2 THINGS by David Von Pein

[BOZ]

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to
assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally.
(With said weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was
definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when both of these
men were wounded by rifle fire.)

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of
11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents
of this package to a co-worker.*

* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
"curtain rods" based on the following:

A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
after the assassination.

B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
PM on the afternoon of the assassination.

A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
were in that paper package on 11/22/63.

Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.

Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of a
doubt.**

** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository building
at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating "right
palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the VERY SPOT on
that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way Frazier said Oswald
carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very important point, IMO, and
is undeniably-strong physical evidence of Oswald's guilt.)

Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. .... The
Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The
fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing out
of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S. President
had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And Oswald's other
lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from the obvious large
lie re. the curtain rods).

But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable person
that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders in 1963,
and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet) can do or say
to change that basic of all facts.

The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course, like
always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence (and
applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts in
evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-conspiracy
arguments become.

David Von Pein
January 2006

[mainframetech]

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 6:38:01 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to
> assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally.
> (With said weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was
> definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when both of these
> men were wounded by rifle fire.)
>

Being wounded by rifle fire does not prove that Oswald did it, or that
the MC rifle was the weapon that was involved.

> 2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
> employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of
> 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents
> of this package to a co-worker.*
>
> * = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
> "curtain rods" based on the following:
>
> A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
> after the assassination.
>

The rifle was Oswald's and he brought it into the TSBD. That still
doesn't prove that he fired that rifle or that it hit or hurt anyone.

> B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
> at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
> PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
>
> A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
> were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
>
> Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
> but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
>

Nope. It doesn't do anything of the kind. Bringing in the rifle does
not make Oswald a shooter, and leaving it there also doesn't make him a
shooter.

> Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
> circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
> beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of a
> doubt.**
>

Not a chance. You haven't proved anything up to now.

> ** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
> which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
> co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository building
> at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating "right
> palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the VERY SPOT on
> that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way Frazier said Oswald
> carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very important point, IMO, and
> is undeniably-strong physical evidence of Oswald's guilt.)
>

No argument that Oswald brought in the rifle probably in the paper bag.
But that doesn't make Oswald a shooter. It's possible that someone fooled
him into bringing it in, then grabbed it and did the firing into the
street. But it doesn't matter anyway, because you can't prove that ANY MC
bullet hit or hurt anyone.

> Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
> positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window.

Brennan discredited himself in his autobiography when he admitted he saw
Oswald on TV twice before he went to the lineup. Also, he admitted that a
detective told him what position Oswald was in the lineup before he did
the ID. Brennan was discredited.

.... The
> Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The
> fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
> multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST.

Since the rifle belonged to Oswald, his fingerprints should be on it.

.... Oswald having no
> verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
> gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. ....

Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at about
12:15pm. At about that same time 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window.
If Oswald had tried to go to the 6th floor window, those 2 men would have
stopped him.

> Oswald dashing out
> of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S. President
> had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace.

Oswald didn't run out of the TSBD at 12:33pm. He was seen by Officer
Baker and Roy Truly first at the 2nd floor lunchroom, where he was before
the shooting. They talked to him a while, and THEN Oswald probably
thinking they would find his rifle and think he had done the shooting,
would arrest him. So he left to protect himself, and I bet he was also
going to find the person that set him up as the 'patsy', and that's why he
took his revolver.

> .... And Oswald's other
> lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from the obvious large
> lie re. the curtain rods).
>

When you read Marina's story, she said he lied all the time to
everyone.

> But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
> The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable person
> that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders in 1963,
> and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet) can do or say
> to change that basic of all facts.
>

Nope. No proof there that Oswald held the rifle at the window, and no
proof that he fired it, and no proof that any MC bullets hit or hurt
anyone.

> The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course, like
> always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence (and
> applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts in
> evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-conspiracy
> arguments become.
>

If the evidence above is examined, no one would believe that anyone
did the shooting.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

BOZ wrote:
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to
> assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally.

He absolutely did not fire the first shot that hit Kennedy. You should
realize that by now. The actual bullet fell from Connally's stretcher at
the hospital and was recovered by a nurse.

She showed the bullet to District attorney Wade and told him it came
from Connally's gurney, as Connally himself had stated.

They in turn, were corroborated by officer Bobby Nolan who heard the
nurse say the same thing she told Wade. Educate yourself and read this
detailed article, which explains all this in detail.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

In addition to that, the 223 shot which probably passed through both
victims, was inaudible to most, if not all witnesses. Oswald's rifle
generated 130 decibel sound levels - 16 times louder than the level that
provokes involuntary startle reactions.

Oswald might have fired the fatal shot at 313, but the fragments that
the FBI allegedly found, did not match the ones that were tested by Dr.
Guinn for the HSCA, making them very suspect.




Robert Harris

[InsideSparta]

Since you have conceded that Oswald owned the rifle, and carried it into
the TSBD in the paper bag that morning, answer these questions:

1) Why did Oswald lie to Buell Frazier and tell him that the paper bag
contained curtain rods?

2) Who at the TSBD was on such social terms with Oswald that they would
have asked him to bring his rifle into work that day? By all accounts, he
had no social interaction with anyone at the TSBD, except for those
moments when he talked about his children to Frazier.

3) Why did Oswald pick 11/22/63 of all days, to leave his wedding ring and
nearly on the money he had on Marina's dresser?

4) If the plan was for Oswald's rifle to be found on the 6th floor, why
would someone go to any lengths to hide it at all?

5) Why did no one spot any strangers in the TSBD before or immediately
after the shooting, with the exception of an elderly man that asked to use
the first floor restroom a few minutes before the motorcade arrived?

6) Why did Oswald not come clean and tell the police the identities of the
person(s) who set him up as the fall guy?

7) Why did Oswald shoot the first police officer that stopped to talk to
him? If he hadn't killed anyone at that point, why did he find it
necessary to shoot Officer Tippet?

8) If someone only fired Oswald's rifle into the street, how do you
explain the fact that both the bullet fragments found in the limo and
CE399 were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion
of all other weapons?

9) Why did Oswald lie when he said he was eating his lunch with James
Jarman at the time of the shooting.

10) Since Oswald was probably the most politically astute employee within
the TSBD, why would he not have shown any interest in viewing the
motorcade?

[Anthony Marsh]

100% untrue.

[BOZ]

The fellers on the 5th floor heard 3 shots. Are you saying they are
stupid?

[Anthony Marsh]

Guinn was wrong. NAA is worthless.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

he error above is that the SDBT was disproved at the autopsy, when the
back wound bullet was proved to have stopped at the pleura I nth body and
never left the body of JFK. Here's the statement of Paul O'Connor,
Technologist and autopsy team member:

"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/hKTNuB6fzYk


Harriws, try not to run away before reading the evidence which proves
there was no SBT.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you forgetting Joe Molina?
So you think everyone was outside watching the motorcade?
Anyone who stayed inside must be an assassin?

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

Says the man who claimed that President Clinton was never impeached. Yeah,
you're a great judge of truth. (snicker)

[mainframetech]

The NAA test has been shown to not do what they though it did.

> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> The fellers on the 5th floor heard 3 shots. Are you saying they are
> stupid?

Nope. They were probably right, though if the police pressed them, they
would say what the cops wanted. It was Texas 1963.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Who knows? Perhaps he didn't want Frazier to blat it out that he was
bringing a rifle to sell or show, or trade, or lend, or whatever. If it
got to the supervisor, it might sit well that Oswald was doing things at
work that weren't part of his job.

> 2) Who at the TSBD was on such social terms with Oswald that they would
> have asked him to bring his rifle into work that day? By all accounts, he
> had no social interaction with anyone at the TSBD, except for those
> moments when he talked about his children to Frazier.
>

He talked occasionally with others. He also had spent time asking
questions about rifles and which were good ones, and so forth. But since
he had this odd Italian rifle, he could actually initiate a chat and
mention it and generate a bit of interest himself. Once knowing he had
the rifle, finding an excuse to bring it in could be worked out. As well,
if there were any CIA influence involved, his supposed friend de
Mohrenschildt could lass on the word that he had the rifle.

> 3) Why did Oswald pick 11/22/63 of all days, to leave his wedding ring and
> nearly on the money he had on Marina's dresser?
>

Did he do that? Or did the FBI do it to make it look like he was the
guilty party? Or was something else up at the TSBD and he wasn't sure
what might happen, not that he was involved, but certainly knowledgeable
of something going on. Oswald wasn't very caring of his wife Marina, if
you read "Marina and Lee", so why suddenly is he caring about her welfare
and leaving her these things? Same for the Walker shooting which he
wasn't involved in.

> 4) If the plan was for Oswald's rifle to be found on the 6th floor, why
> would someone go to any lengths to hide it at all?
>

Difficult to know if that was part of the plan, but the plan certainly
was to implicate Oswald as the 'patsy' who did everything all by himself.
Leaving the rifle there knowing it was his, was another way to implicate
him. I believe the same about pushing the rifle way out the window was
also part of the plan to make it obvious where the shooter was to send in
the cops to the right building. It wasn't critical that the MC rifle hit
or hurt anyone, only that it be fired out the window to satisfy the
forensics. The other shooters would take care of actually hitting the
target.

> 5) Why did no one spot any strangers in the TSBD before or immediately
> after the shooting, with the exception of an elderly man that asked to use
> the first floor restroom a few minutes before the motorcade arrived?
>

At the time minutes before the motorcade came by, everyone would be at
the windows or down on the steps, and their attention would be on looking
up Elm street to see what was coming. Shooters could come in through the
loading dock entrance and go up the backstairs and be ready on the 6th
floor. There is an old man that gave that story as what happened a couple
of weeks before he died. At the moment of the shooting, everyone would be
watching the street and the limo as it raced away, and the police running
around, so that they would still be looking out the windows as the
shooters left by the back stairs and out through the loading dock.

> 6) Why did Oswald not come clean and tell the police the identities of the
> person(s) who set him up as the fall guy?
>

Because he probably had some involvement with them and he also was
playing his little "I Led Three Lives" game by getting in good with some
of the bad element around Dallas, then running to the FBI and telling them
everything. If he had talked, all that would dry up and he would also
probably be considered an accessory. While being questioned he made a
comment about 'now everyone will know who I am', as if dealing with the
police would give him away. He wanted to deal with a lawyer of his own
choice. As well, when he saw he was going to be blamed for the shooting in
the TSBD, he left as soon as he could, and I believe he went to get his
gun and began walking to go se whoever might have helped set him up. I
would suggest from the direction he went, he was headed toward Jack Ruby's
apartment.

> 7) Why did Oswald shoot the first police officer that stopped to talk to
> him? If he hadn't killed anyone at that point, why did he find it
> necessary to shoot Officer Tippet?
>

I don't know that he did. First, Tippit was rushing around looking for
someone after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. The only time he slowed down
was when he saw Oswald. There are a number of mixed signals in the scene
there, and it's not as cut and dried as you might think. There were some
folks that saw 2 people there with guns, and other things going on. I
haven't made up my mind about that whole scene, although I think Tippit
and Oswald might have known each other previously.

> 8) If someone only fired Oswald's rifle into the street, how do you
> explain the fact that both the bullet fragments found in the limo and
> CE399 were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion
> of all other weapons?
>

I believe solidly that those 2 bullets were indeed fired by the MC
rifle or Oswald's. If the rifle was going to be fired out the window,
might as well aim for the POTUS. It's also my belief that the bullet
strike over the windshield in the chrome bar was from the MC rifle and
when it struck that bar, with the solid steel rollover bar underneath it,
that the bullet was broken into 2 pieces and those pieces fell to the
floor of the limo. The position they were in however, does not lend
itself to having gone through JFK and THEN hitting the chrome bar high
above their heads. It was a miss.

The other MC bullet has a long and checkered career. It is a test
bullet, and not the original CE399 bullet. As soon as the FBI got
possession of the MC rifle, the very next day (Saturday) Robert Frazier
(FBI firearms expert) took the rifle and ran tests with it, firing over 60
shots, and giving himself a stock of used bullets from the MC rifle that
had been fired into various materials. He was also the bullet custodian,
caring for all the bullets fired and found in the case. When an MC bullet
was found on the WRONG gurney at the Parkland hospital, it went to
Frazier, and he was able to substitute one of the test bullets he had
saved from the MC rifle. Now there was a bullet in custody that
supposedly had hit the POTUS, and it came from the MC rifle! Case closed!

Later people began to doubt that the bullet (CE399) was the right
bullet, so they brought out the CE399 and showed it to 4 men that had seen
and handled the bullet that day. They all refused to identify it!! And
one of them even stated that the bullet they showed him was the wrong
shape! He said the original bullet was pointy nosed, and this one was
round nosed.

This problem of being unable to identify the bullet might be just a
normal thing, except that the exact same thing happened with the Walker
bullet that was supposed to be STEEL jacketed according to 2 detectives
that had the case. The evidence was sealed in a box for that case and was
then opened after Dec. 4th by Frazier, the JFK bullet custodian, when
someone suggested that Oswald was shooting at Walker. They showed the
Walker bullet and it was COPPER jacketed like the MC bullets! Walker
complained because he had seen the bullet art his house and didn't
recognize the one they showed. They ignored him when he sent in letters
asking them to withdraw the phony bullet.

Here's the bullets in question. First on the left is CE399:

http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif

The next 2 images are a test bullet (CE572). Both the CE399 and the
test bullet have a slight bend and flattening in the middle, and they both
have a slight bit of material missing from the tail end. As far as I'm
concerned, the CE399 is a test bullet too.

> 9) Why did Oswald lie when he said he was eating his lunch with James
> Jarman at the time of the shooting.
>

I have no idea, though if he were involved in any way with the shooters
from the 6th floor, he might want to lie to cover up what had really
happened. Remember, he was still trying to maintain his 'cover'.

> 10) Since Oswald was probably the most politically astute employee within
> the TSBD, why would he not have shown any interest in viewing the
> motorcade?

If he was involved with the shooters on the 6th floor, he would have
been able to see the street. If not, then he was simply playing cool like
he sometimes did.

