled
the trigger. There is no such proof anywhere.

> It's also very silly to believe Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom 15
> minutes before the shooting, presumably having lunch, and then 17 minutes
> later Mrs. Reid sees him walking across to the stairwell on the 2nd floor
> carrying a FULL Coke bottle. What, Oswald never even took a sip during
> his entire time in the lunchroom? (he said he went to the 2nd floor to buy
> A Coke, not Cokes).

Did it occur to you that he may have finished the coke he first got
while sitting in the lunchroom, and he bought another to take with him?
Sounds like you have what they call a 'preconceived notion'. Next time,
think it through.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 8:17:08 AM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson wrote:

I think her earliest statement to the FBI was probably closest to the
truth. She caught a glimpse of someone she thinks was Oswald but wasn't
sure of elsewhere in the building at some unspecified time. Over the years
after becoming aware of Oswald's encounter in the lunchroom, she convinced
herself that must have been where she saw him and she knew about what time
she would have left for lunch so in her mind, she convinced herself she
saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:15. I think she actually believed that
but our minds can play tricks on us when we try to piece together memories
from years earlier. I can think of several such instances in my own past.

[donald willis]

And not wearing a jaaket or an outer shirt, as she says. We don't know,
then, when she thought she saw him. As Jarman says, O usually worked in a
T shirt. Reid was recalling an earlier encounter that day....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Your argument makes no sense. You can't tell people when to drink a Coke
or how much they have to drink.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who you calling a robot, you Dittohead?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/9/2016 3:51 PM, BOZ wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 3:42:52 PM UTC-3, David Von Pein wrote:
>> CHRIS/FRAME SAID:
>>
>> If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later show
>> it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly legitimate
>> reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Then why did Oswald LIE to Frazier about the contents of his brown paper
>> package?
>>
>> And under such perfectly *innocent* "show it for sale" purposes, WHY would
>> he even feel the need to put the rifle into a brown paper bag (or ANY type
>> of container) at all on 11/22/63?
>>
>> Let's hear your lame excuses for all that, MainFrame.
>
> Why would Oswald put an apple and a cheese sandwich in such a large bag?

Who said it was an apple and a cheese sandwich?
He said it was curtain rods.

> Why would Oswald put his lunch in the backseat of Frazier's car? How did

Why would Oswald put curtain rods on the backseat of Frazier's car?
Why would Oswald put ANYTHING on the backseat of Frazier's car?
It's not YOUR damn car. You don't get to say that Oswald can't put
ANYTHING on the back seat.

> Oswald's gun get out of Ruth Paine's garage? How did Oswald's rifle end up

Wow, that's a tough one.
How did Oswald get curtain rods out of the Paines garage?
How did Oswald ever get ANYTHING out of the Paines garage?
Maybe he asked Marina to get it out.

> on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Oswald never said his rifle was planted.

Oswald didn't have to. Others say his rifle was planted.

> Oswald denied owning a rifle.
>

Play that tape for me.

[Anthony Marsh]

"I could see this man from about his belt up."
Physically impossible with that window only opened 13 inches.


> dcw
>

[bigdog]

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 3:51:32 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 3:42:52 PM UTC-3, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > CHRIS/FRAME SAID:
> > >
> > > If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later show
> > > it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly legitimate
> > > reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Then why did Oswald LIE to Frazier about the contents of his brown paper
> > > package?
> > >
> > > And under such perfectly *innocent* "show it for sale" purposes, WHY would
> > > he even feel the need to put the rifle into a brown paper bag (or ANY type
> > > of container) at all on 11/22/63?
> > >
> > > Let's hear your lame excuses for all that, MainFrame.
> >
> > Why would Oswald put an apple and a cheese sandwich in such a large bag?
> > Why would Oswald put his lunch in the backseat of Frazier's car? How did
> > Oswald's gun get out of Ruth Paine's garage? How did Oswald's rifle end up
> > on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Oswald never said his rifle was planted.
> > Oswald denied owning a rifle.
>
>
> You're being ridiculous.

Says the expert in that field.

> Of course Oswald brought the rifle in the
> paper bag to hide it from the boss. It was his rifle and his intentions
> with it coming to work were innocuous, selling it or trading it or
> something like that.

Do you have evidence of that or is that another of your silly assumptions.
If ever there was a question that answered itself.

> But another person knew where it was hidden and used
> it to shoot at the motorcade.

And you know this how?

> Not to hit anything, but to satisfy the
> forensics that it was fired at the motorcade.

So the plan was to fired different rifles at the motorcade introducing
bullets from those different rifles into evidence and then blaming the
shooter on one guy

OR

we could dismiss such a convoluted and cockamamie theory and accept that
the guy who owned the rifle that fired the only two recovered bullets was
the assassin.

One mundance explantion and one fantastic one. Guess which one the
conspiracy hobbyists pick.

> The other shooters firing
> at JFK would take care of hitting him,

Apparently not because you have bullets hitting all over Dealey Plaza.
Everywhere except in the limo. All those bullets raining down on the limo
and only one managed to hit anything in the limo.

> and taking the body to a military
> hospital would allow them to remove any wrong bullets from the body and do
> any changes to the body to make it look more like it was hit by bullets
> form the TSBD only.
>

Only a finger painting conspiracy hobbyist could come up with a theory
that bizarre.

[bigdog]

Very well said. Kudos.

[bigdog]

Every bit of evidence we would expect to find if Oswald was the shooter we
have. We have evidence of him smuggling his rifle into work. We have his
palm print on the underside of the barrel where it could only have been
place while the rifle was disassembled. We have his fingerprints on the
boxes in the snipers nest oriented exactly how they would be if he was
facing down Elm St. We have his shirt fibers on the butt plate of the
rifle. You want to chalk all this up to amazing coincidences. But we have
more. We have an eyewitness. We have Oswald's actions after the
assassination in which he fled the scene of the crime, murdered a cop and
tried to murder another. We know you will invent whatever lame excuses you
can dream up so you don't have to deal with this evidence, but that
doesn't make it go away.

If Oswald's intention in bringing the rifle to work was to sell it, why
did he bring it in disassembled? Why would he feel the need to lie to
Frazier about it if it was for innocent reasons. Why not just leave the
rifle assembled in Frazier's trunk and go out to the parking lot at lunch
time to show it to whomever he intended to sell it to? As with all your
excuses for Oswald, this makes no sense.

>
>
> > It's also very silly to believe Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom 15
> > minutes before the shooting, presumably having lunch, and then 17 minutes
> > later Mrs. Reid sees him walking across to the stairwell on the 2nd floor
> > carrying a FULL Coke bottle. What, Oswald never even took a sip during
> > his entire time in the lunchroom? (he said he went to the 2nd floor to buy
> > A Coke, not Cokes).
>
>
> Did it occur to you that he may have finished the coke he first got
> while sitting in the lunchroom, and he bought another to take with him?
> Sounds like you have what they call a 'preconceived notion'. Next time,
> think it through.
>

You telling anyone to think things through is laughable. There is no way
you could come up with the things you do if you actually thought anything
through.

[Allan G. Johnson]

I think that is a true perspective on Carolyn Arnold. She is not an
embellisher or liar, such as a Jean Hill, she just has an unclear or
confused recollection of what she actually saw. And, who can really
remember something as insignificant as seeing some obscure employee at a
certain place at a certain time on a certain day and be accurate about
it?. Can you remember where an employee you happen to work with in the
same building was yesterday at a certain time and what he was wearing and
what he was doing if you were asked?. Up until 12:30pm on 11-22-63 it was
just another day, no one in the world knew the President was about to be
shot at, other than LHO.

The first time she mentioned seeing Oswald in the lunchroom was 15
years later in 1978 when she was interviewed by the Dallas Morning News,
after it was common knowledge that Oswald claimed he was in the lunchroom
at the time of the shooting, she said it was at 12:25pm. In that same
month, she was interviewed by Anthony Summers and told him it was at
12:15pm. With her original claim in 1963 to the FBI that she might have
seen him on the ground floor near the front door at the time of the
shooting, that makes 3 stories, not very convincing. She did claim,
however, the FBI did not report her statement correctly, you can believe
that or not.

I think Mrs. Reid has 100% more credibility. She can pinpoint the time
exactly since she said she went right back to work after the motorcade
passed and she actually talked to Oswald as he walked across the floor
carrying his full coke and he responded, those are things easy to
remember. Carrying a coke at the time corroborates what Oswald said
himself about going to the 2nd floor to get a coke (not cokes, as Chris
wants to fantasize about), also Truly and Baker seeing him on the second
floor by the coke machine right after the shooting. Her account fits a
logical timeline for the events immediately following the shooting, 12:30
to 12:33, not 12:15 or 12:25.

There was not any other employee that claimed to have seen Oswald
anywhere in the building (including both lunchrooms) between 12:00 and
12:30, just Arnold, I think that is very significant. No other employee
claimed to have been on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30, other that
Bonnie Ray Williams having his lunch, and he only said he was up there for
a few minutes and could not see into the sniper's nest. That all supports
the fact of Oswald being on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30 (it
doesn't prove it, just adds to the evidence and timeline).

[donald willis]

Physical impossibilities don't bother LNers if they support their case.

> > dcw
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Ok, true to form for all WC defenders, your only way out of admitting
any simple fact is to call all the witnesses liars.
Maybe you think she was part of an Ubber conspiracy to lie about the
assassination to mislead the authorities.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you let WC defenders get away with saying things that are not
true? He doesn't have TWO bullets. He has ONE bullet and some fragments.
Not even the best firearms expert in the US, FBI agent Robert Frazier,
could prove that the two largest fragments came from only one bullet.
Maybe, but also maybe from TWO. That would make THREE known bullets.

>
>> It's also very silly to believe Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom 15
>> minutes before the shooting, presumably having lunch, and then 17 minutes
>> later Mrs. Reid sees him walking across to the stairwell on the 2nd floor
>> carrying a FULL Coke bottle. What, Oswald never even took a sip during
>> his entire time in the lunchroom? (he said he went to the 2nd floor to buy
>> A Coke, not Cokes).
>
>
> Did it occur to you that he may have finished the coke he first got
> while sitting in the lunchroom, and he bought another to take with him?
> Sounds like you have what they call a 'preconceived notion'. Next time,
> think it through.
>

Why didn't the DPD dust ALL the soda bottles in the TSBD?
I bet they could have found Oswald's prints on 5 of them from the whole
week.
I guess that would make him 5 times as guilty to the WC defenders.

> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2016 9:00 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Let's hear your lame excuses for all that, MainFrame.
>
>
> CHRIS/FRAME SAID:
>
> No problem. Though Truly had [a] rifle in his office, he wouldn't
> appreciate his workers bringing in things to chat about or sell when they
> should be working fetching books. So Oswald brought in his rifle, but
> disguised it so that he could get it in without arousing the boss. He
> kept the info from Frasier [sic] so that he would [not] tell or let it out
> accidentally.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Just as I thought --- lame.
>
> So, according to your version of events, Oswald couldn't have just brought
> the rifle to work to show to his co-workers ON HIS LUNCH HOUR (from 12:00
> to 12:45), eh?
>

Is that your theory? That Oswald wanted to show off his rifle. And brag
about shooting the President?

> Were the TSBD workers prohibited from displaying rifles and talking about
> them during their LUNCH BREAK too?

Who? Caster was not.
Truly was not.
A black man, maybe.

>
> Your "disguised it so that he could get it in without arousing the boss"
> excuse reeks of CTer desperation.
>
> You should have just said nothing, Chris. Because you now look more
> desperate than ever in your constant, year-round efforts to exonerate a
> double-murderer.
>

In for a penny, in for a pound.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2016 8:59 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 8:26:43 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 6:08:35 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:13:02 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a shame! DVP has screwed up again. The 2 facts were not anything
>>>> hard to know about. They were that the MC rifle was owned by LHO, and he
>>>> was seen sneaking it into the TSBD. And THAT'S supposed to be his
>>>> absolute proof that Oswald shot JFK! Amazing!
>>>>
>>>
>>> By itself that is pretty damning but there is so much more. Who else but
>>> you would argue that smuggling a rifle into the building from which the
>>> POTUS would later be shot is not strong evidence that the person who
>>> smuggled the rifle in was involved in the crime. We have plenty of other
>>> evidence that he not only smuggled the rifle in but that he was the one
>>> who fired it, killing the POTUS.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! Somebody had to let the cat out of the bag. It's not damning to
>> bring a cheapo rifle into work so that someone might take it off your
>> hands. And since no one was hit or hurt by any MC ammunition, no one can
>> prove differently.
>>
>
> And we're supposed to be it was just Oswald's shit luck that out of all
> the days he could have brought his rifle into work to sell, he chose the
> day the President would be shot while riding past his workplace. What are
> the odds?
>

So it was just my bad luck that the Turkish ambassador was assassinated
down the street from my apartment while I was taking a nap so I had no
alibi? What are the odds?