Chris

[Amy Joyce]

It was 'bring your rifle to work week'. Roy Truly brought a rifle to show
others. Maybe Oswald was doing the same.

[Robert Harris]

Of course not. Most witnesses heard three of the shots.



RH

[Anthony Marsh]

You're not trying hard enough. He can just say that they were so close
and their hearing was so good that they could hear the silencer shot.
He still won't tell us which shots were silencers and which were
Oswald's rifle. I am pretty sure there is no way to put a silencer on
Oswald's rifle.

[BOZ]

Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. TRULY. They belonged to Mr. Warren Caster

[InsideSparta]

What evidence is there that anyone working at the TSBD asked Oswald to bring in his rifle that day? And, if so, why would he care if Buell Frazier knew that he was doing so. Your explanation/apology for LHO behavior just simply doesn't pass the smell test, and is really reaching, to say the least. I better, and more realistic explanation why Oswald lied about there being curtain rods in the package was because it was his rifle, and he didn't want anyone to know what his intent really was that morning.

>
>
>
> > 2) Who at the TSBD was on such social terms with Oswald that they would
> > have asked him to bring his rifle into work that day? By all accounts, he
> > had no social interaction with anyone at the TSBD, except for those
> > moments when he talked about his children to Frazier.
> >
>
>
> He talked occasionally with others. He also had spent time asking
> questions about rifles and which were good ones, and so forth. But since
> he had this odd Italian rifle, he could actually initiate a chat and
> mention it and generate a bit of interest himself. Once knowing he had

I asked you who. Who were these people that he was on such social terms
with at the TSBD that he would have gone to Irving, un-invited, a day
earlier than normal, in order to retrieve his rifle, when he most
certainly could have done so over the weekend?

>
>
> > 3) Why did Oswald pick 11/22/63 of all days, to leave his wedding ring and
> > nearly on the money he had on Marina's dresser?
> >
>
>
>
> Did he do that? Or did the FBI do it to make it look like he was the
> guilty party? Or was something else up at the TSBD and he wasn't sure
> what might happen, not that he was involved, but certainly knowledgeable
> of something going on. Oswald wasn't very caring of his wife Marina, if
> you read "Marina and Lee", so why suddenly is he caring about her welfare
> and leaving her these things? Same for the Walker shooting which he
> wasn't involved in.

Of course he did that. There's no disputing that he left both his wedding
ring and a substantial (for him) amount of money on his wife's dresser.
And, OBTW, I read "Marina And Lee" more than 20 years ago.

>
>
> > 4) If the plan was for Oswald's rifle to be found on the 6th floor, why
> > would someone go to any lengths to hide it at all?
> >
>
>
> Difficult to know if that was part of the plan, but the plan certainly
> was to implicate Oswald as the 'patsy' who did everything all by himself.
> Leaving the rifle there knowing it was his, was another way to implicate
> him. I believe the same about pushing the rifle way out the window was
> also part of the plan to make it obvious where the shooter was to send in
> the cops to the right building. It wasn't critical that the MC rifle hit
> or hurt anyone, only that it be fired out the window to satisfy the
> forensics. The other shooters would take care of actually hitting the
> target.

So, the person standing in the corner, 6th floor window, purposely did not
stick the rifle out the window until after the limo and the follow-up car
turned the corner onto Elm Street because they wanted to make it obvious
where the shooter was located? Please. He didn't stick the rifle out the
window until after they had made that turn because he didn't want the
Secret Service to spot him before he shot the president in the back.

>
>
>
> > 5) Why did no one spot any strangers in the TSBD before or immediately
> > after the shooting, with the exception of an elderly man that asked to use
> > the first floor restroom a few minutes before the motorcade arrived?
> >
>
>
>
> At the time minutes before the motorcade came by, everyone would be at
> the windows or down on the steps, and their attention would be on looking
> up Elm street to see what was coming. Shooters could come in through the
> loading dock entrance and go up the backstairs and be ready on the 6th
> floor. There is an old man that gave that story as what happened a couple
> of weeks before he died. At the moment of the shooting, everyone would be
> watching the street and the limo as it raced away, and the police running
> around, so that they would still be looking out the windows as the
> shooters left by the back stairs and out through the loading dock.

I asked you why no one saw any strangers in the TSBD either before or
immediately after the shooting. There were a number of people in the
building during the shooting, and no strangers were sighted. But Oswald
was certainly seen inside the building.

>
>
> > 6) Why did Oswald not come clean and tell the police the identities of the
> > person(s) who set him up as the fall guy?
> >
>
>
>
> Because he probably had some involvement with them and he also was
> playing his little "I Led Three Lives" game by getting in good with some
> of the bad element around Dallas, then running to the FBI and telling them
> everything. If he had talked, all that would dry up and he would also
> probably be considered an accessory. While being questioned he made a
> comment about 'now everyone will know who I am', as if dealing with the
> police would give him away. He wanted to deal with a lawyer of his own
> choice. As well, when he saw he was going to be blamed for the shooting in
> the TSBD, he left as soon as he could, and I believe he went to get his
> gun and began walking to go se whoever might have helped set him up. I
> would suggest from the direction he went, he was headed toward Jack Ruby's
> apartment.

You're right about one thing. Oswald was most definitely playing his "I
Led Three Lives" game. He was soaking up the attention like nobody's
business, and was probably thrilled that his face and image were being
broadcasted around the world. He'd achieved exactly what he intended.

>
>
>
> > 7) Why did Oswald shoot the first police officer that stopped to talk to
> > him? If he hadn't killed anyone at that point, why did he find it
> > necessary to shoot Officer Tippet?
> >
>
>
> I don't know that he did. First, Tippit was rushing around looking for
> someone after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. The only time he slowed down
> was when he saw Oswald. There are a number of mixed signals in the scene
> there, and it's not as cut and dried as you might think. There were some
> folks that saw 2 people there with guns, and other things going on. I
> haven't made up my mind about that whole scene, although I think Tippit
> and Oswald might have known each other previously.

How do you know that the first time Tippet slowed down was when he came
upon Oswald? There are something like six separate eyewitnesses that
identified Oswald as either being the person that shot Tippet, or was seen
unloading and re-loading his revolver, or running from the scene with a
gun in his hand. You can't discard all that because someone like Aquila
Clemmons came along after the event and saw one or two men running from
the scene. There is a thing called the preponderance of evidence. Look it
up.

>
>
>
> > 8) If someone only fired Oswald's rifle into the street, how do you
> > explain the fact that both the bullet fragments found in the limo and
> > CE399 were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion
> > of all other weapons?
> >
>
>
> I believe solidly that those 2 bullets were indeed fired by the MC
> rifle or Oswald's. If the rifle was going to be fired out the window,
> might as well aim for the POTUS. It's also my belief that the bullet
> strike over the windshield in the chrome bar was from the MC rifle and
> when it struck that bar, with the solid steel rollover bar underneath it,
> that the bullet was broken into 2 pieces and those pieces fell to the
> floor of the limo. The position they were in however, does not lend
> itself to having gone through JFK and THEN hitting the chrome bar high
> above their heads. It was a miss.

Well, there is only evidence of a single rifle being used, and no evidence
whatsoever of any other weapon. So, you're pretty much left with one
conclusion.

>
> The other MC bullet has a long and checkered career. It is a test
> bullet, and not the original CE399 bullet. As soon as the FBI got
> possession of the MC rifle, the very next day (Saturday) Robert Frazier
> (FBI firearms expert) took the rifle and ran tests with it, firing over 60
> shots, and giving himself a stock of used bullets from the MC rifle that
> had been fired into various materials. He was also the bullet custodian,
> caring for all the bullets fired and found in the case. When an MC bullet
> was found on the WRONG gurney at the Parkland hospital, it went to
> Frazier, and he was able to substitute one of the test bullets he had
> saved from the MC rifle. Now there was a bullet in custody that
> supposedly had hit the POTUS, and it came from the MC rifle! Case closed!

Again, there is only evidence of a single rifle being used, and that was
LHO's MC, so you really have nothing else to support your case.

Or, Oswald might have lied because he was actually crouched in the 6th
floor sniper's nest, with his rifle, shooting at the President of the
United States. Certainly makes a hell of a lot more sense than any science
fiction fantasy you or anyone can dream up.

>
>
>
> > 10) Since Oswald was probably the most politically astute employee within
> > the TSBD, why would he not have shown any interest in viewing the
> > motorcade?
>
>
> If he was involved with the shooters on the 6th floor, he would have
> been able to see the street. If not, then he was simply playing cool like
> he sometimes did.

Cool, like Fonzie? Please.

>
> Chris

[Jason Burke]

Not even the clowniest CT takes Anthony Anthony seriously.

[David Von Pein]

If that was the case, Amy, why did Oswald feel the need to tell the
"Curtain Rods" lie to Buell Frazier on the morning of Nov. 22?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html

[mainframetech]

Yes, Truly brought in his rifle to show it off. IF Oswald used the
paper bag to bring in his rifle, he was trying to hide it, possibly so
that the supervisor wouldn't get mad that Oswald was doing things at work

that weren't part of his job.

Chris

[Allan G. Johnson]

Even maybe is wishful thinking. There is no evidence he told anyone he
was bringing his rifle to work to show or sell it. No one saw him with
the rifle or heard him talk about it that day. No one saw the rifle
before the shooting. All evidence shows he did everything he could to
hide the rifle and keep anyone from knowing he brought it to work, from
lying about what was in the package to hiding it away all morning.

Also, the reason he went to Irving that Thursday evening was to get
the rifle (to USE the next day) and to try to convince Marina to move back
in with him with the kids. If his real reason was to pick up the rifle to
show or sell at work the next day, then why didn't he tell Marina or Ruth
his intentions? That would be proof that he was serious about changing
his ways. Marina did not want him to keep the rifle, if he gave it up, he
knew that would have helped persuade her. Marina didn't know it was
missing until the Police showed up at the door the next day.

[Amy Joyce]

David, I was kidding about 'bring your rifle to work week' - I just know 2
others had brought a rifle to show at work that week. But I think that it
would have been a better lie to tell Frazier that, rather than say it was
curtain rods. Better yet, why bring the rifle the day of the parade when
it would have been most suspicious? That doesn't make sense either. ...
Anyway, I wonder how Frazier feels about the lie, since he was there and
since he apparently still doesn't think Oswald did it. It could have been
said in a joking, "mind your own business", manner. We just don't know.

[Anthony Marsh]

You ASSuME that it was a rifle, but there is no proof. It could just as
easily be curtain rods.

[Anthony Marsh]

>>> muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in

Why does there have to be evidence of Oswald telling anybody anything? Did
he tell anyone that he left his wedding ring at the Paines? Did Frazier
notice and ask him about it? You are making up ridiculous objections just
to be ridiculous and objectional.

> the rifle or heard him talk about it that day. No one saw the rifle
> before the shooting. All evidence shows he did everything he could to
> hide the rifle and keep anyone from knowing he brought it to work, from
> lying about what was in the package to hiding it away all morning.
>
> Also, the reason he went to Irving that Thursday evening was to get
> the rifle (to USE the next day) and to try to convince Marina to move back

He told Frazier that the reason was to get the curtain rods.

> in with him with the kids. If his real reason was to pick up the rifle to
> show or sell at work the next day, then why didn't he tell Marina or Ruth

Why should he? Did he even want Ruth to know about the rifle. Maybe
she'd connect it with the Walker attempt.

> his intentions? That would be proof that he was serious about changing
> his ways. Marina did not want him to keep the rifle, if he gave it up, he

Oswald had no intention of changing his ways.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did Truly get mad at Custer for bringing in his rifles to show off?

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't prove that it was a lie. But did Oswald ever tell Frazier that
he owned a rifle? Or that he had shot at General Walker?

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Buell Frazier. He was the only one.
I don't think Oswald chatted with anyone at the TSBD about rifles.
He chatted about rifles in New Orleans, not Dallas.

>>
>>
>>> 3) Why did Oswald pick 11/22/63 of all days, to leave his wedding ring and
>>> nearly on the money he had on Marina's dresser?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Did he do that? Or did the FBI do it to make it look like he was the
>> guilty party? Or was something else up at the TSBD and he wasn't sure
>> what might happen, not that he was involved, but certainly knowledgeable
>> of something going on. Oswald wasn't very caring of his wife Marina, if
>> you read "Marina and Lee", so why suddenly is he caring about her welfare
>> and leaving her these things? Same for the Walker shooting which he
>> wasn't involved in.
>
> Of course he did that. There's no disputing that he left both his wedding
> ring and a substantial (for him) amount of money on his wife's dresser.
> And, OBTW, I read "Marina And Lee" more than 20 years ago.
>

He was signalling that he was separating from Marina because she had
refused to move back in with him. He often left most of his money with
Marina.

>>
>>
>>> 4) If the plan was for Oswald's rifle to be found on the 6th floor, why
>>> would someone go to any lengths to hide it at all?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Difficult to know if that was part of the plan, but the plan certainly
>> was to implicate Oswald as the 'patsy' who did everything all by himself.
>> Leaving the rifle there knowing it was his, was another way to implicate
>> him. I believe the same about pushing the rifle way out the window was
>> also part of the plan to make it obvious where the shooter was to send in
>> the cops to the right building. It wasn't critical that the MC rifle hit
>> or hurt anyone, only that it be fired out the window to satisfy the
>> forensics. The other shooters would take care of actually hitting the
>> target.
>
> So, the person standing in the corner, 6th floor window, purposely did not
> stick the rifle out the window until after the limo and the follow-up car
> turned the corner onto Elm Street because they wanted to make it obvious
> where the shooter was located? Please. He didn't stick the rifle out the
> window until after they had made that turn because he didn't want the
> Secret Service to spot him before he shot the president in the back.
>

No one stuck a rifle out of the window.