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that it is agreed that the MC rifle was Oswald's and that he
>>>> snuck it into the TSBD probably that day, or soon before that day. That
>>>> does NOT prove that LHO pulled the trigger and fired at the motorcade.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Correct so far.
>>
>
> Nice to see you agreeing with what you wrote before. Sometimes you
> contradict it.
>
>>
>>
>>> We have an eyewitness who IDed him and also the shooting location where
>>> the spent shells would later be found. We have his fingerprints at the
>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! You DO NOT have a witness that IDed Oswald. You have a witness
>> that saw Oswald on TV twice before going down to the lineup,
>
> and then IDed Oswald.
>
>> and a
>> detective at the lineup asking Brennan if he was going to pick the second
>> person in the lineup, which was Oswald's position.
>
> Source?
>
>> Brennan is discredited
>> as a witness to anything but seeing a rifle stick out of the window, and
>> he even got that wrong by saying he didn't see a scope on the rifle. A
>> lawyer had to keep at him until he admitted that he wasn't sure about
>> that.
>>
>
> So he didn't notice the scope. He notice the guy looking through the
> scope.
>

Proof that he was not a good witness. He said he saw the man from the belt
up. Through a window that was opened only 13 inches up from the floor.

>>
>>
>>> scene of the crime situated as they would be if he was facing down Elm St.
>>> The fingerprints were on boxes that had been stacked up to form a rifle
>>> rest. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle.
>>
>>
>> Since Oswald owned the rifle, there easily could be a time when he
>> would put the rifle up to his shoulder, and a thread get caught on the
>> rifle. It could be on any day. Oswald also worked at the TSBD and
>> probably stacked those boxes or handled them at some time.
>>
>
> And it was just more of Oswald's shit luck that he just happened to wear
> the same shirt he was wearing when he put the rifle to his shoulder. And

I guess you being a billionaire don't realize that poor people sometimes
wear the same shirt all the time.

> just his shit luck that he would just happen to put his hands on the tops
> of the backs oriented how they would be if he were facing down Elm St. You
> want us to believe all of these things coincidentally fell into place to

YOU don't know how the boxes were arranged at the time of the shooting.
the cops rearranged them four times.

> make it look like Oswald was the shooter. Damn, he had to be the
> unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
>

Not unlucky. The perfect patsy. He had defected to Russia and the CIA
could easily frame him.

[mainframetech]

There's no reason that Oswald could not have finished his coke and
bought another to take with him. I've done that many times in the past
when a soda machine was handy. The first bottle in to quench thirst, the
second to sip slowly and make it last. Think it through. It's not
"silly" at all for normal people to do that. When you start out with a
guilty preconceived notion, it can affect all your other thinking.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! THERE WAS NO PREVIOUS STATEMENT FROM CAROLYN ARNOLD. Whatever
she told the FBI they scrapped and put up their own version of what she
was supposed to have said. That phony version has fooled many people over
the years, but in 1978 when she found out what had been said by them, she
corrected it and gave her real statement. The "earliest" statement was the
furthest from the truth, and they then made a new statement for her and
said it was said to have been signed by her. That second statement really
said nothing, and would not help any investigation. Her final statement
tells us why the FBI tried to fake her statement, it was because her
statement exonerated Oswald from being in the 'nest' on the 6th floor.
We also have seen this changing of witness statements from the FBI before.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Welp, you've just tried to defend your mistake with a bunch of opinions,
but where's the beef? As usual, you've blotted out the prior conversation
to keep people from looking it over easily to see the mistakes you made.
I've supplied reasons to explain Oswald's use of the paper bag and his
being quiet about bringing in the rifle.

As to exoneration, your voluntary efforts to blame Oswald as the 'lone
nut' have supported and defended a group of conspirators in carrying out
the crime of the century...murder of the POTUS! You have ignored clear
evidence art to Oswald's innocence, and the clear evidence of the cover up
of that multiple shooter murder.

Go put me up on your website, it would be your style whenever you lose
an argument. As if that somehow proved your point.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 8:59:02 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 8:26:43 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 6:08:35 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:13:02 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 6:29:17 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> > > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What a shame! DVP has screwed up again. The 2 facts were not anything
> > > > hard to know about. They were that the MC rifle was owned by LHO, and he
> > > > was seen sneaking it into the TSBD. And THAT'S supposed to be his
> > > > absolute proof that Oswald shot JFK! Amazing!
> > > >
> > >
> > > By itself that is pretty damning but there is so much more. Who else but
> > > you would argue that smuggling a rifle into the building from which the
> > > POTUS would later be shot is not strong evidence that the person who
> > > smuggled the rifle in was involved in the crime. We have plenty of other
> > > evidence that he not only smuggled the rifle in but that he was the one
> > > who fired it, killing the POTUS.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Somebody had to let the cat out of the bag. It's not damning to
> > bring a cheapo rifle into work so that someone might take it off your
> > hands. And since no one was hit or hurt by any MC ammunition, no one can
> > prove differently.
> >
>
> And we're supposed to be it was just Oswald's shit luck that out of all
> the days he could have brought his rifle into work to sell, he chose the
> day the President would be shot while riding past his workplace. What are
> the odds?
>

WRONG as usual! It wasn't "luck" at all. Remember that Oswald was
used as a 'patsy' so whoever manipulated him had him bring in the rifle on
that day. Simple.

> > > > Except that it is agreed that the MC rifle was Oswald's and that he
> > > > snuck it into the TSBD probably that day, or soon before that day. That
> > > > does NOT prove that LHO pulled the trigger and fired at the motorcade.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Correct so far.
> >
>
> Nice to see you agreeing with what you wrote before. Sometimes you
> contradict it.
>
> >
> >
> > > We have an eyewitness who IDed him and also the shooting location where
> > > the spent shells would later be found. We have his fingerprints at the
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You DO NOT have a witness that IDed Oswald. You have a witness
> > that saw Oswald on TV twice before going down to the lineup,
>
> and then IDed Oswald.
>
> > and a
> > detective at the lineup asking Brennan if he was going to pick the second
> > person in the lineup, which was Oswald's position.
>
> Source?
>

You man that you even less about this case than I thought? The
information came from Brennan himself in his book Eyewitness to history:

"The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted
me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the
case was, then others must know. He asked me, "Does the second man from
the left look most like the man you saw?" He was talking about Oswald and
I knew what he wanted me to say."

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

So we have Brennan himself discrediting himself as a witness. Some
witness you picked to tell your nonsense.

> > Brennan is discredited
> > as a witness to anything but seeing a rifle stick out of the window, and
> > he even got that wrong by saying he didn't see a scope on the rifle. A
> > lawyer had to keep at him until he admitted that he wasn't sure about
> > that.
> >
>
> So he didn't notice the scope. He notice the guy looking through the
> scope.
>

WERONG! See above. Leave it to you to pick Brennan as your flag bearer, and him discredited! At mist he saw a gun sticking out of the window. Amos Euins was 10 feet from Brennan and he couldn't see very much at all in that first window, and his sight was fine. At 12:30pm the sun was pretty high.

> >
> >
> > > scene of the crime situated as they would be if he was facing down Elm St.
> > > The fingerprints were on boxes that had been stacked up to form a rifle
> > > rest. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle.
> >
> >
> > Since Oswald owned the rifle, there easily could be a time when he
> > would put the rifle up to his shoulder, and a thread get caught on the
> > rifle. It could be on any day. Oswald also worked at the TSBD and
> > probably stacked those boxes or handled them at some time.
> >
>
> And it was just more of Oswald's shit luck that he just happened to wear
> the same shirt he was wearing when he put the rifle to his shoulder. And
> just his shit luck that he would just happen to put his hands on the tops
> of the backs oriented how they would be if he were facing down Elm St. You
> want us to believe all of these things coincidentally fell into place to
> make it look like Oswald was the shooter. Damn, he had to be the
> unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
>

WRONG! Oswald probably didn't have 10 shirts to his name, but when bringing in the rifle he could just as easily have tried it on his shoulder for a second or two. It just isn't evidence of anything. More of your imaginary nonsense.

> >
> >
> > > Who but a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would argue that taken as a whole
> > > that is enough to prove Oswald was the assassin. What more do you want. A
> > > video of him firing the shots. A signed confession. Even if you had that
> > > you would make up excuses to dismiss that as well, just as you have with
> > > every other piece of evidence of his guilt.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There is NO evidence of his guilt. He wasn't even on the 6th floor
> > when the shots were fired. He was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor,
> > based on the statement of Carolyn Arnold.
> >
>
> Yes. We know you've chosen to dismiss every bit of evidence of Oswald's
> guilt base on the 15 year old memory of Carolyn Arnold which conflicts
> with the statement she signed just months after the assassination.
>

WRONG! No evidence was dismissed, and all taken into consideration. That's your standard attempt to throw out your opinion as if it counted for something.

Given the attempt of the FBI to fake her statement earlier, I would think that the second statement was faked too. Because they said there was a signature, doesn't mean there really as one, given their having been caught at chicanery with the statements of witnesses in the past. When Arnold gave her true statement she made a sarcastic comment about what they had said was her statement. She went on about her life and didn't try to gain fame or fortune, or try for more attention.

> > > > In fact, there was a TSBD worker named Carolyn Arnold that saw Oswald at
> > > > about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and at about that same time 2
> > > > men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you're willing to chuck all the evidence of Oswald's guilt based on a
> > > 15 year old estimate of what time Arnold saw Oswald which even if correct
> > > would not preclude him from being the shooter in the nest 15 minutes
> > > later.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The other so-called evidence said nothing about Oswald firing anything
> > out the window. And the paraffin test said that he had not fired a rifle.
> >
>
> If you would ever bother to read the WC, you would know that a paraffin
> test proved no such thing and why. But since you choose to remain
> willfully ignorant, I can't help you.
>

Oh? Is there a specific passage that will help understand the foolishness of the WCR? Where is it? Here we give links to the cite and the context to prove our comments.



Is the following info of use in dealing with the paraffin test?

"The Paraffin Test

During the course of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald following the assassination a paraffin test was performed by the Dallas police on both of his hands and his right cheek. The paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the test. The cast of the right cheek showed no reaction. 87"

And...

" In fact, however, the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not. 89 On the one hand, diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine will react positively not only with nitrates from gunpowder residues, but nitrates from other sources and most oxidizing agents, including dichromates, per-manganates, hypochlorates, periodates, and some oxides. Thus, contact with tobacco, Clorox, urine, cosmetics, kitchen matches, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, or soils, among other things, may result in a positive reaction to the paraffin test. Also, the mere handling of a weapon may leave nitrates on the skin. 90 A positive reaction is, therefore, valueless in determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon."

From:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#paraffin

Pages 560-561

I decided to check you out as to veracity, and you failed. The information above is from your famous WCR at the location noted. Not only did the paraffin test say that Oswald did not fire a rifle, it also said the paraffin test was useless in determining whether s suspect had fired a gun at all. So even firing of his revolver may be in doubt! Try to stay on the up-and-up in the future, eh?

> > > > If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later
> > > > show it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly
> > > > legitimate reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > "If" seems to be your favorite word. It is the basis for all your goofy
> > > theories. And there isn't a scrap of evidence to support any of your
> > > "ifs". But you assume them all to be true because you have no real
> > > evidence to argue.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The evidence has been listed many times, so don't pretend you're not
> > aware of it.
> >
>
> Your goofy theories have been offered many times and never with any
> evidence to support them. You don't even seem to know what evidence is.
>

More useless opinion. Try evidence now and then, it will help you retain a bit of ego.

WRONG! "All this evidence" is really a small bunch of items you've pretended prove something that they don't prove at all. You lose again.

Chris

[BOZ]

Play the tape of the Gettysburg address. No tape NO EVENT?

[donald willis]

If Oswald was to be the patsy, then I'd say that the planning committee
told O to bring the rifle, for whatever reasons they might have made up,
to cover their intentions....

dcw

[bigdog]

Like everyone else, I remember exactly where I was when we heard JFK had
been shot. I have very vivid memories of the rest of that day. I have zero
memories of what happened previously that day. Why would I. Up until our
principal made the announcement over the loudspeaker, it was just another
day like any other day.

[Allan G. Johnson]

You can add STUPID to the list of reasons why LHO didn't bring his
rifle to work just to show it off. Of all days to bring it, he decides to
do it on the one day the POTUS is passing by his building?. Is he that
stupid?, wouldn't he know there would be extra Police, SS and other
security personnel all around?, would he want to be caught carrying a
rifle into the building and explain it away by saying he was just trying
to sell it? Yeah, right.

[mainframetech]

The earlier stories were made up by the FBI, and that became known when
Carolyn Arnold was told by a reporter in 1978 that she had said the things
the FBI had recorded as if it were her talking. She immediately and
CLEARLY corrected the phony FBI story they had substituted for her real
statements, and later repeated them for another reporter. It is easier to
remember seeing the person that was accused of murdering the POTUS, and
that will enhance memory of the day he died.

> I think that is a true perspective on Carolyn Arnold. She is not an
> embellisher or liar, such as a Jean Hill, she just has an unclear or
> confused recollection of what she actually saw. And, who can really
> remember something as insignificant as seeing some obscure employee at a
> certain place at a certain time on a certain day and be accurate about
> it?. Can you remember where an employee you happen to work with in the
> same building was yesterday at a certain time and what he was wearing and
> what he was doing if you were asked?. Up until 12:30pm on 11-22-63 it was
> just another day, no one in the world knew the President was about to be
> shot at, other than LHO.
>

It has been shown that memory (even of previous events) is enhanced by
emotional or important events, such as the murder of the POTUS. Arnold
was CLEAR and solid in her memory of seeing Oswald, and sarcastic in her
comment on the FBI's 'mistake'.

> The first time she mentioned seeing Oswald in the lunchroom was 15
> years later in 1978 when she was interviewed by the Dallas Morning News,
> after it was common knowledge that Oswald claimed he was in the lunchroom
> at the time of the shooting, she said it was at 12:25pm. In that same
> month, she was interviewed by Anthony Summers and told him it was at
> 12:15pm. With her original claim in 1963 to the FBI that she might have
> seen him on the ground floor near the front door at the time of the
> shooting, that makes 3 stories, not very convincing. She did claim,
> however, the FBI did not report her statement correctly, you can believe
> that or not.
>

It was NOT common knowledge for Carolyn Arnold, who may not have been a
JFK story follower. When she learned what the FBI said in her stead, she
corrected it immediately and clearly, repeating it for another reporter
with essentially the same facts. She then went on about her life and
didn't try to gain any fame or fortune, or further attention, all helping
to prove her veracity.

> I think Mrs. Reid has 100% more credibility. She can pinpoint the time
> exactly since she said she went right back to work after the motorcade
> passed and she actually talked to Oswald as he walked across the floor
> carrying his full coke and he responded, those are things easy to
> remember. Carrying a coke at the time corroborates what Oswald said
> himself about going to the 2nd floor to get a coke (not cokes, as Chris
> wants to fantasize about), also Truly and Baker seeing him on the second
> floor by the coke machine right after the shooting. Her account fits a
> logical timeline for the events immediately following the shooting, 12:30
> to 12:33, not 12:15 or 12:25.
>

As anyone can agree, buying a soda from a machine and satisfying a
thirst, then later when you're leaving the lunchroom, buying another to
take with you and sip makes plenty of sense. I've done it and many others
have too. nothing special there. And no evidence of anything. And
remembering a man wit ha coke is no more strange or outstanding than
seeing and recognizing a man you know where you work sitting in a booth.

> There was not any other employee that claimed to have seen Oswald
> anywhere in the building (including both lunchrooms) between 12:00 and
> 12:30, just Arnold, I think that is very significant. No other employee
> claimed to have been on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30, other that
> Bonnie Ray Williams having his lunch, and he only said he was up there for
> a few minutes and could not see into the sniper's nest. That all supports
> the fact of Oswald being on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30 (it
> doesn't prove it, just adds to the evidence and timeline).

Do you think the 2 men with a gun who were in the 6th floor window are
going to brag about being there? Especially after they were busy shooting
at the motorcade? And don't forget that you've just tried to ignore
Carolyn Arnold, an important witness. Oswald was a quiet person and
didn't interact with most people, and wouldn't be thought of too often or
noticed if he didn't do something outstanding.

All in all, your attempt to degrade the statement of Arnold has failed.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Rewording your mistake won't change the fact that there is not
a shred of evidence whatsoever that Oswald pulled the trigger on the MC
rifle. And every one of the circumstantial items you mention do BOT PROVE
that Oswald pulled the trigger on the MC rifle. The main reason is that
the facts say that Oswald wasn't even on the 6th floor to start with, but
the facts also show that there were '2 men with a gun' in the window on
the 6th floor.

> If Oswald's intention in bringing the rifle to work was to sell it, why
> did he bring it in disassembled? Why would he feel the need to lie to
> Frazier about it if it was for innocent reasons. Why not just leave the
> rifle assembled in Frazier's trunk and go out to the parking lot at lunch
> time to show it to whomever he intended to sell it to? As with all your
> excuses for Oswald, this makes no sense.
>

WRONG! You haven't thought it through. Because the boss wouldn't like
to think that his people were selling or trading rifles at work when they
should be fetching books, Oswald decided to use the paper bag and
disassemble the rifle to get it into the TSBD without any noise from the
boss. He told Frazier that it was curtain rods to keep him from giving it
away to anyone and getting him into trouble. And using Frazier's trunk
when he had imposed on Frazier a lot up to that point would possibly be
too much. Oswald also was a very private person and tried to keep his
business from everyone.

> >
> >
> > > It's also very silly to believe Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom 15
> > > minutes before the shooting, presumably having lunch, and then 17 minutes
> > > later Mrs. Reid sees him walking across to the stairwell on the 2nd floor
> > > carrying a FULL Coke bottle. What, Oswald never even took a sip during
> > > his entire time in the lunchroom? (he said he went to the 2nd floor to buy
> > > A Coke, not Cokes).
> >
> >
> > Did it occur to you that he may have finished the coke he first got
> > while sitting in the lunchroom, and he bought another to take with him?
> > Sounds like you have what they call a 'preconceived notion'. Next time,
> > think it through.
> >
>
> You telling anyone to think things through is laughable. There is no way
> you could come up with the things you do if you actually thought anything
> through.

Well, my choice was to do as I do, and not as you do and just jump in
all the time and make constant mistakes, needing correction.

Chris

[mainframetech]

See my response to that silliness below.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The evidence is the long list of facts showing that Oswald had no
intention of shooting anyone.

> > But another person knew where it was hidden and used
> > it to shoot at the motorcade.
>
> And you know this how?
>

Because we know that Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone.

> > Not to hit anything, but to satisfy the
> > forensics that it was fired at the motorcade.
>
> So the plan was to fired different rifles at the motorcade introducing
> bullets from those different rifles into evidence and then blaming the
> shooter on one guy
>
> OR
>
> we could dismiss such a convoluted and cockamamie theory and accept that
> the guy who owned the rifle that fired the only two recovered bullets was
> the assassin.
>

WRONG! So you think an assassination has to be simple? The plan
wasn't to fire different rifles, but the situation demanded it, since the
only rifle on the scene was the MC rifle, which the other shooters did not
choose. And the multiple bullets from multiple rifles didn't matter
because they would order the military doctors to remove all the bullets as
soon as possible from the body, and to modify the wounds to make it look
like they came from above and behind. Simple enough for the average
person to understand.

> One mundance explantion and one fantastic one. Guess which one the
> conspiracy hobbyists pick.
>
> > The other shooters firing
> > at JFK would take care of hitting him,
>
> Apparently not because you have bullets hitting all over Dealey Plaza.
> Everywhere except in the limo. All those bullets raining down on the limo
> and only one managed to hit anything in the limo.
>

Even the phony AR said more than one bullet hit JFK. But we know there
was at least one in the head, one in the upper back, and one in the
throat. A few others were near to the limousine or in it, so they were
close misses.

> > and taking the body to a military
> > hospital would allow them to remove any wrong bullets from the body and do
> > any changes to the body to make it look more like it was hit by bullets

> > from the TSBD only.

> >
>
> Only a finger painting conspiracy hobbyist could come up with a theory
> that bizarre.

LOL! Still trying to copy Bud's used insults? Soon you'll sound like
Bud.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

#
#
##########
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

The grassy knoll shooter was just there as an insurance shot in case
something went wrong in the TSBD. And it did. Oswald's rifle jammed.
And who said the bullets had to be different. They could all be from the
same lot of WCC ammo.

> OR
>
> we could dismiss such a convoluted and cockamamie theory and accept that
> the guy who owned the rifle that fired the only two recovered bullets was
> the assassin.
>

The Fallacy of False Alternatives. You are a master of that.

> One mundance explantion and one fantastic one. Guess which one the
> conspiracy hobbyists pick.
>

You always seem to love mundace, whatever that is. Did you mean Mud
Dance? I think I saw them at the Wang Theatre.

>> The other shooters firing
>> at JFK would take care of hitting him,
>
> Apparently not because you have bullets hitting all over Dealey Plaza.
> Everywhere except in the limo. All those bullets raining down on the limo
> and only one managed to hit anything in the limo.

There may be more damage to the limo that YOU don't know. Because you
are a WC defender and the limo evidence was destroyed.

[bigdog]

So her signed statement means nothing and her memory 15 years later means
everything. You're finger painting again.

[bigdog]

So who manipulated him into bringing in his rifle and what evidence do you
have of this manipulation?

As is your custom, you give greater weight to a 20 year old memory that
wasn't given under oath than you do to his sworn testimony given just
months after the assassination.

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man.
Mr. BELIN. Was the man that you saw in the window firing the rifle the same
man that you had seen earlier in the window, you said at least a couple of
times, first stepping up and then going back?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.

>
>
> > > Brennan is discredited
> > > as a witness to anything but seeing a rifle stick out of the window, and
> > > he even got that wrong by saying he didn't see a scope on the rifle. A
> > > lawyer had to keep at him until he admitted that he wasn't sure about
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > So he didn't notice the scope. He notice the guy looking through the
> > scope.
> >
>
>
> WERONG! See above. Leave it to you to pick Brennan as your flag bearer, and him discredited! At mist he saw a gun sticking out of the window. Amos Euins was 10 feet from Brennan and he couldn't see very much at all in that first window, and his sight was fine. At 12:30pm the sun was pretty high.
>

I didn't pick him. He is the witness who IDed Oswald. At 12:30, the sun
was high and at his back so it wouldn't have been an issue.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > scene of the crime situated as they would be if he was facing down Elm St.
> > > > The fingerprints were on boxes that had been stacked up to form a rifle
> > > > rest. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle.
> > >
> > >
> > > Since Oswald owned the rifle, there easily could be a time when he
> > > would put the rifle up to his shoulder, and a thread get caught on the
> > > rifle. It could be on any day. Oswald also worked at the TSBD and
> > > probably stacked those boxes or handled them at some time.
> > >
> >
> > And it was just more of Oswald's shit luck that he just happened to wear
> > the same shirt he was wearing when he put the rifle to his shoulder. And
> > just his shit luck that he would just happen to put his hands on the tops
> > of the backs oriented how they would be if he were facing down Elm St. You
> > want us to believe all of these things coincidentally fell into place to
> > make it look like Oswald was the shooter. Damn, he had to be the
> > unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Oswald probably didn't have 10 shirts to his name, but when bringing in the rifle he could just as easily have tried it on his shoulder for a second or two. It just isn't evidence of anything. More of your imaginary nonsense.
>

When you fire a rifle, the butt gets driven forcefully into your shoulder.
That doesn't happen when you casually put a rifle to your shoulder.

Now let me understand your scenario. You have Oswald bringing the
disassembled rifle into the TSBD hidden in the bag. Then you have Oswald
hiding the bag. Then you have your two men finding his bag, stealing his
rifle and firing it out the window. So when did Oswald put the rifle to
his shoulder?