>>
>>
>>
>>> 5) Why did no one spot any strangers in the TSBD before or immediately
>>> after the shooting, with the exception of an elderly man that asked to use
>>> the first floor restroom a few minutes before the motorcade arrived?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At the time minutes before the motorcade came by, everyone would be at
>> the windows or down on the steps, and their attention would be on looking
>> up Elm street to see what was coming. Shooters could come in through the
>> loading dock entrance and go up the backstairs and be ready on the 6th
>> floor. There is an old man that gave that story as what happened a couple
>> of weeks before he died. At the moment of the shooting, everyone would be
>> watching the street and the limo as it raced away, and the police running
>> around, so that they would still be looking out the windows as the
>> shooters left by the back stairs and out through the loading dock.
>
> I asked you why no one saw any strangers in the TSBD either before or
> immediately after the shooting. There were a number of people in the
> building during the shooting, and no strangers were sighted. But Oswald
> was certainly seen inside the building.
>

Yeah, they did. So what?

>>
>>
>>> 6) Why did Oswald not come clean and tell the police the identities of the
>>> person(s) who set him up as the fall guy?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because he probably had some involvement with them and he also was
>> playing his little "I Led Three Lives" game by getting in good with some
>> of the bad element around Dallas, then running to the FBI and telling them
>> everything. If he had talked, all that would dry up and he would also
>> probably be considered an accessory. While being questioned he made a
>> comment about 'now everyone will know who I am', as if dealing with the
>> police would give him away. He wanted to deal with a lawyer of his own
>> choice. As well, when he saw he was going to be blamed for the shooting in
>> the TSBD, he left as soon as he could, and I believe he went to get his
>> gun and began walking to go se whoever might have helped set him up. I
>> would suggest from the direction he went, he was headed toward Jack Ruby's
>> apartment.
>
> You're right about one thing. Oswald was most definitely playing his "I
> Led Three Lives" game. He was soaking up the attention like nobody's
> business, and was probably thrilled that his face and image were being
> broadcasted around the world. He'd achieved exactly what he intended.
>

Then why didn't he take credit for shooting at Walker?

Acoustics. Science, try it, you'll like it.

>>
>> The other MC bullet has a long and checkered career. It is a test
>> bullet, and not the original CE399 bullet. As soon as the FBI got
>> possession of the MC rifle, the very next day (Saturday) Robert Frazier
>> (FBI firearms expert) took the rifle and ran tests with it, firing over 60
>> shots, and giving himself a stock of used bullets from the MC rifle that
>> had been fired into various materials. He was also the bullet custodian,
>> caring for all the bullets fired and found in the case. When an MC bullet
>> was found on the WRONG gurney at the Parkland hospital, it went to
>> Frazier, and he was able to substitute one of the test bullets he had
>> saved from the MC rifle. Now there was a bullet in custody that
>> supposedly had hit the POTUS, and it came from the MC rifle! Case closed!
>
> Again, there is only evidence of a single rifle being used, and that was
> LHO's MC, so you really have nothing else to support your case.
>

Again, you ignore 1978.

He did't say he ate lunch with them. It' just that some WC defenders lie
to make Oswald look like a liar.

[InsideSparta]

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 4:32:59 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> You ASSuME that it was a rifle, but there is no proof. It could just as
> easily be curtain rods.

Being that no curtain rods were found in the TSBD, and even Oswald himself
denied that he ever carried a package into the building or said anything
to Buell Frazier about curtain rods, you'd have to be an idiot to think he
actually carried curtain rods into the building that morning. You'd have
to be practically a moron to believe he didn't carry his rifle into the
building, and that it got on the 6th floor by some other magical way.
Which are you?

[mainframetech]

> > got to the supervisor, it might not sit well that Oswald was doing things at

> > work that weren't part of his job.


> What evidence is there that anyone working at the TSBD asked Oswald to bring in his rifle that day? And, if so, why would he care if Buell Frazier knew that he was doing so. Your explanation/apology for LHO behavior just simply doesn't pass the smell test, and is really reaching, to say the least. I better, and more realistic explanation why Oswald lied about there being curtain rods in the package was because it was his rifle, and he didn't want anyone to know what his intent really was that morning.

If he wanted to shoot the POTUS, they would know soon enough. But many
people that I know have done things to hide their activities from a
supervisor so they aren't docked or fired or reprimanded. That's not a
strange thing. And bringing in a rifle to sell it is not beyond the pale
either. And if your interest is in Oswald's behavior, then think about
how they were unable to prove he bought any ammunition or clip for his
rifle, and he never practiced with it either. If I was going to shoot at
the POTUS, I'd want to practice to be sure I could do it and the rifle was
up to the task. Yet when they looked at the rifle after the murder, they
found that the scope was misaligned from a bad mounting and the bolt was
'sticky'. Oswald showed no interest in shooting anyone with his rifle.
He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
the garage.

> >
> >
> >
> > > 2) Who at the TSBD was on such social terms with Oswald that they would
> > > have asked him to bring his rifle into work that day? By all accounts, he
> > > had no social interaction with anyone at the TSBD, except for those
> > > moments when he talked about his children to Frazier.
> > >
> >
> >
> > He talked occasionally with others. He also had spent time asking
> > questions about rifles and which were good ones, and so forth. But since
> > he had this odd Italian rifle, he could actually initiate a chat and
> > mention it and generate a bit of interest himself. Once knowing he had
>
> I asked you who. Who were these people that he was on such social terms
> with at the TSBD that he would have gone to Irving, un-invited, a day
> earlier than normal, in order to retrieve his rifle, when he most
> certainly could have done so over the weekend?
>

A number of people he talked with, though no one person was a 'best'
friend. He spoke with Buell Frazier for one. But a person could initiate
a conversation with Oswald and ask to buy the rifle on the same day. I
don't say that's what happened, but that's one of the possibilities other
than your belief that he had nothing on his mind but killing JFK, whom he
considered a "great Leader".

> >
> >
> > > 3) Why did Oswald pick 11/22/63 of all days, to leave his wedding ring and
> > > nearly on the money he had on Marina's dresser?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Did he do that? Or did the FBI do it to make it look like he was the
> > guilty party? Or was something else up at the TSBD and he wasn't sure
> > what might happen, not that he was involved, but certainly knowledgeable
> > of something going on. Oswald wasn't very caring of his wife Marina, if
> > you read "Marina and Lee", so why suddenly is he caring about her welfare
> > and leaving her these things? Same for the Walker shooting which he
> > wasn't involved in.
>
> Of course he did that. There's no disputing that he left both his wedding
> ring and a substantial (for him) amount of money on his wife's dresser.
> And, OBTW, I read "Marina And Lee" more than 20 years ago.
>

I'm glad you read the book. It saves me lots of time on certain
issues. However, there is indeed "disputing" of his doings when he left
things for Marina for the JFK and the Walker cases. Marina stated clearly
that she was threatened with being forced to return to Russia if she
didn't cooperate. Her testimony about many things is in doubt, and the
leaving of ring and money is one of them. Same for the photos of the
Walker house.

> > > 4) If the plan was for Oswald's rifle to be found on the 6th floor, why
> > > would someone go to any lengths to hide it at all?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Difficult to know if that was part of the plan, but the plan certainly
> > was to implicate Oswald as the 'patsy' who did everything all by himself.
> > Leaving the rifle there knowing it was his, was another way to implicate
> > him. I believe the same about pushing the rifle way out the window was
> > also part of the plan to make it obvious where the shooter was to send in
> > the cops to the right building. It wasn't critical that the MC rifle hit
> > or hurt anyone, only that it be fired out the window to satisfy the
> > forensics. The other shooters would take care of actually hitting the
> > target.
>
> So, the person standing in the corner, 6th floor window, purposely did not
> stick the rifle out the window until after the limo and the follow-up car
> turned the corner onto Elm Street because they wanted to make it obvious
> where the shooter was located? Please. He didn't stick the rifle out the
> window until after they had made that turn because he didn't want the
> Secret Service to spot him before he shot the president in the back.
>

Don't try to put words in my mouth. If the Secret Service were doing
their job, they would peruse the windows on high buildings, and see
someone in the 6th floor windows as we know from people in the street
BEFORE the murder. The rifle didn't have to be obvious at all, but it was
made to be and that helped tell cops where the shooter was. Oh, and BTW,
the head shot was not from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

> > > 5) Why did no one spot any strangers in the TSBD before or immediately
> > > after the shooting, with the exception of an elderly man that asked to use
> > > the first floor restroom a few minutes before the motorcade arrived?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > At the time minutes before the motorcade came by, everyone would be at
> > the windows or down on the steps, and their attention would be on looking
> > up Elm street to see what was coming. Shooters could come in through the
> > loading dock entrance and go up the backstairs and be ready on the 6th
> > floor. There is an old man that gave that story as what happened a couple
> > of weeks before he died. At the moment of the shooting, everyone would be
> > watching the street and the limo as it raced away, and the police running
> > around, so that they would still be looking out the windows as the
> > shooters left by the back stairs and out through the loading dock.
>
> I asked you why no one saw any strangers in the TSBD either before or
> immediately after the shooting. There were a number of people in the
> building during the shooting, and no strangers were sighted. But Oswald
> was certainly seen inside the building.
>

Yes, Oswald was seen at about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom by
Carolyn Arnold. However, at only 5 minute before the shooting began, 3
people came in the loading dock entrance and went to the back stairs and
went up to the 6th floor. After the shooting they quickly went to the
stairs, went down and out through the loading dock door. I don't know
positively that is what happened, but it is what a particular man said
happened, and he was one of the people that went up there and fired a
rifle out the window.

> >
> >
> > > 6) Why did Oswald not come clean and tell the police the identities of the
> > > person(s) who set him up as the fall guy?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Because he probably had some involvement with them and he also was
> > playing his little "I Led Three Lives" game by getting in good with some
> > of the bad element around Dallas, then running to the FBI and telling them
> > everything. If he had talked, all that would dry up and he would also
> > probably be considered an accessory. While being questioned he made a
> > comment about 'now everyone will know who I am', as if dealing with the
> > police would give him away. He wanted to deal with a lawyer of his own
> > choice. As well, when he saw he was going to be blamed for the shooting in
> > the TSBD, he left as soon as he could, and I believe he went to get his

> > gun and began walking to go see whoever might have helped set him up. I

> > would suggest from the direction he went, he was headed toward Jack Ruby's
> > apartment.
>
> You're right about one thing. Oswald was most definitely playing his "I
> Led Three Lives" game. He was soaking up the attention like nobody's
> business, and was probably thrilled that his face and image were being
> broadcasted around the world. He'd achieved exactly what he intended.
>

Actually, I think he was lying and saying whatever he could to get out
of the position of the 'patsy'. He was a loner than didn't try for
notoriety.

> >
> >
> >
> > > 7) Why did Oswald shoot the first police officer that stopped to talk to
> > > him? If he hadn't killed anyone at that point, why did he find it
> > > necessary to shoot Officer Tippet?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't know that he did. First, Tippit was rushing around looking for
> > someone after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. The only time he slowed down
> > was when he saw Oswald. There are a number of mixed signals in the scene
> > there, and it's not as cut and dried as you might think. There were some
> > folks that saw 2 people there with guns, and other things going on. I
> > haven't made up my mind about that whole scene, although I think Tippit
> > and Oswald might have known each other previously.
>
> How do you know that the first time Tippet slowed down was when he came
> upon Oswald?

The story of Tippit told by the witnesses did not mention any time that
he slowed down until he saw Oswald in the street.

> There are something like six separate eyewitnesses that
> identified Oswald as either being the person that shot Tippet, or was seen
> unloading and re-loading his revolver, or running from the scene with a
> gun in his hand. You can't discard all that because someone like Aquila
> Clemmons came along after the event and saw one or two men running from
> the scene. There is a thing called the preponderance of evidence. Look it
> up.
>

Actually, there are others that say there were 2 men there, and a
second police car in a driveway nearby. And the people that saw something
were not as clear about it as you would think. For instance, the cab
Driver (Scoggins) was hiding behind his cab and had bushes in his way
between him and the scene. There was also 2 people that saw more than one
person in the street, one of them saw a different man reloading his
revolver than Oswald. Here's an example of these many witnesses, but not
the only batch:

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm

> >
> >
> >
> > > 8) If someone only fired Oswald's rifle into the street, how do you
> > > explain the fact that both the bullet fragments found in the limo and
> > > CE399 were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion
> > > of all other weapons?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I believe solidly that those 2 bullets were indeed fired by the MC

> > rifle of Oswald's. If the rifle was going to be fired out the window,

> > might as well aim for the POTUS. It's also my belief that the bullet
> > strike over the windshield in the chrome bar was from the MC rifle and
> > when it struck that bar, with the solid steel rollover bar underneath it,
> > that the bullet was broken into 2 pieces and those pieces fell to the
> > floor of the limo. The position they were in however, does not lend
> > itself to having gone through JFK and THEN hitting the chrome bar high
> > above their heads. It was a miss.
>
> Well, there is only evidence of a single rifle being used, and no evidence
> whatsoever of any other weapon. So, you're pretty much left with one
> conclusion.
>

I believe you're incorrect that there is evidence of only one rifle
being used. There was the bullet strike over the windshield, there was
the bullet hole in the windshield glass itself, seen by 6 witnesses, there
was the bullet that struck the right hand curb seen by Officer 'Steve'
Ellis, there was the bullet that hit JFK in the throat, and in the back,
and in the head, and there was the bullet that struck Connally (the SBT
was proven dead). Then there was the bullet that struck the curb near
James Tague, where a chip broke off and cut his cheek, and then there were
th 2 bullet gouges in midfield seen by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who were
told by a cop that they were from bullets. Incidentally they were
pointing back to the GK, not the TSBD.

Now that's a lot of bullets. One LN actually tried to explain them all
by saying they were all ricochet fragments from the bullet that went
through JFK's head! I think to have so many bullet strikes in Dealey
Plaza, there had to be a lot more weapons firing than one punky little MC
rifle from the 6th floor.