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Who but a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would argue that taken as a whole
> > > > that is enough to prove Oswald was the assassin. What more do you want. A
> > > > video of him firing the shots. A signed confession. Even if you had that
> > > > you would make up excuses to dismiss that as well, just as you have with
> > > > every other piece of evidence of his guilt.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is NO evidence of his guilt. He wasn't even on the 6th floor
> > > when the shots were fired. He was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor,
> > > based on the statement of Carolyn Arnold.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. We know you've chosen to dismiss every bit of evidence of Oswald's
> > guilt base on the 15 year old memory of Carolyn Arnold which conflicts
> > with the statement she signed just months after the assassination.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! No evidence was dismissed, and all taken into consideration.
That's your standard attempt to throw out your opinion as if it counted
for something.

>
> Given the attempt of the FBI to fake her statement earlier, I would think that the second statement was faked too.

Your answer to all inconvenient evidence. It was faked. <chuckle>

> Because they said there was a signature, doesn't mean there really as one, given their having been caught at chicanery with the statements of witnesses in the past. When Arnold gave her true statement she made a sarcastic comment about what they had said was her statement. She went on about her life and didn't try to gain fame or fortune, or try for more attention.
>
>
>
> > > > > In fact, there was a TSBD worker named Carolyn Arnold that saw Oswald at
> > > > > about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and at about that same time 2
> > > > > men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you're willing to chuck all the evidence of Oswald's guilt based on a
> > > > 15 year old estimate of what time Arnold saw Oswald which even if correct
> > > > would not preclude him from being the shooter in the nest 15 minutes
> > > > later.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The other so-called evidence said nothing about Oswald firing anything
> > > out the window. And the paraffin test said that he had not fired a rifle.
> > >
> >
> > If you would ever bother to read the WC, you would know that a paraffin
> > test proved no such thing and why. But since you choose to remain
> > willfully ignorant, I can't help you.
> >
>
>
> Oh? Is there a specific passage that will help understand the foolishness of the WCR? Where is it? Here we give links to the cite and the context to prove our comments.
>
>
>
> Is the following info of use in dealing with the paraffin test?
>
> "The Paraffin Test
>
> During the course of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald following the assassination a paraffin test was performed by the Dallas police on both of his hands and his right cheek. The paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the test. The cast of the right cheek showed no reaction. 87"
>
> And...
>
> " In fact, however, the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not. 89 On the one hand, diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine will react positively not only with nitrates from gunpowder residues, but nitrates from other sources and most oxidizing agents, including dichromates, per-manganates, hypochlorates, periodates, and some oxides. Thus, contact with tobacco, Clorox, urine, cosmetics, kitchen matches, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, or soils, among other things, may result in a positive reaction to the paraffin test. Also, the mere handling of a weapon may leave nitrates on the skin. 90 A positive reaction is, therefore, valueless in determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon."
>
> From:
> http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#paraffin
>
> Pages 560-561
>
> I decided to check you out as to veracity, and you failed. The information above is from your famous WCR at the location noted. Not only did the paraffin test say that Oswald did not fire a rifle, it also said the paraffin test was useless in determining whether s suspect had fired a gun at all. So even firing of his revolver may be in doubt! Try to stay on the up-and-up in the future, eh?
>

I'm impressed. You actually looked up something in the WCR. I would be
more impressed if you had actually understood what it said. It said a
paraffin test cannot prove whether someone has or has not fired a gun.

Small bunch of items? 53 by Bugliosi's count. Accused murderers are
routinely convicted on far less. I even convicted one of them.

[bigdog]

Keep those lame excuses coming. When you're a conspiracy hobbyist, it's
what you do.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > It's also very silly to believe Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom 15
> > > > minutes before the shooting, presumably having lunch, and then 17 minutes
> > > > later Mrs. Reid sees him walking across to the stairwell on the 2nd floor
> > > > carrying a FULL Coke bottle. What, Oswald never even took a sip during
> > > > his entire time in the lunchroom? (he said he went to the 2nd floor to buy
> > > > A Coke, not Cokes).
> > >
> > >
> > > Did it occur to you that he may have finished the coke he first got
> > > while sitting in the lunchroom, and he bought another to take with him?
> > > Sounds like you have what they call a 'preconceived notion'. Next time,
> > > think it through.
> > >
> >
> > You telling anyone to think things through is laughable. There is no way
> > you could come up with the things you do if you actually thought anything
> > through.
>
>
> Well, my choice was to do as I do, and not as you do and just jump in
> all the time and make constant mistakes, needing correction.
>

It's not your intent to make mistakes but you do it anyway. You can't help
yourself.

[bigdog]

So the "evidence" of your assumptions are your assumptions. WTG!!!

>
>
> > > But another person knew where it was hidden and used
> > > it to shoot at the motorcade.
> >
> > And you know this how?
> >
>
>
> Because we know that Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone.
>

IOW, you assumed this too.

>
>
> > > Not to hit anything, but to satisfy the
> > > forensics that it was fired at the motorcade.
> >
> > So the plan was to fired different rifles at the motorcade introducing
> > bullets from those different rifles into evidence and then blaming the
> > shooter on one guy
> >
> > OR
> >
> > we could dismiss such a convoluted and cockamamie theory and accept that
> > the guy who owned the rifle that fired the only two recovered bullets was
> > the assassin.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! So you think an assassination has to be simple?

Doesn't have to be but this one was.

> The plan
> wasn't to fire different rifles, but the situation demanded it, since the
> only rifle on the scene was the MC rifle, which the other shooters did not
> choose. And the multiple bullets from multiple rifles didn't matter
> because they would order the military doctors to remove all the bullets as
> soon as possible from the body, and to modify the wounds to make it look
> like they came from above and behind. Simple enough for the average
> person to understand.
>

Can someone translate this? I don't speak Jibberish.

>
>
> > One mundance explantion and one fantastic one. Guess which one the
> > conspiracy hobbyists pick.
> >
> > > The other shooters firing
> > > at JFK would take care of hitting him,
> >
> > Apparently not because you have bullets hitting all over Dealey Plaza.
> > Everywhere except in the limo. All those bullets raining down on the limo
> > and only one managed to hit anything in the limo.
> >
>
>
> Even the phony AR said more than one bullet hit JFK. But we know there
> was at least one in the head, one in the upper back, and one in the
> throat. A few others were near to the limousine or in it, so they were
> close misses.
>

You call bullets hitting near the limo close misses. Those were Maggie's
Drawers shots.

>
>
> > > and taking the body to a military
> > > hospital would allow them to remove any wrong bullets from the body and do
> > > any changes to the body to make it look more like it was hit by bullets
> > > from the TSBD only.
> > >
> >
> > Only a finger painting conspiracy hobbyist could come up with a theory
> > that bizarre.
>
>
> LOL! Still trying to copy Bud's used insults? Soon you'll sound like
> Bud.
>

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[David Von Pein]

CHRIS / FRAME SAID:

I've supplied reasons to explain Oswald's use of the paper bag and his
being quiet about bringing in the rifle.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, I know. And those reasons you gave are hilarious and idiotic.

(Blushing yet?)

BTW, your theory about LHO wanting to hide the rifle from Roy Truly
becomes even sillier when you think of the alternative that Oswald would
have had of taking his rifle to work to "sell" or "show" to someone AFTER
the work day was completed at 4:45.

Why couldn't Oswald have just said this to a potential purchaser of the
gun? ---

Hey, Junior, meet me outside by Wesley's car at 4:45 and I'll show you the
rifle you wanted me to bring in today.

Let's see Chris turn himself into a pretzel as he attempts to knock down
the logic of my last paragraph above.

[mainframetech]

Here we go again. At some point, since Oswald owned the rifle in
question, he might well put it to his shoulder to se how it felt. Tat
could leave a fiber on the but plate on any day leading up to Friday, or
even on Friday. Since the boss would get angry if his workers were
chatting and trading rifles when they should be fetching books, he would
get peeved if he caught them. So a paper bag hiding the rifle would do
nicely to keep the boss in the dark. To bring the rifle in with the paper
bag, disassembly would be required. An easy job, leaving a print on the
barrel. Fingerprints on boxes where he worked and may have searched out
some books, hardly an accusation. And remember, the fingerprint of Mac
Wallace was also on one of the boxes in the 'nest'. He was LBJ's hit man.
These are not coincidences, just normal events.

> > If Oswald's intention in bringing the rifle to work was to sell it, why
> > did he bring it in disassembled? Why would he feel the need to lie to
> > Frazier about it if it was for innocent reasons. Why not just leave the
> > rifle assembled in Frazier's trunk and go out to the parking lot at lunch
> > time to show it to whomever he intended to sell it to? As with all your
> > excuses for Oswald, this makes no sense.
> >

The reasons are obvious if you don't have a pre-conceived notion that
Oswald was a killer, which he wasn't based on the evidence. To get the
rifle into the paper bag disassembly was required. To put the rifle in
the bag was explained above. Oswald was a private person, who often kept
his business to himself. Avoiding telling Frazier what he was doing was
natural for him ,and would avoid Frazier telling anything about what
Oswald was doing, such a selling rifles at work. Simple.

> > > > It's also very silly to believe Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom 15
> > > > minutes before the shooting, presumably having lunch, and then 17 minutes
> > > > later Mrs. Reid sees him walking across to the stairwell on the 2nd floor
> > > > carrying a FULL Coke bottle. What, Oswald never even took a sip during
> > > > his entire time in the lunchroom? (he said he went to the 2nd floor to buy
> > > > A Coke, not Cokes).
> > >
> > >
> > > Did it occur to you that he may have finished the coke he first got
> > > while sitting in the lunchroom, and he bought another to take with him?
> > > Sounds like you have what they call a 'preconceived notion'. Next time,
> > > think it through.
> > >
> >
> > You telling anyone to think things through is laughable. There is no way
> > you could come up with the things you do if you actually thought anything
> > through.
>

Sorry, that's how I found the answers. From the information in the
ARRB files, much of the conspiracy was laid out. Once you prove that
there as a cover up at the autopsy, then you have a conspiracy before the
autopsy.

> You can add STUPID to the list of reasons why LHO didn't bring his
> rifle to work just to show it off. Of all days to bring it, he decides to
> do it on the one day the POTUS is passing by his building?. Is he that
> stupid?, wouldn't he know there would be extra Police, SS and other
> security personnel all around?, would he want to be caught carrying a
> rifle into the building and explain it away by saying he was just trying
> to sell it? Yeah, right.

There are a number of people that think Oswald didn't even know the
motorcade would pass by his building. But it would certainly help explain
his care in hiding the rifle to smuggle it into work.

With all your sureness that Oswald was somehow guilty, remember that
Carolyn saw him at about 12:15pm in the lunchroom, at about the same time
they saw 2 men with a gun in the 6rth floor window. If Oswald had tried
to go to that window after the lunchroom, those 2 men would see to it that
he could not wrest the window from them. But that didn't happen, so they
didn't have to exert domain over that window that they fired the MC rifle
from.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Talk about ridiculous! Not seeing an employee that was quiet
and had few interactions with others? Who mostly kept to himself? THAT
somehow says he was in the 6th floor window when there were already 2 men
with a gun there? I don't think so. Think it through.

> Like everyone else, I remember exactly where I was when we heard JFK had
> been shot. I have very vivid memories of the rest of that day. I have zero
> memories of what happened previously that day. Why would I. Up until our
> principal made the announcement over the loudspeaker, it was just another
> day like any other day.

Well, you were always a special case, weren't you?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

You have a wild imagination. Didn't you know that Curry went on TV the
night before and warned the public to behave themselves. Did you hear him
specifically warn Oswald to not take his Carcano to the TSBD? Oh, that's
right, he didn't even know about Oswald because the FBI neglected to tell
him.

[Bud]

Proven wrong when he shot people.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're saying they didn't have tape back in 1963?
Or that you don't believe we landed on the moon because YOU didn't see
it live on TV?

[mainframetech]

Poor DVP. Tears himself up every time he tried to spread his faulty
wisdom around. We have no idea whether another person would have any time
after work, and it's not "silly" to avoid the boss knowing that you're
goofing off and selling or trading rifles when you should be fetching
books to fill orders.

Simple. Don't hurt yourself responding.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You've seen the list of evidence pointing to that.

> > > > Not to hit anything, but to satisfy the
> > > > forensics that it was fired at the motorcade.
> > >
> > > So the plan was to fired different rifles at the motorcade introducing
> > > bullets from those different rifles into evidence and then blaming the
> > > shooter on one guy
> > >
> > > OR
> > >
> > > we could dismiss such a convoluted and cockamamie theory and accept that
> > > the guy who owned the rifle that fired the only two recovered bullets was
> > > the assassin.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! So you think an assassination has to be simple?
>
> Doesn't have to be but this one was.
>

Simple in YOUR mind.

> > The plan
> > wasn't to fire different rifles, but the situation demanded it, since the
> > only rifle on the scene was the MC rifle, which the other shooters did not
> > choose. And the multiple bullets from multiple rifles didn't matter
> > because they would order the military doctors to remove all the bullets as
> > soon as possible from the body, and to modify the wounds to make it look
> > like they came from above and behind. Simple enough for the average

> > person to understand. The messy tracheotomy was really Humes looking for the bullet that hit the throat.

> >
>
> Can someone translate this? I don't speak Jibberish.
>

Or you don't understand English, and don't have any opposing proof to
show.

> > > One mundance explantion and one fantastic one. Guess which one the
> > > conspiracy hobbyists pick.
> > >
> > > > The other shooters firing
> > > > at JFK would take care of hitting him,
> > >
> > > Apparently not because you have bullets hitting all over Dealey Plaza.
> > > Everywhere except in the limo. All those bullets raining down on the limo
> > > and only one managed to hit anything in the limo.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Even the phony AR said more than one bullet hit JFK. But we know there
> > was at least one in the head, one in the upper back, and one in the
> > throat. A few others were near to the limousine or in it, so they were
> > close misses.
> >
>
> You call bullets hitting near the limo close misses. Those were Maggie's
> Drawers shots.
>

Too many for 3 shells in the 'nest' right? :)

> > > > and taking the body to a military
> > > > hospital would allow them to remove any wrong bullets from the body and do
> > > > any changes to the body to make it look more like it was hit by bullets
> > > > from the TSBD only.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only a finger painting conspiracy hobbyist could come up with a theory
> > > that bizarre.
> >
> >
> > LOL! Still trying to copy Bud's used insults? Soon you'll sound like
> > Bud.
> >
>
> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

LOL! He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool,
shun him. Ancient Japanese knowledge.

Chris

[mainframetech]

There was someone, maybe 2 someones in the TSBD that were the shooters
at the motorcade. There was de Mohrenschildt also as a possibility. The
evidence shows that Oswald had no intention of shooting anyone that day.
He bought no ammunition, he did no practice with the rifle, and he put it
in a blanket and threw it in the garage. We know he did NOT practice
because the rifle had faults that had to be fixed but were not. No matter
how lethal a faulty rifle is, no one is going to use it to shoot at the
POTUS without practicing and fixing the faults.

> > > > > > Except that it is agreed that the MC rifle was Oswald's and that he
> > > > > > snuck it into the TSBD probably that day, or soon before that day. That
> > > > > > does NOT prove that LHO pulled the trigger and fired at the motorcade.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Correct so far.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nice to see you agreeing with what you wrote before. Sometimes you
> > > contradict it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > We have an eyewitness who IDed him and also the shooting location where
> > > > > the spent shells would later be found. We have his fingerprints at the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! You DO NOT have a witness that IDed Oswald. You have a witness
> > > > that saw Oswald on TV twice before going down to the lineup,
> > >
> > > and then IDed Oswald.
> > >
> > > > and a
> > > > detective at the lineup asking Brennan if he was going to pick the second
> > > > person in the lineup, which was Oswald's position.
> > >
> > > Source?
> > >
> >
> >

> > You mean that you know even less about this case than I thought? The

> > information came from Brennan himself in his book Eyewitness to history:
> >
> > "The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted
> > me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the
> > case was, then others must know. He asked me, "Does the second man from
> > the left look most like the man you saw?" He was talking about Oswald and
> > I knew what he wanted me to say."
> >
> > From: http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
> >
> > So we have Brennan himself discrediting himself as a witness. Some
> > witness you picked to tell your nonsense.
> >
>
> As is your custom, you give greater weight to a 20 year old memory that
> wasn't given under oath than you do to his sworn testimony given just
> months after the assassination.
>

LOL! Bites doesn't it? Brennan is discredited. Forget him, he did
himself in by telling the truth. Being a witness in the 'crime of the
century' helps the memory somewhat...:)

> Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
> positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
> that you saw in the police station?
> Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
> as being the same man.
> Mr. BELIN. Was the man that you saw in the window firing the rifle the same
> man that you had seen earlier in the window, you said at least a couple of
> times, first stepping up and then going back?
> Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
>
> >
> >
> > > > Brennan is discredited
> > > > as a witness to anything but seeing a rifle stick out of the window, and
> > > > he even got that wrong by saying he didn't see a scope on the rifle. A
> > > > lawyer had to keep at him until he admitted that he wasn't sure about
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So he didn't notice the scope. He notice the guy looking through the
> > > scope.
> > >
> >
> >

> > WRONG! See above. Leave it to you to pick Brennan as your flag bearer, and him discredited! At most he saw a gun sticking out of the window. Amos Euins was 10 feet from Brennan and he couldn't see very much at all in that first window, and his sight was fine. At 12:30pm the sun was pretty high.

> >
>
> I didn't pick him. He is the witness who IDed Oswald. At 12:30, the sun
> was high and at his back so it wouldn't have been an issue.
>

At his back but could have been reflected off the windows of the TSBD.
Either way, he's the one person that was so sure with his complete
description that it was enough to make anyone wonder how he got so good by
comparison to Amos Euins.

> > > > > scene of the crime situated as they would be if he was facing down Elm St.
> > > > > The fingerprints were on boxes that had been stacked up to form a rifle
> > > > > rest. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Since Oswald owned the rifle, there easily could be a time when he
> > > > would put the rifle up to his shoulder, and a thread get caught on the
> > > > rifle. It could be on any day. Oswald also worked at the TSBD and
> > > > probably stacked those boxes or handled them at some time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And it was just more of Oswald's shit luck that he just happened to wear
> > > the same shirt he was wearing when he put the rifle to his shoulder. And
> > > just his shit luck that he would just happen to put his hands on the tops
> > > of the backs oriented how they would be if he were facing down Elm St. You
> > > want us to believe all of these things coincidentally fell into place to
> > > make it look like Oswald was the shooter. Damn, he had to be the
> > > unluckiest SOB that ever lived.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Oswald probably didn't have 10 shirts to his name, but when bringing in the rifle he could just as easily have tried it on his shoulder for a second or two. It just isn't evidence of anything. More of your imaginary nonsense.
> >
>
> When you fire a rifle, the butt gets driven forcefully into your shoulder.
> That doesn't happen when you casually put a rifle to your shoulder.
>

WRONG! So what? It doesn't take a hard shot to make a fiber get
caught on a bit of metal sticking out. Your making up nonsense again.

> Now let me understand your scenario. You have Oswald bringing the
> disassembled rifle into the TSBD hidden in the bag. Then you have Oswald
> hiding the bag. Then you have your two men finding his bag, stealing his
> rifle and firing it out the window. So when did Oswald put the rifle to
> his shoulder?
>

There was time before he put it in the bag. And if you thought for
just a moment before you opened your mouth, you would have thought of it.
Once a fiber is caught, it can be hard to dislodge.

> > > > > Who but a dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would argue that taken as a whole
> > > > > that is enough to prove Oswald was the assassin. What more do you want. A
> > > > > video of him firing the shots. A signed confession. Even if you had that
> > > > > you would make up excuses to dismiss that as well, just as you have with
> > > > > every other piece of evidence of his guilt.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is NO evidence of his guilt. He wasn't even on the 6th floor
> > > > when the shots were fired. He was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor,
> > > > based on the statement of Carolyn Arnold.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. We know you've chosen to dismiss every bit of evidence of Oswald's
> > > guilt base on the 15 year old memory of Carolyn Arnold which conflicts
> > > with the statement she signed just months after the assassination.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! No evidence was dismissed, and all taken into consideration.
> That's your standard attempt to throw out your opinion as if it counted
> for something.
>
> >
> > Given the attempt of the FBI to fake her statement earlier, I would think that the second statement was faked too.
>
>
> Your answer to all inconvenient evidence. It was faked. <chuckle>
>

> > Because they said there was a signature, doesn't mean there really was one, given their having been caught at chicanery with the statements of witnesses in the past. When Arnold gave her true statement she made a sarcastic comment about what they had said was her statement. She went on about her life and didn't try to gain fame or fortune, or try for more attention.

You got it. So I checked you out and found you wanting. You've waved
that WCR around at me for a long time, and here it makes you out as
telling nonsense.

Bugliosi's 53 were answered out n the internet. I didn't bother to
copy it and put it here. But anyone with knowledge of the truth can make
hash out of it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Is finger painting the only level you understand? If you read
the signed statement it is correct and is also noncommittal. It says
almost nothing. I doubt that she signed it. However, can you give any
good reasons for Arnold to tell a lie to the reporters when she found out
what the FBI said in her place? She did not try for fame or fortune, and
didn't look for attention, she went back to her life quietly. So why lie?
No reason, so no lie. Also note the difference in the previous statements
that the FBI filed vs. the statement she made when she found out that she
had been used by the FBI. Very different. The first 2 statements that
the FBI made up were hesitant or told nothing, and her own statement was
clear and concise.

Chris

[Bud]

Its the only approach you employ.

[bigdog]

We have nothing but your imagination telling us Oswald brought the rifle
to work to sell. Not a scrap of evidence to support it.

[bigdog]

I've seen your silly arguments, none of which comes close to rising to the
level of evidence.

>
>
> > > > > Not to hit anything, but to satisfy the
> > > > > forensics that it was fired at the motorcade.
> > > >
> > > > So the plan was to fired different rifles at the motorcade introducing
> > > > bullets from those different rifles into evidence and then blaming the
> > > > shooter on one guy
> > > >
> > > > OR
> > > >
> > > > we could dismiss such a convoluted and cockamamie theory and accept that
> > > > the guy who owned the rifle that fired the only two recovered bullets was
> > > > the assassin.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! So you think an assassination has to be simple?
> >
> > Doesn't have to be but this one was.
> >
>
>
>
> Simple in YOUR mind.
>

Simple in the mind of anyone who has seen the evidence and possesses
common sense.

>
>
> > > The plan
> > > wasn't to fire different rifles, but the situation demanded it, since the
> > > only rifle on the scene was the MC rifle, which the other shooters did not
> > > choose. And the multiple bullets from multiple rifles didn't matter
> > > because they would order the military doctors to remove all the bullets as
> > > soon as possible from the body, and to modify the wounds to make it look
> > > like they came from above and behind. Simple enough for the average
> > > person to understand. The messy tracheotomy was really Humes looking for the bullet that hit the throat.
>
>
>
> > >
> >
> > Can someone translate this? I don't speak Jibberish.
> >
>
>
> Or you don't understand English, and don't have any opposing proof to
> show.
>

I would first have to decipher what it is you are trying to argue. Is thee
a Rosetta Stone for this crap.

>
>
> > > > One mundance explantion and one fantastic one. Guess which one the
> > > > conspiracy hobbyists pick.
> > > >
> > > > > The other shooters firing
> > > > > at JFK would take care of hitting him,
> > > >
> > > > Apparently not because you have bullets hitting all over Dealey Plaza.
> > > > Everywhere except in the limo. All those bullets raining down on the limo
> > > > and only one managed to hit anything in the limo.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Even the phony AR said more than one bullet hit JFK. But we know there
> > > was at least one in the head, one in the upper back, and one in the
> > > throat. A few others were near to the limousine or in it, so they were
> > > close misses.
> > >
> >
> > You call bullets hitting near the limo close misses. Those were Maggie's
> > Drawers shots.
> >
>
>
> Too many for 3 shells in the 'nest' right? :)
>

Two bullets hit inside the limo. One hit outside the limo. 2 + 1 = 3.

>
>
> > > > > and taking the body to a military
> > > > > hospital would allow them to remove any wrong bullets from the body and do
> > > > > any changes to the body to make it look more like it was hit by bullets
> > > > > from the TSBD only.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only a finger painting conspiracy hobbyist could come up with a theory
> > > > that bizarre.
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! Still trying to copy Bud's used insults? Soon you'll sound like
> > > Bud.
> > >
> >
> > Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
>
>
> LOL! He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool,
> shun him. Ancient Japanese knowledge.
>

I won't say it. It's too easy.