> >
> > The other MC bullet has a long and checkered career. It is a test
> > bullet, and not the original CE399 bullet. As soon as the FBI got
> > possession of the MC rifle, the very next day (Saturday) Robert Frazier
> > (FBI firearms expert) took the rifle and ran tests with it, firing over 60
> > shots, and giving himself a stock of used bullets from the MC rifle that
> > had been fired into various materials. He was also the bullet custodian,
> > caring for all the bullets fired and found in the case. When an MC bullet
> > was found on the WRONG gurney at the Parkland hospital, it went to
> > Frazier, and he was able to substitute one of the test bullets he had
> > saved from the MC rifle. Now there was a bullet in custody that
> > supposedly had hit the POTUS, and it came from the MC rifle! Case closed!
>
> Again, there is only evidence of a single rifle being used, and that was
> LHO's MC, so you really have nothing else to support your case.
>

Nope, see above, bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza.

Odd that you think fiction was involved. Most of what I've suggested
would fit the evidence very well. Particularly Oswald showing no interest
in shooting anyone. Well, it's a shame there's no proof that puts the MC
rifle into Oswald's hands and has him firing it out the window.

Also, Marina at the time of the shooting later said that Oswald 'liked'
JFK and thought he was a "great leader'. Later she state that Oswald
"loved" JFK. Why kill the him? Makes no sense.

[mainframetech]

He also didn't say anything about shooting at the POTUS, so does that
mean that he didn't intend to do that? If Oswald was concerned that
bringing in the rifle would cause the supervisor to get angry that he
wasn't doing his work, he might want to hide the fact that he brought in
the rifle. It's also possible that someone asked him to bring it in to
see it, or buy it, or any number of other things. All through the case we
find Oswald not showing interest in shooting at anyone. He got his cheapo
rifle, took his photo with it, and promptly rolled it up in a blanket and
threw it in the garage! No interest in it. Same as when he was in the
service.

> Also, the reason he went to Irving that Thursday evening was to get
> the rifle (to USE the next day) and to try to convince Marina to move back
> in with him with the kids. If his real reason was to pick up the rifle to
> show or sell at work the next day, then why didn't he tell Marina or Ruth
> his intentions? That would be proof that he was serious about changing
> his ways. Marina did not want him to keep the rifle, if he gave it up, he
> knew that would have helped persuade her. Marina didn't know it was
> missing until the Police showed up at the door the next day.

When you read "Marina and Lee" you find that Oswald lied to everyone
and hid his doings all the time, even though there was no reason to do it.
He rarely told anyone what he was doing. If he were going to pick up the
rifle, he wouldn't tell anyone one way or the other. Did someone convince
him to sell the rifle that he really didn't care about? We don't know his
reason to bring it in, and hiding it may have ben to keep the supervisor
from seeing that he was doing something other than his job.

Chris

[Mitch Todd]

If Oswald was being sarcastic, don't you think that Frazier
would have said so by now?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/5/2017 3:45 PM, InsideSparta wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 4:32:59 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>> You ASSuME that it was a rifle, but there is no proof. It could just as
>> easily be curtain rods.
>
> Being that no curtain rods were found in the TSBD, and even Oswald himself

They also didn't find his jacket at first so you can claim that he
didn't wear a jacket to work. The DPD was not exactly like a CSI show
where everything is done properly.

> denied that he ever carried a package into the building or said anything

You have no proof of what Oswald said unless it was caught on camera.

> to Buell Frazier about curtain rods, you'd have to be an idiot to think he
> actually carried curtain rods into the building that morning. You'd have
> to be practically a moron to believe he didn't carry his rifle into the
> building, and that it got on the 6th floor by some other magical way.
> Which are you?
>
>

Also known as Cyber bullying.

[Anthony Marsh]

No reason? Like defecting to Russia and offering them military secrets?
Or trying to assassinate General Walker?

[bigdog]

Just a strange coincidence he decided to do that on the day the POTUS was
riding past his workplace and got shot.

> And if your interest is in Oswald's behavior, then think about
> how they were unable to prove he bought any ammunition or clip for his
> rifle,

Which isn't proof he never bought ammo or a clip. When found, his rifle
which you acknowledge he brought in had a clip and a rifle in it. How do
you suppose that happened?

> and he never practiced with it either.

A completely baseless assumption. Lack of proof that he practiced is not
proof he didn't practice. Is there any proof that I have practiced with my
guns in the past year? Does that prove I haven't practiced?

> If I was going to shoot at
> the POTUS, I'd want to practice to be sure I could do it and the rifle was
> up to the task.

I would too but if I had short notice of a once in a lifetime opportunity
I would make do with the rifle and my skills in whatever condition they
were in. Given how easy the shots were, neither needed to be in top shape.

> Yet when they looked at the rifle after the murder, they
> found that the scope was misaligned from a bad mounting and the bolt was
> 'sticky'.

And yet when they looked at the recovered bullets and shells they
discovered they had all been fired by that rifle. Go figure.

> Oswald showed no interest in shooting anyone with his rifle.

You think people who shoot other people show an interest in doing it
before they do it. Did Mark Chapman show an interest in shooting someone
before he murdered John Lennon?

> He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
> the garage.
>

What we don't know is how many times he unrolled that blanket and got his
rifle out. We do know that he used that rifle to try to kill Walker.
Correction. Most of us know that. You seem to be in the dark about
that.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2) Who at the TSBD was on such social terms with Oswald that they would
> > > > have asked him to bring his rifle into work that day? By all accounts, he
> > > > had no social interaction with anyone at the TSBD, except for those
> > > > moments when he talked about his children to Frazier.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He talked occasionally with others. He also had spent time asking
> > > questions about rifles and which were good ones, and so forth. But since
> > > he had this odd Italian rifle, he could actually initiate a chat and
> > > mention it and generate a bit of interest himself. Once knowing he had
> >
> > I asked you who. Who were these people that he was on such social terms
> > with at the TSBD that he would have gone to Irving, un-invited, a day
> > earlier than normal, in order to retrieve his rifle, when he most
> > certainly could have done so over the weekend?
> >
>
>
> A number of people he talked with, though no one person was a 'best'
> friend. He spoke with Buell Frazier for one. But a person could initiate
> a conversation with Oswald and ask to buy the rifle on the same day. I
> don't say that's what happened, but that's one of the possibilities other
> than your belief that he had nothing on his mind but killing JFK, whom he
> considered a "great Leader".
>

It's the possibility with no supporting evidence. The explanation that is
supported by evidence tells us he couldn't wait for the weekend to fetch
the rifle. He needed it on 11/22/63. 11/25/63 would have been three days
too late.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 3) Why did Oswald pick 11/22/63 of all days, to leave his wedding ring and
> > > > nearly on the money he had on Marina's dresser?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Did he do that? Or did the FBI do it to make it look like he was the
> > > guilty party? Or was something else up at the TSBD and he wasn't sure
> > > what might happen, not that he was involved, but certainly knowledgeable
> > > of something going on. Oswald wasn't very caring of his wife Marina, if
> > > you read "Marina and Lee", so why suddenly is he caring about her welfare
> > > and leaving her these things? Same for the Walker shooting which he
> > > wasn't involved in.
> >
> > Of course he did that. There's no disputing that he left both his wedding
> > ring and a substantial (for him) amount of money on his wife's dresser.
> > And, OBTW, I read "Marina And Lee" more than 20 years ago.
> >
>
>
> I'm glad you read the book. It saves me lots of time on certain
> issues. However, there is indeed "disputing" of his doings when he left
> things for Marina for the JFK and the Walker cases. Marina stated clearly
> that she was threatened with being forced to return to Russia if she
> didn't cooperate. Her testimony about many things is in doubt, and the
> leaving of ring and money is one of them. Same for the photos of the
> Walker house.
>

Where do you suppose she got those photos of Walker's house if Lee didn't
take them?

>
>
>
> > > > 4) If the plan was for Oswald's rifle to be found on the 6th floor, why
> > > > would someone go to any lengths to hide it at all?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Difficult to know if that was part of the plan, but the plan certainly
> > > was to implicate Oswald as the 'patsy' who did everything all by himself.
> > > Leaving the rifle there knowing it was his, was another way to implicate
> > > him. I believe the same about pushing the rifle way out the window was
> > > also part of the plan to make it obvious where the shooter was to send in
> > > the cops to the right building. It wasn't critical that the MC rifle hit
> > > or hurt anyone, only that it be fired out the window to satisfy the
> > > forensics. The other shooters would take care of actually hitting the
> > > target.
> >
> > So, the person standing in the corner, 6th floor window, purposely did not
> > stick the rifle out the window until after the limo and the follow-up car
> > turned the corner onto Elm Street because they wanted to make it obvious
> > where the shooter was located? Please. He didn't stick the rifle out the
> > window until after they had made that turn because he didn't want the
> > Secret Service to spot him before he shot the president in the back.
> >
>
>
>
> Don't try to put words in my mouth. If the Secret Service were doing
> their job, they would peruse the windows on high buildings, and see
> someone in the 6th floor windows as we know from people in the street
> BEFORE the murder. The rifle didn't have to be obvious at all, but it was
> made to be and that helped tell cops where the shooter was. Oh, and BTW,
> the head shot was not from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>

There were people in windows all along the parade route. Have you seen the
photos taken from above the parade route. There were three black employees
one floor below Oswald. Why would the sight of people watching the
motorcade from the upper floors arouse their suspicion if they didn't see
a rifle?

>
>
>
> > > > 5) Why did no one spot any strangers in the TSBD before or immediately
> > > > after the shooting, with the exception of an elderly man that asked to use
> > > > the first floor restroom a few minutes before the motorcade arrived?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At the time minutes before the motorcade came by, everyone would be at
> > > the windows or down on the steps, and their attention would be on looking
> > > up Elm street to see what was coming. Shooters could come in through the
> > > loading dock entrance and go up the backstairs and be ready on the 6th
> > > floor. There is an old man that gave that story as what happened a couple
> > > of weeks before he died. At the moment of the shooting, everyone would be
> > > watching the street and the limo as it raced away, and the police running
> > > around, so that they would still be looking out the windows as the
> > > shooters left by the back stairs and out through the loading dock.
> >
> > I asked you why no one saw any strangers in the TSBD either before or
> > immediately after the shooting. There were a number of people in the
> > building during the shooting, and no strangers were sighted. But Oswald
> > was certainly seen inside the building.
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, Oswald was seen at about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom by
> Carolyn Arnold. However, at only 5 minute before the shooting began, 3
> people came in the loading dock entrance and went to the back stairs and
> went up to the 6th floor.

How do you know that? Oh, yeah. You read it in a book. It must be true.
They can't write anything in a book that isn't true.

> After the shooting they quickly went to the
> stairs, went down and out through the loading dock door.

And somehow never bumped into Truly and Baker coming up those stairs.

> I don't know
> positively that is what happened, but it is what a particular man said
> happened, and he was one of the people that went up there and fired a
> rifle out the window.
>

It is what Collum and Sample CLAIMED that man said. We only have their
word that he actually said that. And if he did tell them that, we only
have his word for that. There is nothing that corroborates the story.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 6) Why did Oswald not come clean and tell the police the identities of the
> > > > person(s) who set him up as the fall guy?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Because he probably had some involvement with them and he also was
> > > playing his little "I Led Three Lives" game by getting in good with some
> > > of the bad element around Dallas, then running to the FBI and telling them
> > > everything. If he had talked, all that would dry up and he would also
> > > probably be considered an accessory. While being questioned he made a
> > > comment about 'now everyone will know who I am', as if dealing with the
> > > police would give him away. He wanted to deal with a lawyer of his own
> > > choice. As well, when he saw he was going to be blamed for the shooting in
> > > the TSBD, he left as soon as he could, and I believe he went to get his
> > > gun and began walking to go see whoever might have helped set him up. I
> > > would suggest from the direction he went, he was headed toward Jack Ruby's
> > > apartment.
> >
> > You're right about one thing. Oswald was most definitely playing his "I
> > Led Three Lives" game. He was soaking up the attention like nobody's
> > business, and was probably thrilled that his face and image were being
> > broadcasted around the world. He'd achieved exactly what he intended.
> >
>
>
>
> Actually, I think he was lying and saying whatever he could to get out
> of the position of the 'patsy'. He was a loner than didn't try for
> notoriety.
>

He was lying and saying whatever he could to get out of the position of
the assassin. I'm sure he knew his lies were futile since he knew he was
the assassin but he wasn't going to make it easy for anybody.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 7) Why did Oswald shoot the first police officer that stopped to talk to
> > > > him? If he hadn't killed anyone at that point, why did he find it
> > > > necessary to shoot Officer Tippet?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know that he did. First, Tippit was rushing around looking for
> > > someone after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. The only time he slowed down
> > > was when he saw Oswald. There are a number of mixed signals in the scene
> > > there, and it's not as cut and dried as you might think. There were some
> > > folks that saw 2 people there with guns, and other things going on. I
> > > haven't made up my mind about that whole scene, although I think Tippit
> > > and Oswald might have known each other previously.
> >
> > How do you know that the first time Tippet slowed down was when he came
> > upon Oswald?
>
>
>
> The story of Tippit told by the witnesses did not mention any time that
> he slowed down until he saw Oswald in the street.
>

Apparently something aroused Tippit's suspicion. Whether it was because
Oswald looked similar to description of the shooter that had been
broadcast or something Oswald did after spotting Tippit we will never
know, but apparently Tippit had reason to stop and question him.

>
>
>
> > There are something like six separate eyewitnesses that
> > identified Oswald as either being the person that shot Tippet, or was seen
> > unloading and re-loading his revolver, or running from the scene with a
> > gun in his hand. You can't discard all that because someone like Aquila
> > Clemmons came along after the event and saw one or two men running from
> > the scene. There is a thing called the preponderance of evidence. Look it
> > up.
> >
>
>
> Actually, there are others that say there were 2 men there, and a
> second police car in a driveway nearby. And the people that saw something
> were not as clear about it as you would think. For instance, the cab
> Driver (Scoggins) was hiding behind his cab and had bushes in his way
> between him and the scene. There was also 2 people that saw more than one
> person in the street, one of them saw a different man reloading his
> revolver than Oswald. Here's an example of these many witnesses, but not
> the only batch:
>
> http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
>

Still waiting for you to explain how Oswald ended up with the Tippit
murder weapon in his possession a half hour after the shooting along with
the same two makes of bullets that were used to kill Tippit.