[David Von Pein]

I will give Chris/Frame credit for at least acknowledging the fact that
LHO *did*, in fact, haul his rifle to work on 11/22. Nearly all Internet
CTers have now decided to pretend that such an event never occurred *at
all*. So at least Chris is closer to the truth than those other folks are.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You have expressed your opinion, now do like me and provide
some evidence for your contentions.

Yep, that proves it. You have a losing grasp on the language.

> > > > > One mundance explantion and one fantastic one. Guess which one the
> > > > > conspiracy hobbyists pick.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The other shooters firing
> > > > > > at JFK would take care of hitting him,
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently not because you have bullets hitting all over Dealey Plaza.
> > > > > Everywhere except in the limo. All those bullets raining down on the limo
> > > > > and only one managed to hit anything in the limo.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Even the phony AR said more than one bullet hit JFK. But we know there
> > > > was at least one in the head, one in the upper back, and one in the
> > > > throat. A few others were near to the limousine or in it, so they were
> > > > close misses.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You call bullets hitting near the limo close misses. Those were Maggie's
> > > Drawers shots.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Too many for 3 shells in the 'nest' right? :)
> >
>
> Two bullets hit inside the limo. One hit outside the limo. 2 + 1 = 3.
>

WRONG! 3 bullets hit JFK, head back and throat. So there had to be
one (at least) that hit Connally. It's been proven that the back wound
bullet never went past the body of JFK. However, there were only 2 head
wounds, one over the right ear, and one at the forehead/temple area.
Which ones were the exits for the 2 fragments, one of which struck the
chrome overhead bar?

> >
> >
> > > > > > and taking the body to a military
> > > > > > hospital would allow them to remove any wrong bullets from the body and do
> > > > > > any changes to the body to make it look more like it was hit by bullets
> > > > > > from the TSBD only.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Only a finger painting conspiracy hobbyist could come up with a theory
> > > > > that bizarre.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL! Still trying to copy Bud's used insults? Soon you'll sound like
> > > > Bud.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
> >
> >
> > LOL! He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool,
> > shun him. Ancient Japanese knowledge.
> >
>
> I won't say it. It's too easy.

Smart move...It would bounce back on you...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I'll repeat my original statement. Since We have evidence that
Oswald didn't want to kill anyone that day, and evidence that he wasn't
even on the right floor to shoot at anyone, I found reasons for him to
bring in a rifle. Those were selling, trading or showing it, all the most
common reasons. I did NOT say 'selling' only. Try to get it right next
time.

Chris

[bigdog]

The evidence was laid out by the WC over 50 years ago and it hasn't
changed. You have demonstrated that no matter what evidence you are
presented with, you will invent an excuse to dismiss it. It is pointless
to keep trying. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a differenr result.

I never could understand Jibberish.

>
>
> > > > > > One mundance explantion and one fantastic one. Guess which one the
> > > > > > conspiracy hobbyists pick.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The other shooters firing
> > > > > > > at JFK would take care of hitting him,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apparently not because you have bullets hitting all over Dealey Plaza.
> > > > > > Everywhere except in the limo. All those bullets raining down on the limo
> > > > > > and only one managed to hit anything in the limo.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Even the phony AR said more than one bullet hit JFK. But we know there
> > > > > was at least one in the head, one in the upper back, and one in the
> > > > > throat. A few others were near to the limousine or in it, so they were
> > > > > close misses.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You call bullets hitting near the limo close misses. Those were Maggie's
> > > > Drawers shots.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many for 3 shells in the 'nest' right? :)
> > >
> >
> > Two bullets hit inside the limo. One hit outside the limo. 2 + 1 = 3.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! 3 bullets hit JFK, head back and throat. So there had to be
> one (at least) that hit Connally. It's been proven that the back wound
> bullet never went past the body of JFK.

Oh, that's right. They got hit by magic disappearing bullets. You've got 4
shots hitting JFK and JBC and another hitting the chrome bar without
hitting anyone in the limo. You dismiss CE399 as being genuine so that
leaves you with 5 bullets hitting inside the limo but only the fragmented
bullet was recovered. That means the other 4 magically disappeared. Damn,
those conspirators were good.

[bigdog]

We have no such evidence, only the silly things you have dreamed up.

> and evidence that he wasn't
> even on the right floor to shoot at anyone,

Ditto.

> I found reasons for him to
> bring in a rifle.

You made that up too.

> Those were selling, trading or showing it, all the most
> common reasons. I did NOT say 'selling' only. Try to get it right next
> time.
>

Right. Just pretend the POTUS wasn't shot with Oswald's rifle and that
makes perfect sense.

[mainframetech]

My proximity to the truth is far and away better than anything you have
done with a whole website of WRONG and misguided material. When shown
obvious arguments, you're unable to look at them logically and recognize
that they prove things you don't want to believe.

For you it's more 'faith' than logical knowledge.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

"Nearly all"? Nearly all WC defenders are liars.

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, sure, Chris/Frame. Whatever. We all know it was "THE WORLD VS. THE
PATSY". Right?

~smirk~

[Mark Florio]

So the "whole website" is all "wrong" even though it offers in one place,
on the web, perhaps the best archival film footage of JFK's presidency,
and the assassination? I would think that anyone on here, whether Left or
Right, would appreciate that.

Also, what are "obvious arguments"? Mark

[mainframetech]

WRONG! How can you be so wrong so many times in one day? The evidence
for Oswald is the efforts of the FBI could not find anyplace that Oswald
bought any ammunition for the MC rifle, and there were only 2 places in
the area. The clincher was that the MC rifle was faulty with a scope that
had a misalignment from a bad mounting, and as sticky bolt that would
disallow rapid firing with any accuracy. The faults weren't fixed, so
Oswald didn't practice or he would have found the faults and had them
fixed. You may not like it, but that's evidence.

> > and evidence that he wasn't
> > even on the right floor to shoot at anyone,
>
> Ditto.
>
> > I found reasons for him to
> > bring in a rifle.
>
> You made that up too.
>

Of course, but since he was shown to have no interest in shooting
anyone that day, it was logical reasons from that information.

> > Those were selling, trading or showing it, all the most
> > common reasons. I did NOT say 'selling' only. Try to get it right next
> > time.
> >
>
> Right. Just pretend the POTUS wasn't shot with Oswald's rifle and that
> makes perfect sense.

I don't need to pretend that, since JFK was NOT shot with the MC
rifle. And you cannot prove any differently. No MC type bullet hit or
hurt anyone.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Now that's sad! All that phony evidence, and it remains deeply in
error for so long! No one around to update it to the realities we now
know of.

I see you're still listening to the stupid ones and repeating whatever
they tell you. Remember, I don't dismiss evidence as you do, but I may
see it differently than you.

The back wound bullet did NOT disappear. It was seen by Jerrol Custer
to fall from the back of JFK when the body was raised for an X-ray.
Leave it to you to try to cover that up.

> > However, there were only 2 head
> > wounds, one over the right ear, and one at the forehead/temple area.
> > Which ones were the exits for the 2 fragments, one of which struck the

> > chrome overhead bar? Remember, the large hole on the right side of the head didn't exist while the body was at Parkland hospital.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not magic. Guess you've never seen an explosive bullet. Or at least I hope
so for your own safety. But they have been used for over 100 years. Most
famously by John Hinckley.

They never recovered the base of the bullet. Only 4 of 5 tiny fragments
from Brady's brain. I think the base fell back out of his entrance wound
and landed in the drainage grate.

> shots hitting JFK and JBC and another hitting the chrome bar without
> hitting anyone in the limo. You dismiss CE399 as being genuine so that

Fuhrman has it hit JFK first.

> leaves you with 5 bullets hitting inside the limo but only the fragmented
> bullet was recovered. That means the other 4 magically disappeared. Damn,

You can't PROVE that the 2 large fragments both came from only one
bullet. I also think so, but Frazier wasn't sure and couldn't prove it.

> those conspirators were good.
>

Sloppy. One shot one kill, Not 5 shots with 3 misses.

[Bud]

Yet you see yourself as honest and truthful. Almost all conspiracy
hobbyists are delusional.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/18/2016 2:30 PM, Mark Florio wrote:
> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 8:51:24 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 9:23:53 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> I will give Chris/Frame credit for at least acknowledging the fact that
>>> LHO *did*, in fact, haul his rifle to work on 11/22. Nearly all Internet
>>> CTers have now decided to pretend that such an event never occurred *at
>>> all*. So at least Chris is closer to the truth than those other folks are.
>>
>>
>>
>> My proximity to the truth is far and away better than anything you have
>> done with a whole website of WRONG and misguided material. When shown
>> obvious arguments, you're unable to look at them logically and recognize
>> that they prove things you don't want to believe.
>>
>> For you it's more 'faith' than logical knowledge.
>>
>> Chris
>
> So the "whole website" is all "wrong" even though it offers in one place,

The whole web site may be a hoax, but to work it must get at least one
little think right.

> on the web, perhaps the best archival film footage of JFK's presidency,
> and the assassination? I would think that anyone on here, whether Left or
> Right, would appreciate that.
>

Like what? You don't seem to appreciate the fact that I proved that the
Zapruder film is authentic. You got another film you like better?
You got the unknown film in your closet?

[Anthony Marsh]

The CIA versus the Patsy.

> ~smirk~
>

[mainframetech]

They are arguments that I've used to give DVP something to think about,
but he was unable to think about them. Only spout the standard lines in
response. No cogitation.

Chris

[mainframetech]

::: sigh :::

I guess you'll never learn from the arguments you run away from to your
website. Where you try to save your ego by bouncing others in little
selected articles that are planned to embarrass others in hope that you
can get something back from what you regularly lose.

Chris

[bigdog]

That's not evidence. That is an absence of evidence. You've never been
able to understand the difference.

> The clincher was that the MC rifle was faulty with a scope that
> had a misalignment from a bad mounting, and as sticky bolt that would
> disallow rapid firing with any accuracy. The faults weren't fixed, so
> Oswald didn't practice or he would have found the faults and had them
> fixed. You may not like it, but that's evidence.
>

That isn't evidence either. it's an argument. You've never been able to
understand the difference between evidence and arguments either.

>
>
> > > and evidence that he wasn't
> > > even on the right floor to shoot at anyone,
> >
> > Ditto.
> >
> > > I found reasons for him to
> > > bring in a rifle.
> >
> > You made that up too.
> >
>
> Of course, but since he was shown to have no interest in shooting
> anyone that day, it was logical reasons from that information.
>

You've shown no such thing.

>
>
> > > Those were selling, trading or showing it, all the most
> > > common reasons. I did NOT say 'selling' only. Try to get it right next
> > > time.
> > >
> >
> > Right. Just pretend the POTUS wasn't shot with Oswald's rifle and that
> > makes perfect sense.
>
>
> I don't need to pretend that, since JFK was NOT shot with the MC
> rifle. And you cannot prove any differently. No MC type bullet hit or
> hurt anyone.
>

Just because 3 spent Carcano shells were found at the window where sever
witnesses saw a gunman and the majority of witnesses heard 3 shots and the
only two bullets recovered were positively matched to the Carcano is no
reason to believe the Carcano was the only weapon fired that day.
Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to live.

[bigdog]

Your favorite excuse for dealing with inconvenient evidence is to claim it
is phony.

> and it remains deeply in
> error for so long! No one around to update it to the realities we now
> know of.
>
> I see you're still listening to the stupid ones and repeating whatever
> they tell you. Remember, I don't dismiss evidence as you do, but I may
> see it differently than you.
>

Of course you do. I see it logically. You're the other guy.

Funny how you keep believing that one guy and ignore the fact nobody else
in the room saw that. Damn, you're easy.

[Mark Florio]

You know, this has really gone on long enough.

Chris, what is your evidence for your belief Oswald brought his rifle to
work on 11/22/63, to sell it, trade it, or whatever?

Yes, I know you will say because there is no evidence it was used to shoot
JFK. Okay.

But what is your hard evidence that he arrived with it for the purposes
you claim? You don't have any that I've seen, so why don't you just say
YOU DON'T KNOW?

(That would make you more credible, as it would if you did the same in so
many other areas of this case.)