There is no evidence that those strikes came from a weapon other than
Oswald's Carcano. The two gouges in the midfield aren't evidence of a
bullet strikes. They are evidence that your imaginary shooters were really
bad.

>
> Now that's a lot of bullets. One LN actually tried to explain them all
> by saying they were all ricochet fragments from the bullet that went
> through JFK's head! I think to have so many bullet strikes in Dealey
> Plaza, there had to be a lot more weapons firing than one punky little MC
> rifle from the 6th floor.
>

Let's see. One bullet went into JFK's head and multiple fragments came
out. And you find it strange that those fragments would strike in multiple
places. I find that strange.

>
> > >
> > > The other MC bullet has a long and checkered career. It is a test
> > > bullet, and not the original CE399 bullet. As soon as the FBI got
> > > possession of the MC rifle, the very next day (Saturday) Robert Frazier
> > > (FBI firearms expert) took the rifle and ran tests with it, firing over 60
> > > shots, and giving himself a stock of used bullets from the MC rifle that
> > > had been fired into various materials. He was also the bullet custodian,
> > > caring for all the bullets fired and found in the case. When an MC bullet
> > > was found on the WRONG gurney at the Parkland hospital, it went to
> > > Frazier, and he was able to substitute one of the test bullets he had
> > > saved from the MC rifle. Now there was a bullet in custody that
> > > supposedly had hit the POTUS, and it came from the MC rifle! Case closed!
> >
> > Again, there is only evidence of a single rifle being used, and that was
> > LHO's MC, so you really have nothing else to support your case.
> >
>
>
>
> Nope, see above, bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza.
>

No evidence any of those strikes came from a weapon other than Oswald's
Carcano.

And the parts that don't, you just dismiss the evidence as fraudulent.

> Particularly Oswald showing no interest
> in shooting anyone. Well, it's a shame there's no proof that puts the MC
> rifle into Oswald's hands and has him firing it out the window.
>

Just a strange coincidence that his shirt fibers would end up on the butt
plate of the rifle and yet the person who you believe actually fired the
Carcano left no fibers from his shirt on the butt plate. That Oswald sure
was one unlucky SOB. All that evidence lined up to indicate he was the
shooter.

> Also, Marina at the time of the shooting later said that Oswald 'liked'
> JFK and thought he was a "great leader'. Later she state that Oswald
> "loved" JFK. Why kill the him? Makes no sense.
>

Killing JFK makes no sense to most of us. It made sense to Oswald. He
decided it was worth throwing his life away for.

[Amy Joyce]

Chris, you said: "Oswald was seen at about 12:15 pm in the 2nd floor
lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold".

In one of the Weisberg videos (IX) I mentioned to you, he said that
Carolyn told the FBI that she saw Oswald at 12:25. He also said that the
FBI changed what she said (to 12:15) and since she didn't like the error,
she wrote out her own version of correction, signed it, and gave it to the
FBI. Check out the video.

[Anthony Marsh]

CHris just makes up crap to seem important. He never actually quotes
witnesses. I do:


Carolyn Arnold’s FBI Statements
Support for Lee Harvey Oswald’s Alibi

Carolyn Arnold, a secretary working for the Texas School Book
Depository, provided support for Lee Harvey Oswald’s alibi, that he was
on the first (i.e. ground) floor of the TSBD at the time of President
Kennedy’s assassination.
Statements to the FBI

Arnold was interviewed twice by the FBI:

The Bureau’s report of its first interview, four days after the
assassination, stated that as Arnold waited outside the TSBD to see the
president, she noticed Oswald just inside the building, close to the
front door, at about 12:15.
In March 1964, J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission asked the FBI
to interview every employee of the TSBD again, asking each of them an
identical and very limited set of questions. In her second statement,
Carolyn Arnold maintained that she did not leave the building until
about 12:25.

FBI copies of both statements are reproduced below, along with an
internal FBI document that clarifies the time mentioned in Arnold’s
later statement.
The Timing of the Encounter with Oswald

The FBI reported that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald after she had left the
TSBD. According to the first account, she had left the building by
12:15; according to the second, she left at 12:25. The first statement,
which she was not given the opportunity to check, is likely to be less
reliable than the second, which she was required to sign.

Both of Carolyn Arnold’s statements, but especially the second,
corroborate the accounts of two employees, James “Junior” Jarman and
Harold Norman, who indirectly attested to Oswald’s presence on the first
floor at “between 12:20 and 12:25,” in Jarman’s words (see Lee Harvey
Oswald’s alibi).
A Gunman Was on the Sixth Floor

A sighting of Oswald on the first floor at either of these times would
seriously undermine the Warren Commission’s account, which was obliged
to have Oswald on the sixth floor, assembling his rifle and his sniper’s
nest, since before 12:15. There are specific problems associated with
Oswald being anywhere other than the sixth floor at either time:

A credible witness, Arnold Rowland, saw a man on the sixth floor,
holding a rifle, at 12:15 or very shortly afterwards (Warren Commission
Hearings, vol.2, pp.171–3).
The motorcade, which was running about five minutes late, was
supposed to pass the TSBD at about 12:25. Any gunman intending to shoot
President Kennedy from the sixth floor would surely have been in place
by this time.

Earl Golz Interviews Carolyn Arnold

In an interview with the journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold
claimed that “she saw Oswald in the 2nd–floor lunchroom as she was on
her way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade …. She
left the building at 12:25pm.” (Earl Golz, ‘Was Oswald in Window?,’
Dallas Morning News, 26 November 1978, p.13A; available as PDF).

Golz quotes her as saying that Oswald “was sitting there … in one of the
booth seats on the right–hand side of the room as you go in. He was
alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him
but I recognized him clearly.” She explicitly denied that her sighting
of Oswald took place near the front doors: “Why would I be looking back
inside the building? That doesn’t make any sense to me.”
When and Where Did Carolyn Arnold See Lee Oswald?

Carolyn Arnold watched the motorcade alongside colleagues with whom she
shared an office. One of these colleagues, Virgie Rackley, specifies
that “at about 12:15pm … she left her office” (Warren Commission
Document 5, p.66). If the group left together, it is likely that Carolyn
Arnold’s first statement correctly records the time of her sighting of
Oswald as about 12:15, even though the location was incorrect.

Arnold’s phrase, “booth seats,” could refer to either the second–floor
lunch room or the first–floor domino room, both of which contained
padded benches “on the right–hand side of the room as you go in” (for
photographs of the interior of the TSBD, see Warren Commission Documents
81 and 496). The second–floor room is more likely, however:

she and her colleagues shared an office on the second floor, next
to the lunch room;
their most direct route out of the building would not have taken
them past the domino room;
there was a stronger reason for her to visit the second–floor lunch
room, which contained running water and a vending machine, than the
domino room, which contained only tables and chairs.

The investigative journalist, Anthony Summers, also interviewed Carolyn
Arnold in late 1978. He quotes her as saying that “About a quarter of an
hour before the assassination, I went into the lunchroom on the second
floor”, where she saw Oswald; see Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
The Assassination of JFK, Headline, 2013, p.92.

There is other evidence that Oswald was in the second–floor lunch room
at around this time. In a statement to the Sheriff’s Department, Eddie
Piper, a colleague of Oswald’s, claimed that he was on the first floor
when, “at 12:00 Noon, this fellow Lee says to me, ‘I’m going up to eat’”
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.499).
Oswald’s Movements During the Assassination

If Carolyn Arnold’s revised account, with its detailed and forceful
identification of Oswald, is accurate, Oswald’s movements at the time of
the assassination would have been as follows:

Shortly after mid–day, Oswald went from the first floor to the
second–floor lunch room.
Oswald was there at about 12:15, when he was seen by Carolyn Arnold.
Shortly afterwards, he went downstairs to the domino room, and saw
James Jarman and Harold Norman at around 12:25.
At about 12:31 he may have gone back up to the second–floor lunch
room to obtain a soft drink. According to the official account, Oswald
encountered a police officer, Marrion Baker, and the building
supervisor, Roy Truly, at the entrance of the lunch room. For a
plausible case that Oswald instead remained on the first floor, see What
Was Lee Harvey Oswald’s Alibi?.

The Authorities and Carolyn Arnold

The FBI’s version of Arnold’s second interview contains a trivial and
obvious typo: A.M. for P.M. The Bureau’s account of her first interview
contains more serious inaccuracies:

the area of the TSBD where Carolyn Arnold saw Lee Harvey Oswald,
and the strength of her recognition of him.

She was not the only witness who questioned the reliability of the FBI’s
version of their statements. Arnold Rowland, for example, pointed out
several errors to the Warren Commission and mentioned that the FBI
agents “just didn’t seem interested at all” in evidence that
contradicted the lone–gunman account (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2,
pp.182–5).

The Warren Commission treated Carolyn Arnold as it treated many other
awkward witnesses. She was not called to testify before the Commission.
Neither of her statements was published in the Warren Commission’s
Report or in its 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. The Commission
discounted her evidence and that of Eddie Piper, and concluded that
“Charles Givens … was the last known employee to see Oswald inside the
building prior to the assassination … at 11:45am” (Warren Report,
p.143). Carolyn Arnold’s five colleagues from the Texas School Book
Depository who stood with her as the motorcade passed, and who could
have commented on the reliability of her account, were also ignored.
Statement to FBI, 26 November 1963

Mrs. R. E. ARNOLD, Secretary, Texas School Book Depository, advised
she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November
22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go
downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential
Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she
thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in
the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the
warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this
was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few
minutes before 12:15 PM.

She stated thereafter she viewed the Presidential Motorcade and
heard the shots that were fired at the President; however, she could
furnish no information of value as to the individual firing the shots or
any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not
know and had merely seen him working in the building.

on 11/26/1963 at Dallas, Texas
File # DL 89–43
by Special Agent Richard E. Harrison

(Warren Commission Document 5, p.41)

Statement to FBI, 18 March 1964

DL 100–10461

I, Mrs. R. E. (Carolyn) Arnold, hereby freely and voluntarily make
the following statement to E. J. Robertson who has identified himself as
a Special Agent of the F.B.I.

My name is Carolyn Arnold and I am married to R. E. Arnold. I
reside at 3325 South Tyler Street, Dallas, Texas. I am 20 years of age,
born June 1, 1943, at Memphis, Tenn. I am a while female, and am
employed by the Texas School Book Depository as a Secretary.

On November 22, 1963, at the time President Kennedy was shot, I was
standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building. I was
with Mr. O. V. Campbell, 7120 Twin Tree Lane, Dallas; Mrs. L. C.
(Bonnie) Richey, 220 South Marsalis, Apt. 117, Dallas; Mrs. Barney
(Betty) Dragoo, 2705 West Brooklyn, Dallas; Mrs. Don (Virgie) Baker née
Rackley, 3600½ Live Oak, Dallas; and Miss Judy Johnson, 915 Sunnyside,
Dallas, at the time President Kennedy was shot.

I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was shot.

On the morning of November 22, 1963, I do not remember seeing any
stranger in the building housing the Texas School Book Depository.

I left the Texas School Book Depository Building at about 12:25 PM,
November 22, 1963, and never returned to this building on that date.

I have read the above statement consisting of one and one–half
pages and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Mrs. R. E. (CAROLYN) ARNOLD

Witnesses:

E. J. ROBERTSON, Special Agent, FBI, Dallas, Texas, 3/18/64
THOMAS T. TRETTIS, Jr., Specail Agent, FBI, Dallas, Texas, 3/18/64

(Warren Commission Document 706, p.7)

FBI Radiogram, 31 March 1964

TO SAC DALLAS (89–43)

FROM DIRECTOR FBI (62–109060)

ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY, NOVEMBER
TWENTY–TWO, NINETEEN SIXTY–THREE, MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION CONCERNING.

RE BUREAU AIRTEL MARCH SIXTEEN, LAST AND YOUR AIRTELS MARCH
TWENTY–FIVE AND TWENTY–EIGHT, LAST RELATING TO COMMISSION’S REQUEST FOR
SIGNED STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN IN TEXAS SCHOOL
BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING ON NOVEMBER TWENTY–TWO, NINETEEN SIXTY–THREE.

BEFORE STATEMENTS CAN BE DISSEMINATED TO COMMISSION, FOLLOWING
CORRECTIONS NECESSARY:

STATEMENT OF MRS. R. E. PAREN CAROLYN UNPAREN ARNOLD, PARAGRAPH
SIX, LINE TWO, TIME INDICATED AS TWELVE TWENTY–FIVE A.M., SHOULD BE
QUOTE P.M. UNQUOTE. IF THIS IS TYPO, BUREAU WILL HANDLE.

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA H. BARNUM DOES NOT DISCLOSE HOME ADDRESS.

STATEMENTS OF MRS. R. A. REID AND MRS. ROBERT E. PAREN PAULINE
UNPAREN SANDERS, SR., PARAGRAPH THREE EACH STATEMENT DISCLOSES DATE OF
ACTIVITY AS NOVEMBER TWENTY–TWO NINETEEN SIXTY–FOUR. SINCE THIS DATE IS
OF PRIMARY CONCERN, IT MUST BE CORRECTED.

STATEMENT OF JOYCE MAURINE STANSBERY PARAGRAPH SIX, LINE TWO SECOND
WORD MISSPELLED. BUREAU WILL HANDLE IF THIS IS TYPO.

ABOVE CORRECTIONS MUST BE IMMEDIATELY HANDLED EITHER BY ADVICE TO
THE BUREAU OR BY OBTAINING NEW CORRECT STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS
INDICATED. HANDLE IMMEDIATELY SO DISSEMINATION TO PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.

Note continued:

Commission by letter 3/16/64 requested signed statements be
obtained from every person known to have been in Texas School Book
Depository Building on 11/22/63. Each statement must contain six
specified items. Dallas has obtained 75 signed statements and above
corrections as indicated necessary before dissemination can be made. As
soon as necessary information and data is obtained, from Dallas,
appropriate dissemination to Commission will be made.

(FBI HQ JFK Assassination File 62–109060–55)

[mainframetech]

I'll look into it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You have no clue why the rifle was brought in that day. It
could as easily have been someone who prompted him to bring it in, and
there are many reasons they might do that. Since he had little interest
in the rifle, he would certainly consider selling it, among other
possibilities.

> > And if your interest is in Oswald's behavior, then think about
> > how they were unable to prove he bought any ammunition or clip for his
> > rifle,
>
> Which isn't proof he never bought ammo or a clip. When found, his rifle
> which you acknowledge he brought in had a clip and a rifle in it. How do
> you suppose that happened?
>

Did it occur to you that someone knew that he had an MC rifle and
would need a clip? Oswald himself might have mentioned it to the person
that talked him into bringing it in.

> > and he never practiced with it either.
>
> A completely baseless assumption. Lack of proof that he practiced is not
> proof he didn't practice. Is there any proof that I have practiced with my
> guns in the past year? Does that prove I haven't practiced?
>

WRONG! Do you intend to shoot at a prominent figure, like maybe Trump?
If so, as a gun enthusiast you would practice with the gun you chose to do
the job with, and if there was anything wrong with the scope, you'd find
it out and have it fixed. Simple. Since Oswald's rifle had a misaligned
scope and sticky bolt, it was OBVIOUSLY not checked and not practiced
with.

> > If I was going to shoot at
> > the POTUS, I'd want to practice to be sure I could do it and the rifle was
> > up to the task.
>
> I would too but if I had short notice of a once in a lifetime opportunity
> I would make do with the rifle and my skills in whatever condition they
> were in. Given how easy the shots were, neither needed to be in top shape.
>

Well, you would take a chance on a faulty rifle and get caught and
imprisoned. Oswald was a more careful person.

> > Yet when they looked at the rifle after the murder, they
> > found that the scope was misaligned from a bad mounting and the bolt was
> > 'sticky'.
>
> And yet when they looked at the recovered bullets and shells they
> discovered they had all been fired by that rifle. Go figure.
>

Not a problem. I believe the 3 shells were probably fired that day
toward the motorcade through the MC rifle. I just know that Oswald wasn't
holding the rifle when it happened.

> > Oswald showed no interest in shooting anyone with his rifle.
>
> You think people who shoot other people show an interest in doing it
> before they do it. Did Mark Chapman show an interest in shooting someone
> before he murdered John Lennon?
>

We don't know. If we saw him before he did it, we might have an idea
of the answer. In the case of Oswald, we have the book "Marina and Lee"
in which Marina professes that Oswald 'liked' JFK and thought he was a
"Great Leader". if true, why would he want to kill him? Oswald was
always playing the quiet man and trying not to stand out.

>
> > He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
> > the garage.
> >
>
> What we don't know is how many times he unrolled that blanket and got his
> rifle out. We do know that he used that rifle to try to kill Walker.
> Correction. Most of us know that. You seem to be in the dark about
> that.
>

WRONG! We did NOT know that he tried to kill Walker. And you know
what the evidence was. @ detectives made out the Offense Report and
stated that the bullet was STEEL jacketed. They also said that the bullet
was too damaged to be able to determine caliber or match to any gun.
Walker saw that bullet at his home. Yet when the bullet was shown
publicly and Walker saw it, it was a COPPER jacketed bullet, and the
damage was less enough to determine caliber and to match to a gun barrel.
Walker himself complained to the authorities that the bullet was NOT the
original bullet, but they ignored him now that they had more evidence
against Oswald.

> > > > > 2) Who at the TSBD was on such social terms with Oswald that they would
> > > > > have asked him to bring his rifle into work that day? By all accounts, he
> > > > > had no social interaction with anyone at the TSBD, except for those
> > > > > moments when he talked about his children to Frazier.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > He talked occasionally with others. He also had spent time asking
> > > > questions about rifles and which were good ones, and so forth. But since
> > > > he had this odd Italian rifle, he could actually initiate a chat and
> > > > mention it and generate a bit of interest himself. Once knowing he had
> > >
> > > I asked you who. Who were these people that he was on such social terms
> > > with at the TSBD that he would have gone to Irving, un-invited, a day
> > > earlier than normal, in order to retrieve his rifle, when he most
> > > certainly could have done so over the weekend?
> > >
> >
> >
> > A number of people he talked with, though no one person was a 'best'
> > friend. He spoke with Buell Frazier for one. But a person could initiate
> > a conversation with Oswald and ask to buy the rifle on the same day. I
> > don't say that's what happened, but that's one of the possibilities other
> > than your belief that he had nothing on his mind but killing JFK, whom he
> > considered a "great Leader".
> >
>
> It's the possibility with no supporting evidence. The explanation that is
> supported by evidence tells us he couldn't wait for the weekend to fetch
> the rifle. He needed it on 11/22/63. 11/25/63 would have been three days
> too late.
>

OR... someone who had primed Oswald to sell the gun set it so that he
would bring it in Friday, or they would go get another gun they had in
mind, or any number of excuses.

> > > > > 3) Why did Oswald pick 11/22/63 of all days, to leave his wedding ring and
> > > > > nearly on the money he had on Marina's dresser?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did he do that? Or did the FBI do it to make it look like he was the
> > > > guilty party? Or was something else up at the TSBD and he wasn't sure
> > > > what might happen, not that he was involved, but certainly knowledgeable
> > > > of something going on. Oswald wasn't very caring of his wife Marina, if
> > > > you read "Marina and Lee", so why suddenly is he caring about her welfare
> > > > and leaving her these things? Same for the Walker shooting which he
> > > > wasn't involved in.
> > >
> > > Of course he did that. There's no disputing that he left both his wedding
> > > ring and a substantial (for him) amount of money on his wife's dresser.
> > > And, OBTW, I read "Marina And Lee" more than 20 years ago.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'm glad you read the book. It saves me lots of time on certain
> > issues. However, there is indeed "disputing" of his doings when he left
> > things for Marina for the JFK and the Walker cases. Marina stated clearly
> > that she was threatened with being forced to return to Russia if she
> > didn't cooperate. Her testimony about many things is in doubt, and the
> > leaving of ring and money is one of them. Same for the photos of the
> > Walker house.
> >
>
> Where do you suppose she got those photos of Walker's house if Lee didn't
> take them?
>

Given the crimes committed by the FBI in tampering with evidence and
concocting evidence, they could easily have done that. Same with the
stories of leaving money for Marina. Since they had her tied up with the
threat of returning her to Russia.

WRONG! If people in the street saw a rifle, then the SS could see a
rifle. And the street people saw the rifle BEFORE it was fired.

> > > > > 5) Why did no one spot any strangers in the TSBD before or immediately
> > > > > after the shooting, with the exception of an elderly man that asked to use
> > > > > the first floor restroom a few minutes before the motorcade arrived?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At the time minutes before the motorcade came by, everyone would be at
> > > > the windows or down on the steps, and their attention would be on looking
> > > > up Elm street to see what was coming. Shooters could come in through the
> > > > loading dock entrance and go up the backstairs and be ready on the 6th
> > > > floor. There is an old man that gave that story as what happened a couple
> > > > of weeks before he died. At the moment of the shooting, everyone would be
> > > > watching the street and the limo as it raced away, and the police running
> > > > around, so that they would still be looking out the windows as the
> > > > shooters left by the back stairs and out through the loading dock.
> > >
> > > I asked you why no one saw any strangers in the TSBD either before or
> > > immediately after the shooting. There were a number of people in the
> > > building during the shooting, and no strangers were sighted. But Oswald
> > > was certainly seen inside the building.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, Oswald was seen at about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom by
> > Carolyn Arnold. However, at only 5 minute before the shooting began, 3
> > people came in the loading dock entrance and went to the back stairs and
> > went up to the 6th floor.
>
> How do you know that? Oh, yeah. You read it in a book. It must be true.
> They can't write anything in a book that isn't true.
>

WRONG! You didn't see me say that. You made it up. However, the
book in question included a fellow near to dying who said he was there.
Many people have asked why haven't some older people come out to tell
about doing the crime, and there is the old guy telling how they did their
part. Of course, being an LN, you have to act like it didn't happen.

> > After the shooting they quickly went to the
> > stairs, went down and out through the loading dock door.
>
> And somehow never bumped into Truly and Baker coming up those stairs.
>
> > I don't know
> > positively that is what happened, but it is what a particular man said
> > happened, and he was one of the people that went up there and fired a
> > rifle out the window.
> >
>
> It is what Collum and Sample CLAIMED that man said. We only have their
> word that he actually said that. And if he did tell them that, we only
> have his word for that. There is nothing that corroborates the story.
>

Well, as usual you try to leave out the things that would make you look
foolish. The old man's story included TWO men with guns in the 6th floor
windows, which matched the people that saw 2 men there. He also mentioned
Mac Wallace who was a hit man for LBJ.

You do NOT know if the revolver on Oswald was the one that fired the
bullets into Tippit. We've been over that with you trying to make up
evidence to support your wild suppositions.

WRONG! They're evidence that a cop told the Hartmans that they were
bullet gouges. You can pretend all you like that it isn't so, but it will
still be so when you give up. Here's information from Donald Roberdeau:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/V0kt5F9J7Qk

> >
> > Now that's a lot of bullets. One LN actually tried to explain them all
> > by saying they were all ricochet fragments from the bullet that went
> > through JFK's head! I think to have so many bullet strikes in Dealey
> > Plaza, there had to be a lot more weapons firing than one punky little MC
> > rifle from the 6th floor.
> >
>
> Let's see. One bullet went into JFK's head and multiple fragments came
> out. And you find it strange that those fragments would strike in multiple
> places. I find that strange.
>

LOL! You're a riot! And through what orifice did ALL those fragments
come out? The skull flap wasn't pointing in the right direction, and the
bullet hole in the forehead was too small for multiple fragments to exit
there. So what hole did the fragments all come out from? You really are
a laugh a minute!

> >
> > > >
> > > > The other MC bullet has a long and checkered career. It is a test
> > > > bullet, and not the original CE399 bullet. As soon as the FBI got
> > > > possession of the MC rifle, the very next day (Saturday) Robert Frazier
> > > > (FBI firearms expert) took the rifle and ran tests with it, firing over 60
> > > > shots, and giving himself a stock of used bullets from the MC rifle that
> > > > had been fired into various materials. He was also the bullet custodian,
> > > > caring for all the bullets fired and found in the case. When an MC bullet
> > > > was found on the WRONG gurney at the Parkland hospital, it went to
> > > > Frazier, and he was able to substitute one of the test bullets he had
> > > > saved from the MC rifle. Now there was a bullet in custody that
> > > > supposedly had hit the POTUS, and it came from the MC rifle! Case closed!
> > >
> > > Again, there is only evidence of a single rifle being used, and that was
> > > LHO's MC, so you really have nothing else to support your case.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nope, see above, bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza.
> >
>
> No evidence any of those strikes came from a weapon other than Oswald's
> Carcano.
>

WRONG! There are too many of them for that. And if they all were FMJ
type bullets, they would have been found.

We've been over that. The fibers could have gotten there any day in
the last year by him trying the rifle at his shoulder. Some metal bit
hanging out snagged it and there you are. Evidence.

> > Also, Marina at the time of the shooting later said that Oswald 'liked'

> > JFK and thought he was a "great leader'. Later she stated that Oswald
> > "loved" JFK. Why kill him? Makes no sense.

> >
>
> Killing JFK makes no sense to most of us. It made sense to Oswald. He
> decided it was worth throwing his life away for.

Naah.

Chris

[bigdog]

WRONG! YOU have no clue why the rifle was brought in that day. I know why
the rifle was brought in but for some strange reason it has you stumped.
Here's a clue. Later that day, JFK got shot with it.

> It
> could as easily have been someone who prompted him to bring it in, and
> there are many reasons they might do that. Since he had little interest
> in the rifle, he would certainly consider selling it, among other
> possibilities.
>

You'll dream up anything so you don't have to accept the answer that is staring you in the face.

>
>
> > > And if your interest is in Oswald's behavior, then think about
> > > how they were unable to prove he bought any ammunition or clip for his
> > > rifle,
> >
> > Which isn't proof he never bought ammo or a clip. When found, his rifle
> > which you acknowledge he brought in had a clip and a rifle in it. How do
> > you suppose that happened?
> >
>
>
>
> Did it occur to you that someone knew that he had an MC rifle and
> would need a clip? Oswald himself might have mentioned it to the person
> that talked him into bringing it in.
>

And you find this nonsense more believable than the simple explanation
that Oswald brought his rifle in to work to shoot JFK with it. The only
reason for not accepting that in the face of all the evidence that points
to that is that you desperately want to believe something else.

>
>
> > > and he never practiced with it either.
> >
> > A completely baseless assumption. Lack of proof that he practiced is not
> > proof he didn't practice. Is there any proof that I have practiced with my
> > guns in the past year? Does that prove I haven't practiced?
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Do you intend to shoot at a prominent figure, like maybe Trump?

That wasn't the question. Is a lack of evidence as to whether I have
practiced proof that I have not practiced?

> If so, as a gun enthusiast you would practice with the gun you chose to do
> the job with, and if there was anything wrong with the scope, you'd find
> it out and have it fixed. Simple. Since Oswald's rifle had a misaligned
> scope and sticky bolt, it was OBVIOUSLY not checked and not practiced
> with.
>

Now why don't you answer the question that was asked.

>
>
> > > If I was going to shoot at
> > > the POTUS, I'd want to practice to be sure I could do it and the rifle was
> > > up to the task.
> >
> > I would too but if I had short notice of a once in a lifetime opportunity
> > I would make do with the rifle and my skills in whatever condition they
> > were in. Given how easy the shots were, neither needed to be in top shape.
> >
>
>
>
> Well, you would take a chance on a faulty rifle and get caught and
> imprisoned.

It was a real simple equation. If Oswald didn't take advantage of the
opportunity with his rifle in whatever condition he was in he would have
no chance of killing the POTUS. If he went ahead with it even with a less
than perfect rifle, he still had a very good chance of killing the POTUS.
Even if he thought his chance of success was only 50-50, that's still
better than a zero percent chance. He wasn't going to get another
opportunity like that. It was take the shot then or never.