Probably because if you admit you don't know why, it leads to an
overwhelming probability you don't want to contemplate.

Mark

[mainframetech]

That's not completely true. For a number of reasons that I've stated
before quite a few time, I believe that Oswald had NO intention of
shooting anyone that day, or any other day. Because of that other
evidence, I had to think of something that A person might do if they
weren't intending to shoot anyone, and selling, trading or showing the
rifle were the first things that I felt were possible. Obviously I have
no idea what was actually in Oswald's mind, and obviously I inserted the
'selling, trading and showing' myself.

Generally you'll find that if I present a new piece of information, I
will give the site and the context (link) to it, so it can be verified.
But I will be happy to answer anytime someone is still confused about what
I say, to explain it as best I can. As you se right now.

> You know, this has really gone on long enough.
>
> Chris, what is your evidence for your belief Oswald brought his rifle to
> work on 11/22/63, to sell it, trade it, or whatever?
>
> Yes, I know you will say because there is no evidence it was used to shoot
> JFK. Okay.
>

See above for explanation of 'selling, etc.'

> But what is your hard evidence that he arrived with it for the purposes
> you claim? You don't have any that I've seen, so why don't you just say
> YOU DON'T KNOW?
>

See above for explanation of 'selling, etc.'

> (That would make you more credible, as it would if you did the same in so
> many other areas of this case.)
>
> Probably because if you admit you don't know why, it leads to an
> overwhelming probability you don't want to contemplate.
>
> Mark

Ah, still the unreasonable belief that you're right all the time.
Maybe, just maybe, Oswald was innocent of the murder of JFK, and it was
indeed a conspiracy. There is certainly plenty of evidence that could
point that way. I wouldn't be too bothered to be proved wrong on this or
that item of proof or information, but as to the overall conspiracy,
there's no doubt in my mind that it was. The information I have come
across so far proves it to me, but giving it to others is fighting an
uphill battle against the faith of a religion in the WCR.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Lordee! I'm turning into an LN...I have to take a bath quick!

WRONG! It was also seen by Finck, who grabbed it. However, you keep
forgetting to mention that an X-ray was being taken at the time and others
not only had to stay back 6 feet or more, but they also would not hand on
every move of the X-ray Technician, they would chat amongst themselves and
look elsewhere as they talked.

[mainframetech]

Since you interrupted the flow of my answer, you made your usual
mistake from jumping in when you knew nothing.

> > The clincher was that the MC rifle was faulty with a scope that

> > had a misalignment from a bad mounting, and a sticky bolt that would

> > disallow rapid firing with any accuracy. The faults weren't fixed, so
> > Oswald didn't practice or he would have found the faults and had them
> > fixed. You may not like it, but that's evidence.
> >
>
> That isn't evidence either. it's an argument. You've never been able to
> understand the difference between evidence and arguments either.
>

Apparently I do, and you've just embarrassed yourself. The logical
conclusion in the paragraph above is indeed 'evidence'. As is all sorts
of things that may not be allowed in court, which we're not in right now.

> > > > and evidence that he wasn't
> > > > even on the right floor to shoot at anyone,
> > >
> > > Ditto.
> > >
> > > > I found reasons for him to
> > > > bring in a rifle.
> > >
> > > You made that up too.
> > >
> >
> > Of course, but since he was shown to have no interest in shooting
> > anyone that day, it was logical reasons from that information.
> >
>
> You've shown no such thing.
>

WRONG! You didn't see me showing it, but I showed it.

> > > > Those were selling, trading or showing it, all the most
> > > > common reasons. I did NOT say 'selling' only. Try to get it right next
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right. Just pretend the POTUS wasn't shot with Oswald's rifle and that
> > > makes perfect sense.
> >
> >
> > I don't need to pretend that, since JFK was NOT shot with the MC
> > rifle. And you cannot prove any differently. No MC type bullet hit or
> > hurt anyone.
> >
>
> Just because 3 spent Carcano shells were found at the window where sever
> witnesses saw a gunman and the majority of witnesses heard 3 shots and the
> only two bullets recovered were positively matched to the Carcano is no
> reason to believe the Carcano was the only weapon fired that day.
> Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to live.

I see you have no intelligent answer or response to my statement of
fact. It's nice to have your seal of approval.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Exactly. There's nothing to discuss here. There is zero evidence that
Oswald brought the rifle to work to sell to anyone. None at all. It's been
more than half a century since the assassination and not a single witness
has come forward to even suggest the idea. Hundreds of conspiracy books
and he can't cite a single one that includes any evidence at all to this
claim. And the "authors" (using that term loosely) writing the books have
included everything but Martians in their theories.

The claim is made up out of whole cloth. I can say Oswald brought the
rifle to shoot the pigeons on the roof of the building. There is no
evidence of that, of course and I cannot present any. So how can anyone
refute my claim? If someone makes a claim based on nothing then it's
impossible to disprove - impossible to discuss really - since the person
presents no evidence to examine.

It's a useless exercise.

[bigdog]

On your list of lamest excuses, this has to be in the top five. We're
supposed to believe everyone but Finck and Custer weren't paying attention
to what was going on and wouldn't see a bullet fall out of JFK's back and
be scooped up by Finck. And of course you have no evidence for everyone
being so distracted they didn't see this happen but you had to come up
with something and this seems the best you could do. There is one source
for this story and it is Custer. Finck never said this happened. Nobody
else said this happened. There is no physical evidence this happened. And
on top of everything else, it is ludicrous to think that it could have
happened. But that makes no difference to you. Custer told a story that is
essential to what you want to believe and that is a good enough reason for
you to believe it. You don't care if anyone or anything corroborates his
story or that the story isn't remotely feasible.

[bigdog]

It's still not evidence. It's your interpretation of the evidence which
isn't evidence of anything except that you are really bad at interpreting
evidence.

>
>
> > > > > and evidence that he wasn't
> > > > > even on the right floor to shoot at anyone,
> > > >
> > > > Ditto.
> > > >
> > > > > I found reasons for him to
> > > > > bring in a rifle.
> > > >
> > > > You made that up too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course, but since he was shown to have no interest in shooting
> > > anyone that day, it was logical reasons from that information.
> > >
> >
> > You've shown no such thing.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You didn't see me showing it, but I showed it.
>

You claimed it. Nothing but silly arguments.

>
>
> > > > > Those were selling, trading or showing it, all the most
> > > > > common reasons. I did NOT say 'selling' only. Try to get it right next
> > > > > time.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right. Just pretend the POTUS wasn't shot with Oswald's rifle and that
> > > > makes perfect sense.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't need to pretend that, since JFK was NOT shot with the MC
> > > rifle. And you cannot prove any differently. No MC type bullet hit or
> > > hurt anyone.
> > >
> >
> > Just because 3 spent Carcano shells were found at the window where sever
> > witnesses saw a gunman and the majority of witnesses heard 3 shots and the
> > only two bullets recovered were positively matched to the Carcano is no
> > reason to believe the Carcano was the only weapon fired that day.
> > Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to live.
>
>
>
> I see you have no intelligent answer or response to my statement of
> fact. It's nice to have your seal of approval.
>

That's your problem. You think you can makes something a fact by stating it.

[mainframetech]

Apparently you weren't looking when I made it clear that the talk of
'selling, trading or showing' the MC rifle was strictly made up by me.
Since evidence pointed to the idea that Oswald did NOT intend to kill
anyone with the cheapo rifle, it then was asked of me why then did he
bring the rifle in to work. I offered the possibilities of 'selling,
trading or showing' the rifle to someone else, who then fired it out the
window at the POTUS.

So the 'selling, etc.' idea was only in answer to why bring it in, if
he wasn't interested in killing anyone.

for those that don't follow along, I'll try to be more obvious about
such things.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Your BS has gone on long enough.
Show us your HARD evidence that Oswald shot JFK.
Not WC lies.

>> work on 11/22/63, to sell it, trade it, or whatever?
>>
>> Yes, I know you will say because there is no evidence it was used to shoot
>> JFK. Okay.
>>
>> But what is your hard evidence that he arrived with it for the purposes
>> you claim? You don't have any that I've seen, so why don't you just say
>> YOU DON'T KNOW?
>>
>> (That would make you more credible, as it would if you did the same in so
>> many other areas of this case.)
>>
>> Probably because if you admit you don't know why, it leads to an
>> overwhelming probability you don't want to contemplate.
>>
>> Mark
>
> Exactly. There's nothing to discuss here. There is zero evidence that
> Oswald brought the rifle to work to sell to anyone. None at all. It's been

There is ZERO evidence that OSwald shot JFK.

> more than half a century since the assassination and not a single witness
> has come forward to even suggest the idea. Hundreds of conspiracy books
> and he can't cite a single one that includes any evidence at all to this
> claim. And the "authors" (using that term loosely) writing the books have
> included everything but Martians in their theories.
>
> The claim is made up out of whole cloth. I can say Oswald brought the
> rifle to shoot the pigeons on the roof of the building. There is no

Isn't that what the punks in Charlestown said to cover up the shooting
of Darryl WIlliams?

> evidence of that, of course and I cannot present any. So how can anyone
> refute my claim? If someone makes a claim based on nothing then it's
> impossible to disprove - impossible to discuss really - since the person
> presents no evidence to examine.
>
> It's a useless exercise.
>
>

Yes, you are.

[tomnln]

On Sat Apr 9 15:51:31 2016 BOZ wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 3:42:52 PM UTC-3, David Von Pein wrote:
> > CHRIS/FRAME SAID:
> >
> > If Oswald was duped into bringing in the rifle and hiding it to later show
> > it for sale to someone in the TSBD, then there is a perfectly legitimate
> > reason to bring in the rifle and DVP is bonkers.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Then why did Oswald LIE to Frazier about the contents of his brown paper
> > package?
> >
> > And under such perfectly *innocent* "show it for sale" purposes, WHY would
> > he even feel the need to put the rifle into a brown paper bag (or ANY type
> > of container) at all on 11/22/63?
> >
> > Let's hear your lame excuses for all that, MainFrame.
>
> Why would Oswald put an apple and a cheese sandwich in such a large bag?
> Why would Oswald put his lunch in the backseat of Frazier's car? How did
> Oswald's gun get out of Ruth Paine's garage? How did Oswald's rifle end up
> on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Oswald never said his rifle was planted.
> Oswald denied owning a rifle.

============================================================================================
ce-139 is NOT the rifle that was ordered. it waas NOT oswald who mailed the order for ce-139.! !
=============================================================================================

[Anthony Marsh]

It's up to the jury to weigh the evidence. But this isn't a trial and
there is no jury here. So each person has to weigh the evidence.
Some are more biased than others and vote guilty even before the start
of the trial.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! What was going on as a standard step in an autopsy, which they
had done hundreds of times in the past. They were taking an X-ray which
was done by a technician. No one was going to bother to follow every move
of the technician. They might talk among themselves or do something else
with their notes, or whatever. But the X-ray was nothing new.

> being so distracted they didn't see this happen but you had to come up
> with something and this seems the best you could do. There is one source

There was no distraction by an X-ray being done. It was too standard
to bother hanging on every move of the technician. You're getting
ridiculous in your repetition.

> for this story and it is Custer. Finck never said this happened. Nobody
> else said this happened. There is no physical evidence this happened. And
> on top of everything else, it is ludicrous to think that it could have

Finck was one of the people ordered to not allow any info to get out
that would suggest other bullets from other guns or anything that might
lead people to doubt the 'lone nut' scenario. He'd be the last one to let
on about the bullet he grabbed.

> happened. But that makes no difference to you. Custer told a story that is
> essential to what you want to believe and that is a good enough reason for
> you to believe it. You don't care if anyone or anything corroborates his
> story or that the story isn't remotely feasible.

Don't be foolish now. Custer told a story that fit perfectly with the
other prosectors and team members. That the bullet was a 'short shot' and
so it never penetrated more than an inch or so, as they said after
probing. That would be a perfect explanation for the bullet falling out
of the back when squeezed out by the raising of the body.

Chris

[bigdog]

I'm not even going to ask you what your evidence is that nobody was paying
attention because this is just one more in a long list of things you must
assume to make your silly beliefs seem plausible. It isn't working.