> Oswald was a more careful person.
>

Just what led you to that conclusion?

>
>
> > > Yet when they looked at the rifle after the murder, they
> > > found that the scope was misaligned from a bad mounting and the bolt was
> > > 'sticky'.
> >
> > And yet when they looked at the recovered bullets and shells they
> > discovered they had all been fired by that rifle. Go figure.
> >
>
>
> Not a problem. I believe the 3 shells were probably fired that day
> toward the motorcade through the MC rifle. I just know that Oswald wasn't
> holding the rifle when it happened.
>

Another of the many things you "know" which fly in the face of
overwhelming evidence.

>
>
> > > Oswald showed no interest in shooting anyone with his rifle.
> >
> > You think people who shoot other people show an interest in doing it
> > before they do it. Did Mark Chapman show an interest in shooting someone
> > before he murdered John Lennon?
> >
>
>
>
> We don't know. If we saw him before he did it, we might have an idea
> of the answer. In the case of Oswald, we have the book "Marina and Lee"
> in which Marina professes that Oswald 'liked' JFK and thought he was a
> "Great Leader". if true, why would he want to kill him? Oswald was
> always playing the quiet man and trying not to stand out.
>

Mark Chapman got John Lennon's autograph a few hours before he murdered
him. Why would you think people like that would act sensibly?

> Oswald was always playing the quiet man and trying not to stand out.

This is just too much. Do you think defecting to Russia didn't make him
stand out? Do you think attempting suicide didn't make him stand out? Do
you think repatriating didn't make him stand out? Do you think forming the
New Orleans chapter of FPCC didn't make him stand out? Do you think
handing out FPCC leaflets and getting into a fight with the locals didn't
make him stand out? Do you think going on TV and professing his admiration
of the Marxist philosophy didn't make him stand out? Do you think
traveling to Mexico City and visiting the Soviet and Cuban embassies
didn't make him stand out? Yes sir, that Oswald fellow was a real
shrinking violet.

>
>
> >
> > > He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
> > > the garage.
> > >
> >
> > What we don't know is how many times he unrolled that blanket and got his
> > rifle out. We do know that he used that rifle to try to kill Walker.
> > Correction. Most of us know that. You seem to be in the dark about
> > that.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! We did NOT know that he tried to kill Walker.

Right. WE don't. The rest of us do but you are still confused.

> And you know
> what the evidence was. @ detectives made out the Offense Report and
> stated that the bullet was STEEL jacketed.

Do you think the detective tested the metallurgical content of the bullet
before he wrote the report? Do you know of anyone who made a steel
jacketed 6.5mm bullet?

> They also said that the bullet
> was too damaged to be able to determine caliber or match to any gun.
> Walker saw that bullet at his home. Yet when the bullet was shown
> publicly and Walker saw it, it was a COPPER jacketed bullet, and the
> damage was less enough to determine caliber and to match to a gun barrel.
> Walker himself complained to the authorities that the bullet was NOT the
> original bullet, but they ignored him now that they had more evidence
> against Oswald.
>

Walker never denied the bullet was copper. The Walker bullet in evidence
is badly mangled. Apparently Walker saw another bullet on TV and thought
they were presenting that as the bullet fired at him.

"The bullet used and pictured on the TV by US Senate G.Robert Blakey
Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet
completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any
unfired bullet in shape or form."

That indicates to me the bullet he saw on TV did bear a resemblance to an
unfired bullet. CE573 is completely mutilated just as Walker said the
bullet fired at him was. I don't think he would have described CE573 as a
ridiculous substitute or bearing a resemblance to an unfired bullet in
shape or form.

It's your myth. Make it as interesting as you like since you aren't
constrained by the need for supporting evidence.

Just as I pointed out in another thread a couple days ago. This is one
more example of you being forced to invent and excuse to dismiss another
piece of evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs. You can't construct a
plausible scenario without dozens of such excuses to dismiss dozens of
pieces of evidence. You can't make your beliefs fit the evidence so
instead you try to make the evidence fit your beliefs by throwing out any
evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs. Unfortunately for you, that
doesn't leave you with much evidence at all. On second thought, that's
good for you because it's a lot easier to dream up stories when you aren't
bogged down by fitting them to the evidence.

You don't think Oswald could figure out that he needed to keep the rifle
out of view of the SS detail after the motorcade turned onto Houston. I
can't remember if it is the Nix or Muchmore file which shows the limo
turning on to Houston and we can see the blurry image of a figure in the
sniper's nest window but no rifle. That is pretty much what the SS detail
would have seen except not as blurry as it appears in the film. After the
motorcade turned onto Elm the weapon was brought to bear and a number of
witnesses saw it from that point on.

>
>
>
> > > > > > 5) Why did no one spot any strangers in the TSBD before or immediately
> > > > > > after the shooting, with the exception of an elderly man that asked to use
> > > > > > the first floor restroom a few minutes before the motorcade arrived?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At the time minutes before the motorcade came by, everyone would be at
> > > > > the windows or down on the steps, and their attention would be on looking
> > > > > up Elm street to see what was coming. Shooters could come in through the
> > > > > loading dock entrance and go up the backstairs and be ready on the 6th
> > > > > floor. There is an old man that gave that story as what happened a couple
> > > > > of weeks before he died. At the moment of the shooting, everyone would be
> > > > > watching the street and the limo as it raced away, and the police running
> > > > > around, so that they would still be looking out the windows as the
> > > > > shooters left by the back stairs and out through the loading dock.
> > > >
> > > > I asked you why no one saw any strangers in the TSBD either before or
> > > > immediately after the shooting. There were a number of people in the
> > > > building during the shooting, and no strangers were sighted. But Oswald
> > > > was certainly seen inside the building.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, Oswald was seen at about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom by
> > > Carolyn Arnold. However, at only 5 minute before the shooting began, 3
> > > people came in the loading dock entrance and went to the back stairs and
> > > went up to the 6th floor.
> >
> > How do you know that? Oh, yeah. You read it in a book. It must be true.
> > They can't write anything in a book that isn't true.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You didn't see me say that. You made it up. However, the
> book in question included a fellow near to dying who said he was there.

The guys who wrote the book weren't near dying. They could have made up
anything they wanted without fear that the dying guy would be able to
refute them.

> Many people have asked why haven't some older people come out to tell
> about doing the crime, and there is the old guy telling how they did their
> part. Of course, being an LN, you have to act like it didn't happen.
>

We have two authors who claimed he said that. That gets back to my
facetious comment that they can't write something in a book that wasn't
true. Apparently the word of the authors is good enough for you.

>
>
>
> > > After the shooting they quickly went to the
> > > stairs, went down and out through the loading dock door.
> >
> > And somehow never bumped into Truly and Baker coming up those stairs.
> >
> > > I don't know
> > > positively that is what happened, but it is what a particular man said
> > > happened, and he was one of the people that went up there and fired a
> > > rifle out the window.
> > >
> >
> > It is what Collum and Sample CLAIMED that man said. We only have their
> > word that he actually said that. And if he did tell them that, we only
> > have his word for that. There is nothing that corroborates the story.
> >
>
>
> Well, as usual you try to leave out the things that would make you look
> foolish. The old man's story included TWO men with guns in the 6th floor
> windows, which matched the people that saw 2 men there. He also mentioned
> Mac Wallace who was a hit man for LBJ.
>

Nobody said they saw two people with a gun in that window until former
prisoner Johnny Powell cooked up that story many years later. There are no
contemporaneous accounts of two men with a rifle in the sniper's nest
window. Rowland later said he saw another man on the sixth floor but that
could well have been Bonnie Ray Williams who had been eating his lunch
there. Rowland never said he saw two men in the sniper's nest window.

Right. Just a coincidence that the only shells recovered from the scene
matched Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other guns in the world.
Got any excuses to dismiss that cold fact.

> We've been over that with you trying to make up
> evidence to support your wild suppositions.
>

The matching of the shells to Oswald's revolver supports my "wild
assumptions".

Just what exactly do bullet gouges look like and how are they different
than ordinary gouges? Why weren't there any bullets in the bullet gouges?

>
>
>
> > >
> > > Now that's a lot of bullets. One LN actually tried to explain them all
> > > by saying they were all ricochet fragments from the bullet that went
> > > through JFK's head! I think to have so many bullet strikes in Dealey
> > > Plaza, there had to be a lot more weapons firing than one punky little MC
> > > rifle from the 6th floor.
> > >
> >
> > Let's see. One bullet went into JFK's head and multiple fragments came
> > out. And you find it strange that those fragments would strike in multiple
> > places. I find that strange.
> >
>
>
>
> LOL! You're a riot! And through what orifice did ALL those fragments
> come out?

The gaping hole that blew out of JFK's skull.

> The skull flap wasn't pointing in the right direction,

The fragments didn't come through the flap. They came the through the
massive hole left by the skull flaps. That's plural. The Z-film shows
blood and brain being discharged both forward and upward. That is where
the fragments ejected from as well.

> and the
> bullet hole in the forehead was too small for multiple fragments to exit
> there. So what hole did the fragments all come out from? You really are
> a laugh a minute!
>

The bullet hole in the forehead was non existent. The blowout was along
the upper right side. That's not part of the forehead. That's the
sidehead. If you can make up a term like forehead/temple, I get to make up
sidehead.

>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The other MC bullet has a long and checkered career. It is a test
> > > > > bullet, and not the original CE399 bullet. As soon as the FBI got
> > > > > possession of the MC rifle, the very next day (Saturday) Robert Frazier
> > > > > (FBI firearms expert) took the rifle and ran tests with it, firing over 60
> > > > > shots, and giving himself a stock of used bullets from the MC rifle that
> > > > > had been fired into various materials. He was also the bullet custodian,
> > > > > caring for all the bullets fired and found in the case. When an MC bullet
> > > > > was found on the WRONG gurney at the Parkland hospital, it went to
> > > > > Frazier, and he was able to substitute one of the test bullets he had
> > > > > saved from the MC rifle. Now there was a bullet in custody that
> > > > > supposedly had hit the POTUS, and it came from the MC rifle! Case closed!
> > > >
> > > > Again, there is only evidence of a single rifle being used, and that was
> > > > LHO's MC, so you really have nothing else to support your case.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, see above, bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza.
> > >
> >
> > No evidence any of those strikes came from a weapon other than Oswald's
> > Carcano.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! There are too many of them for that. And if they all were FMJ
> type bullets, they would have been found.
>

Why would you assume that?

We are supposed to believe Oswald left fibers there just by placing the
rifle to his shoulder but the real shooter left no fibers despite the
recoil of the rifle driving the bull plate into his shoulder.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! As usual, you forget anything that goes against your personal
beliefs. There's much evidence that Oswald had no interest in his rifle
or shooting anyone.

> >
> >
> > > > and he never practiced with it either.
> > >
> > > A completely baseless assumption. Lack of proof that he practiced is not
> > > proof he didn't practice. Is there any proof that I have practiced with my
> > > guns in the past year? Does that prove I haven't practiced?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Do you intend to shoot at a prominent figure, like maybe Trump?
>
> That wasn't the question. Is a lack of evidence as to whether I have
> practiced proof that I have not practiced?
>

It was never held up as proof of that. It was held up as a strong
suggestion that he had no interest in the rifle other than to take photos
with it.

> > If so, as a gun enthusiast you would practice with the gun you chose to do
> > the job with, and if there was anything wrong with the scope, you'd find
> > it out and have it fixed. Simple. Since Oswald's rifle had a misaligned
> > scope and sticky bolt, it was OBVIOUSLY not checked and not practiced
> > with.
> >
>
> Now why don't you answer the question that was asked.
>
> >
> >
> > > > If I was going to shoot at
> > > > the POTUS, I'd want to practice to be sure I could do it and the rifle was
> > > > up to the task.
> > >
> > > I would too but if I had short notice of a once in a lifetime opportunity
> > > I would make do with the rifle and my skills in whatever condition they
> > > were in. Given how easy the shots were, neither needed to be in top shape.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, you would take a chance on a faulty rifle and get caught and
> > imprisoned.
>
> It was a real simple equation. If Oswald didn't take advantage of the
> opportunity with his rifle in whatever condition he was in he would have
> no chance of killing the POTUS. If he went ahead with it even with a less
> than perfect rifle, he still had a very good chance of killing the POTUS.
> Even if he thought his chance of success was only 50-50, that's still
> better than a zero percent chance. He wasn't going to get another
> opportunity like that. It was take the shot then or never.
>

You need to listen to yourself! All this time Oswald had bought a
rifle and never practiced with it and then when he had a reason to use the
rifle, he didn't have time to check it out as to being able to do the job!
How do you expect to get anyone to listen to you with ridiculous logic
like that? On top of which, if he had shot at Walker, he would have known
there was something wrong with the rifle and he would have gotten t fixed,
since he was in the mood to shoot people. What ridiculous tripe!

> > Oswald was a more careful person.
> >
>
> Just what led you to that conclusion?
>

Reading up about him and his movements and choices and decisions. He
checked out the idea of a rifle long before he went and bought one. Then
he got the cheapest one he could find. So already there is evidence that
he may not have cared much for the rifle, only the photos with it.

Yep. He did not stand out. He didn't speak much with people he
worked with, and he didn't make any big noises about his environment.
His involvement with Jack Ruby he kept quiet, like any other things he as
doing, like with the Cubans.

> > > > He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
> > > > the garage.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What we don't know is how many times he unrolled that blanket and got his
> > > rifle out. We do know that he used that rifle to try to kill Walker.
> > > Correction. Most of us know that. You seem to be in the dark about
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! We did NOT know that he tried to kill Walker.
>
> Right. WE don't. The rest of us do but you are still confused.
>

WRONG! The evidence says he didn't. You always want to forget that.