>
>
> > being so distracted they didn't see this happen but you had to come up
> > with something and this seems the best you could do. There is one source
>
>
> There was no distraction by an X-ray being done. It was too standard
> to bother hanging on every move of the technician. You're getting
> ridiculous in your repetition.
>

Siebert and O'Neill were sent to Bethesda specifically to observe the
autopsy and you just want to assume at that moment they weren't doing what
they were sent there to do. As if there is anything routine about an
autopsy of a President.

>
>
> > for this story and it is Custer. Finck never said this happened. Nobody
> > else said this happened. There is no physical evidence this happened. And
> > on top of everything else, it is ludicrous to think that it could have
>
>
> Finck was one of the people ordered to not allow any info to get out
> that would suggest other bullets from other guns or anything that might
> lead people to doubt the 'lone nut' scenario. He'd be the last one to let
> on about the bullet he grabbed.
>

Keep those assumptions coming. You have to pile one assumption on top of
another. You have no evidence for any of this.

>
>
> > happened. But that makes no difference to you. Custer told a story that is
> > essential to what you want to believe and that is a good enough reason for
> > you to believe it. You don't care if anyone or anything corroborates his
> > story or that the story isn't remotely feasible.
>
>
> Don't be foolish now. Custer told a story that fit perfectly with the
> other prosectors and team members.

BULLSHIT!!! Not one other person who was in that room said anything about
a bullet falling out of JFK's back and being scooped up by Finck. Not only
is there no corroboration for Custer's bullshit story, it is preposterous
to think that a bullet would have made such a shallow penetration it would
just fall out. You've been groping for an explanation for how such a thing
is remotely possible and you keep coming up empty.

> That the bullet was a 'short shot' and
> so it never penetrated more than an inch or so, as they said after
> probing. That would be a perfect explanation for the bullet falling out
> of the back when squeezed out by the raising of the body.
>

You have no evidence of a short shot and no plausible explanation for how
such a short shot could have reached the target. A bullet that
underpowered could not have held it's trajectory long enough to reach the
target. You keep trying to float ridiculous explanations about the bullet
passing through some portion of the limo before striking JFK's back but
there is no evidence of any bullet striking the limo behind JFK and there
are a number of photos of the limo taken after the shooting that would
have shown such a strike had one occurred. Your desperation is showing.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ridiculous. No one said SHORT SHOT. That is YOUR invention.
Humes said ICE BULLET.
Mythbusters demonstrated that an ICE BULLET can make a very shallow
entrance wound and then stop.

> so it never penetrated more than an inch or so, as they said after
> probing. That would be a perfect explanation for the bullet falling out
> of the back when squeezed out by the raising of the body.
>

That is a physically impossible explanation.

> Chris
>

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The weapon used to kill JFK belonged to Oswald.

A person saw Oswald fire the rifle.

If you don't think that that's evidence then when other people say you're a fool and a crackpot and a liar and a kook then people like me might start to believe them.

We wouldn't want that to happen.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! The evidence is a knowledge which most people have about other
people. Taking an X-ray had surely became boring to them, since it
happened a hundred or more times. They would do something else and not be
particularly interested in the x-ray work. Only the X-ray Technician
would be paying attention, and apparently do did Finck. Not to mention
you've found NO reason for Custer to lie.

> > > being so distracted they didn't see this happen but you had to come up
> > > with something and this seems the best you could do. There is one source
> >
> >
> > There was no distraction by an X-ray being done. It was too standard
> > to bother hanging on every move of the technician. You're getting
> > ridiculous in your repetition.
> >
>
> Siebert and O'Neill were sent to Bethesda specifically to observe the
> autopsy and you just want to assume at that moment they weren't doing what
> they were sent there to do. As if there is anything routine about an
> autopsy of a President.
>

Sibert and O'Neill said that they were made to wait in the next room
when X-rays were being taken. Where have you been?

> > > for this story and it is Custer. Finck never said this happened. Nobody
> > > else said this happened. There is no physical evidence this happened. And
> > > on top of everything else, it is ludicrous to think that it could have
> >
> >
> > Finck was one of the people ordered to not allow any info to get out
> > that would suggest other bullets from other guns or anything that might
> > lead people to doubt the 'lone nut' scenario. He'd be the last one to let
> > on about the bullet he grabbed.
> >
>
> Keep those assumptions coming. You have to pile one assumption on top of
> another. You have no evidence for any of this.
>

WRONG! There is the evidence of the testimony of Custer. and you've
found no reason for him to lie under such dangerous circumstances. If he
had made an issue out of the 'disappeared' bullet he might have found
himself stationed in the Arctic, or the federal prison. Once free to tell
the truth, he told it. You have not shown him to be a liar.

> > > happened. But that makes no difference to you. Custer told a story that is
> > > essential to what you want to believe and that is a good enough reason for
> > > you to believe it. You don't care if anyone or anything corroborates his
> > > story or that the story isn't remotely feasible.
> >
> >
> > Don't be foolish now. Custer told a story that fit perfectly with the
> > other prosectors and team members.
>
> BULLSHIT!!! Not one other person who was in that room said anything about
> a bullet falling out of JFK's back and being scooped up by Finck. Not only
> is there no corroboration for Custer's bullshit story, it is preposterous
> to think that a bullet would have made such a shallow penetration it would
> just fall out. You've been groping for an explanation for how such a thing
> is remotely possible and you keep coming up empty.
>

BULLSHIT yourself! You as usual missed the fact that what Custer saw
explained the missing bullet that the prosectors had been in such qualms
about until the body was opened up and the organs removed. The evidence
they saw was that the bullet stopped at the pleura, but the bullet should
have been there if that happened. However, since the wound was only an
inch or so deep, it made perfect sense that it squeezed out when the body
was raised and Custer saw it. It fit perfectly with the other evidence.
It did NOT fit with the phony AR though.

> > That the bullet was a 'short shot' and
> > so it never penetrated more than an inch or so, as they said after
> > probing. That would be a perfect explanation for the bullet falling out
> > of the back when squeezed out by the raising of the body.
> >
>
> You have no evidence of a short shot and no plausible explanation for how
> such a short shot could have reached the target. A bullet that
> underpowered could not have held it's trajectory long enough to reach the
> target. You keep trying to float ridiculous explanations about the bullet
> passing through some portion of the limo before striking JFK's back but
> there is no evidence of any bullet striking the limo behind JFK and there
> are a number of photos of the limo taken after the shooting that would
> have shown such a strike had one occurred. Your desperation is showing.

WRONG! Don't even begin to play the card that there is no evidence for
the bullet being slowed down at the limo seatback. Your boys got the limo
out of there on Monday before any forensic specialist could go over it and
find the evidence. It was a crime to add to all the other crimes.

And from the evidence we KNOW that the bullet stopped at the pleura and
never went on to leave via the throat wound, as ridiculous as that is.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

So what? That is not PROOF that he fired it.

> A person saw Oswald fire the rifle.
>

NOPE. Euins saw a black man. Brennan couldn't pick out Oswald from the
line-up until prompted by the police.

> If you don't think that that's evidence then when other people say you're a fool and a crackpot and a liar and a kook then people like me might start to believe them.
>

You know where you can shove your opinions. I asked for Hard Evidence.
You never have it.

[donald willis]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 7:16 cut

>
> The weapon used to kill JFK belonged to Oswald.
>
> A person saw Oswald fire the rifle.

If you mean Brennan, this same person thought that the shooter was at a
wide open window. If he was wrong about the latter, how could he be right
about his ID of a guy 6 floors up?

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

He hasn't specified anything about fps or distance. Mythbusters could do
it at a very short distance.

[bigdog]

And this is what passes for evidence in Conspiracyland. That's hysterical.

>
>
> > > > being so distracted they didn't see this happen but you had to come up
> > > > with something and this seems the best you could do. There is one source
> > >
> > >
> > > There was no distraction by an X-ray being done. It was too standard
> > > to bother hanging on every move of the technician. You're getting
> > > ridiculous in your repetition.
> > >
> >
> > Siebert and O'Neill were sent to Bethesda specifically to observe the
> > autopsy and you just want to assume at that moment they weren't doing what
> > they were sent there to do. As if there is anything routine about an
> > autopsy of a President.
> >
>
>
> Sibert and O'Neill said that they were made to wait in the next room
> when X-rays were being taken. Where have you been?
>

You still only have Custer claiming a bullet fell out and was scooped up
by Finck. The funny part is you're sticking to your ridiculous story that
a bullet would have only penetrated an inch into JFK's back. It doesn't
get more ludicrous than that.

>
>
> > > > for this story and it is Custer. Finck never said this happened. Nobody
> > > > else said this happened. There is no physical evidence this happened. And
> > > > on top of everything else, it is ludicrous to think that it could have
> > >
> > >
> > > Finck was one of the people ordered to not allow any info to get out
> > > that would suggest other bullets from other guns or anything that might
> > > lead people to doubt the 'lone nut' scenario. He'd be the last one to let
> > > on about the bullet he grabbed.
> > >
> >
> > Keep those assumptions coming. You have to pile one assumption on top of
> > another. You have no evidence for any of this.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! There is the evidence of the testimony of Custer.

Did Custer say Finck was ordered to lie about the findings? Didn't think
so. That's the part you made up.

> and you've
> found no reason for him to lie under such dangerous circumstances.

When someone tells a story that couldn't possibly be true, I don't need to
figure out why they are lying.

> If he
> had made an issue out of the 'disappeared' bullet he might have found
> himself stationed in the Arctic, or the federal prison. Once free to tell
> the truth, he told it. You have not shown him to be a liar.
>

The things you dream up to try to hold this bullshit story of yours
together. It isn't working.

>
>
> > > > happened. But that makes no difference to you. Custer told a story that is
> > > > essential to what you want to believe and that is a good enough reason for
> > > > you to believe it. You don't care if anyone or anything corroborates his
> > > > story or that the story isn't remotely feasible.
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't be foolish now. Custer told a story that fit perfectly with the
> > > other prosectors and team members.
> >
> > BULLSHIT!!! Not one other person who was in that room said anything about
> > a bullet falling out of JFK's back and being scooped up by Finck. Not only
> > is there no corroboration for Custer's bullshit story, it is preposterous
> > to think that a bullet would have made such a shallow penetration it would
> > just fall out. You've been groping for an explanation for how such a thing
> > is remotely possible and you keep coming up empty.
> >
>
>
> BULLSHIT yourself! You as usual missed the fact that what Custer saw
> explained the missing bullet that the prosectors had been in such qualms
> about until the body was opened up and the organs removed.

There was no missing bullet. It was found at Parkland.

> The evidence
> they saw was that the bullet stopped at the pleura, but the bullet should
> have been there if that happened.

Not remotely possible.

> However, since the wound was only an
> inch or so deep, it made perfect sense that it squeezed out when the body
> was raised and Custer saw it. It fit perfectly with the other evidence.
> It did NOT fit with the phony AR though.
>

What makes perfect sense to you makes no sense to most people.

>
> > > That the bullet was a 'short shot' and
> > > so it never penetrated more than an inch or so, as they said after
> > > probing. That would be a perfect explanation for the bullet falling out
> > > of the back when squeezed out by the raising of the body.
> > >
> >
> > You have no evidence of a short shot and no plausible explanation for how
> > such a short shot could have reached the target. A bullet that
> > underpowered could not have held it's trajectory long enough to reach the
> > target. You keep trying to float ridiculous explanations about the bullet
> > passing through some portion of the limo before striking JFK's back but
> > there is no evidence of any bullet striking the limo behind JFK and there
> > are a number of photos of the limo taken after the shooting that would
> > have shown such a strike had one occurred. Your desperation is showing.
>
>
> WRONG! Don't even begin to play the card that there is no evidence for
> the bullet being slowed down at the limo seatback. Your boys got the limo
> out of there on Monday before any forensic specialist could go over it and
> find the evidence. It was a crime to add to all the other crimes.
>

Pictures were taken of the limo. There is no bullet hole in the trunk or
anywhere else behind the backseat. There were reporters stationed outside
the ER at Parkland with the limo in full view. Not one person has said
anything about a bullet hole in the trunk of the limo.

> And from the evidence we KNOW that the bullet stopped at the pleura and
> never went on to leave via the throat wound, as ridiculous as that is.
>

You think you know that because you've convinced yourself JFK was shot
with a magic bullet that had enough velocity to hold its trajectory to
reach the target but so little velocity it would only penetrate and inch
and fall out of JFK's back. There are no numbers you could plug into that
equation that will make that work. Physically impossible.