> > And you know
> > what the evidence was. @ detectives made out the Offense Report and
> > stated that the bullet was STEEL jacketed.
>
> Do you think the detective tested the metallurgical content of the bullet
> before he wrote the report? Do you know of anyone who made a steel
> jacketed 6.5mm bullet?
>

WRONG! The 2 detectives that made out the Offense Report both saw the
remaining mess that was the bullet, and it was STEEL jacketed, but they
noted at that time that it was impossible to tell what caliber it was
because of the damage, yet strangely enough, later the bullet is shown and
can be seen to have enough material in good order that determining the
caliber can be done! An Amazing transformation! And the bullet has also
changed to being COPPER jacketed!

Don't give me any of your horse manure. You know very well about those
problems.

> > They also said that the bullet
> > was too damaged to be able to determine caliber or match to any gun.
> > Walker saw that bullet at his home. Yet when the bullet was shown
> > publicly and Walker saw it, it was a COPPER jacketed bullet, and the
> > damage was less enough to determine caliber and to match to a gun barrel.
> > Walker himself complained to the authorities that the bullet was NOT the
> > original bullet, but they ignored him now that they had more evidence
> > against Oswald.
> >
>
> Walker never denied the bullet was copper. The Walker bullet in evidence
> is badly mangled. Apparently Walker saw another bullet on TV and thought
> they were presenting that as the bullet fired at him.
>

BULLSHIT! He was an Army man for years and he wasn't fooled by a
bullet shown in a photo. He saw the bullet when it was found, and he knew
when he saw the bullet they showed, that it wasn't the right bullet. He
was sure enough to get his lawyer to write a letter demanding they retract
the phony bullet. And he didn't have to say anything about the bullet
jacket. That doesn't mean that he didn't recognize that the jacket wasn't
STEEL on the phony. 2 detectives didn't BOTH make a mistake on the
jacketing of the bullet they found.

> "The bullet used and pictured on the TV by US Senate G.Robert Blakey
> Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet
> completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any
> unfired bullet in shape or form."
>
> That indicates to me the bullet he saw on TV did bear a resemblance to an
> unfired bullet. CE573 is completely mutilated just as Walker said the
> bullet fired at him was. I don't think he would have described CE573 as a
> ridiculous substitute or bearing a resemblance to an unfired bullet in
> shape or form.
>

FALSE! Here's the phony Walker bullet (CE573):

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Dupe%20Images/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg

You can clearly see that there is enough undamaged material at the
base to determine caliber, and the jacket is clearly NOT STEEL, but is
COPPER. The lack of damage to the bullet is enough that a match could
even be made with a gun barrel if one were compared.

[Jonny Mayer]

I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
correct.

Rowland saw the gunman in the sniper's nest at 12:15-12:16.

Then we have the Darnell and Couch footage which show a person matching
all of Oswald's physical credentials (including clothes) captured in the
doorway during and just after the shooting talking to Frazier on the top
steps of the TSBD that is unlikely to be a stranger as all of the TSBD
witnesses have said they saw no other strangers at their place of work all
day (except an 80 year old man who used the toilet and left in a car with
old ladies). He is also wearing the reddish brown/tan shirt that he said
he took off when at the rooming house with a white t-shirt underneath and
baggy grey work trousers. Both of these were located in a draw in his
rooming house by police.

Oswald told the truth.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
> closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
> door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
> correct.
>

If your speaking of Carolyn Arnold, her statement wasn't made until
1978. She was told by a reporter what her previous statements consisted
of, and she thought they were ridiculous. When the FBI makes out their
302 reports, normally the public doesn't get to see them or sign them.
The FBI in 1963 was caught a number of times falsifying witness statements
to support Hoover's belief in the 'lone nut' scenario.

Chris

[bigdog]

There is much evidence he shot at two people. He hit one of them. He also
hit somebody he probably wasn't aiming at. Later he shot his revolver at a
cop and tried to shoot it at another. But ignore all that evidence of that
because you desperately want to believe something else.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > and he never practiced with it either.
> > > >
> > > > A completely baseless assumption. Lack of proof that he practiced is not
> > > > proof he didn't practice. Is there any proof that I have practiced with my
> > > > guns in the past year? Does that prove I haven't practiced?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Do you intend to shoot at a prominent figure, like maybe Trump?
> >
> > That wasn't the question. Is a lack of evidence as to whether I have
> > practiced proof that I have not practiced?
> >
>
>
> It was never held up as proof of that. It was held up as a strong
> suggestion that he had no interest in the rifle other than to take photos
> with it.
>

So being consistent (a real stretch for you), you would take the lack of
evidence that I have practiced as a strong suggestion that I have no
interest in my rifles other than to take photos with them.

>
>
> > > If so, as a gun enthusiast you would practice with the gun you chose to do
> > > the job with, and if there was anything wrong with the scope, you'd find
> > > it out and have it fixed. Simple. Since Oswald's rifle had a misaligned
> > > scope and sticky bolt, it was OBVIOUSLY not checked and not practiced
> > > with.
> > >
> >
> > Now why don't you answer the question that was asked.
> >

I guess the question was a stumper.

> > >
> > >
> > > > > If I was going to shoot at
> > > > > the POTUS, I'd want to practice to be sure I could do it and the rifle was
> > > > > up to the task.
> > > >
> > > > I would too but if I had short notice of a once in a lifetime opportunity
> > > > I would make do with the rifle and my skills in whatever condition they
> > > > were in. Given how easy the shots were, neither needed to be in top shape.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, you would take a chance on a faulty rifle and get caught and
> > > imprisoned.
> >
> > It was a real simple equation. If Oswald didn't take advantage of the
> > opportunity with his rifle in whatever condition he was in he would have
> > no chance of killing the POTUS. If he went ahead with it even with a less
> > than perfect rifle, he still had a very good chance of killing the POTUS.
> > Even if he thought his chance of success was only 50-50, that's still
> > better than a zero percent chance. He wasn't going to get another
> > opportunity like that. It was take the shot then or never.
> >
>
>
> You need to listen to yourself! All this time Oswald had bought a
> rifle and never practiced with it and then when he had a reason to use the
> rifle, he didn't have time to check it out as to being able to do the job!
> How do you expect to get anyone to listen to you with ridiculous logic
> like that?

I certainly don't expect you to listen to it because it makes sense.
Oswald was only given one chance to kill the POTUS. He had to take the
opportunity then or not at all. Since he didn't have an opportunity to
practice with the rifle after he fetched it from Paine's garage. He had to
make do with it in whatever condition it was in. For the task at hand, it
was plenty good enough.

> On top of which, if he had shot at Walker, he would have known
> there was something wrong with the rifle and he would have gotten t fixed,
> since he was in the mood to shoot people. What ridiculous tripe!
>

Since there is ample evidence he shot at both Walker and JFK, I wouldn't
expect you to believe it. You prefer your beliefs to have no supporting
evidence.

>
>
>
> > > Oswald was a more careful person.
> > >
> >
> > Just what led you to that conclusion?
> >
>
>
> Reading up about him and his movements and choices and decisions. He
> checked out the idea of a rifle long before he went and bought one.

Oh, really. And what is your evidence of that. Oh wait. I keep forgetting
you'd rather believe things for which there is no evidence.

> Then
> he got the cheapest one he could find.

Because that was all he could afford.

> So already there is evidence that
> he may not have cared much for the rifle, only the photos with it.
>

Only you would take that as evidence for that silly belief. It is simply
an illogical conclusion. But drawing illogical conclusions is what you do
best.

Then why did he go on TV?

> His involvement with Jack Ruby he kept quiet, like any other things he as
> doing, like with the Cubans.
>

There is no evidence he had an involvement with Ruby. Oh, wait. I keep
forgetting you like to believe things that there is no evidence of.

>
>
> > > > > He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
> > > > > the garage.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What we don't know is how many times he unrolled that blanket and got his
> > > > rifle out. We do know that he used that rifle to try to kill Walker.
> > > > Correction. Most of us know that. You seem to be in the dark about
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! We did NOT know that he tried to kill Walker.
> >
> > Right. WE don't. The rest of us do but you are still confused.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! The evidence says he didn't. You always want to forget that.
>

Only your imaginary evidence.

>
>
> > > And you know
> > > what the evidence was. @ detectives made out the Offense Report and
> > > stated that the bullet was STEEL jacketed.
> >
> > Do you think the detective tested the metallurgical content of the bullet
> > before he wrote the report? Do you know of anyone who made a steel
> > jacketed 6.5mm bullet?
> >
>
>
> WRONG! The 2 detectives that made out the Offense Report both saw the
> remaining mess that was the bullet, and it was STEEL jacketed,

Except the Walker bullet which is in evidence is copper jacketed which
indicates they were mistaken.

> but they
> noted at that time that it was impossible to tell what caliber it was
> because of the damage, yet strangely enough, later the bullet is shown and
> can be seen to have enough material in good order that determining the
> caliber can be done! An Amazing transformation! And the bullet has also
> changed to being COPPER jacketed!
>

Nothing changed. People more qualified than they were could determine the
caliber. The FBI labs are very good at figuring those things out. When it
was just Walker, there was no reason for the FBI to get involved. With the
murder of JFK, even though it was a state crime, the FBI did get involved
and used their experts to determine the Walker bullet was the same kind
that killed JFK. It was too mangled to prove positively it was fired by
Oswald' rifle, but it was the same kind of bullet.

> Don't give me any of your horse manure. You know very well about those
> problems.
>

They are only a problem for you because you are really bad at weighing
evidence.

>
>
> > > They also said that the bullet
> > > was too damaged to be able to determine caliber or match to any gun.
> > > Walker saw that bullet at his home. Yet when the bullet was shown
> > > publicly and Walker saw it, it was a COPPER jacketed bullet, and the
> > > damage was less enough to determine caliber and to match to a gun barrel.
> > > Walker himself complained to the authorities that the bullet was NOT the
> > > original bullet, but they ignored him now that they had more evidence
> > > against Oswald.
> > >
> >
> > Walker never denied the bullet was copper. The Walker bullet in evidence
> > is badly mangled. Apparently Walker saw another bullet on TV and thought
> > they were presenting that as the bullet fired at him.
> >
>
>
> BULLSHIT! He was an Army man for years and he wasn't fooled by a
> bullet shown in a photo. He saw the bullet when it was found, and he knew
> when he saw the bullet they showed, that it wasn't the right bullet. He
> was sure enough to get his lawyer to write a letter demanding they retract
> the phony bullet.

The Walker bullet in evidence is badly mangled. The bullet he saw on TV
was not badly mangled. That would indicate to a logical person that the
bullet shown on TV was not the Walker bullet.

> And he didn't have to say anything about the bullet
> jacket. That doesn't mean that he didn't recognize that the jacket wasn't
> STEEL on the phony.

It doesn't mean he did recognize it as steel. But you want to assume he
recognized it as steel.

>
> 2 detectives didn't BOTH make a mistake on the
> jacketing of the bullet they found.

Funny how your standards change. With the autopsy report, Humes wrote it
and the other two signed it. You are willing to believe that three
pathologists made the same mistake but that two detectives couldn't make
the same mistake.

>
> > "The bullet used and pictured on the TV by US Senate G.Robert Blakey
> > Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet
> > completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any
> > unfired bullet in shape or form."
> >
> > That indicates to me the bullet he saw on TV did bear a resemblance to an
> > unfired bullet. CE573 is completely mutilated just as Walker said the
> > bullet fired at him was. I don't think he would have described CE573 as a
> > ridiculous substitute or bearing a resemblance to an unfired bullet in
> > shape or form.
> >
>
>
> FALSE! Here's the phony Walker bullet (CE573):
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Dupe%20Images/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg
>
> You can clearly see that there is enough undamaged material at the
> base to determine caliber, and the jacket is clearly NOT STEEL, but is
> COPPER. The lack of damage to the bullet is enough that a match could
> even be made with a gun barrel if one were compared.
>

So now you are a ballistics expert.

[bigdog]

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:

> I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
> closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
> door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
> correct.

So now woman's intuition trumps all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. 53 three
years of crap like this and it continues to amuse.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you claim that he was shooting
only at Connally and Kennedy just got in his way?

[mainframetech]

There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
12:30pm. And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.

You can't seem to get anything right! And at this point, it's doubtful
that you're amused. You're fighting for your ego, not a humorous topic.
However, I get a chuckle out of when you squirm trying to get out of your
corner.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Why not name the people and the circumstances? There is NO proof whatsoever that Oswald fired any rifle from the 6th floor window of the TSBD. And even the person that did didn't hit or hurt anyone, and you are completely unable to prove they did.


And BTW, I never feel desperate when having to correct you.

> > > > > > and he never practiced with it either.
> > > > >
> > > > > A completely baseless assumption. Lack of proof that he practiced is not
> > > > > proof he didn't practice. Is there any proof that I have practiced with my
> > > > > guns in the past year? Does that prove I haven't practiced?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Do you intend to shoot at a prominent figure, like maybe Trump?
> > >
> > > That wasn't the question. Is a lack of evidence as to whether I have
> > > practiced proof that I have not practiced?
> > >
> >
> >
> > It was never held up as proof of that. It was held up as a strong
> > suggestion that he had no interest in the rifle other than to take photos
> > with it.
> >
>
> So being consistent (a real stretch for you), you would take the lack of
> evidence that I have practiced as a strong suggestion that I have no
> interest in my rifles other than to take photos with them.
>

Seems reasonable that if you have not practiced with your rifle, that
you aren't all that interested in the rifle or shooting people with it.

> > > > If so, as a gun enthusiast you would practice with the gun you chose to do
> > > > the job with, and if there was anything wrong with the scope, you'd find
> > > > it out and have it fixed. Simple. Since Oswald's rifle had a misaligned
> > > > scope and sticky bolt, it was OBVIOUSLY not checked and not practiced
> > > > with.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now why don't you answer the question that was asked.
> > >
>
> I guess the question was a stumper.
>

I looked a little ways back and didn't see a question, but you know me
well enough to know that I answer ALL questions the first time, at least.
Some times often. Try again.

WRONG! So tell me then from your imaginative knowing what Oswald was
thinking, why he would want to kill the person he thought of as a "Great
Leader" and that he "loved"?

> > On top of which, if he had shot at Walker, he would have known

> > there was something wrong with the rifle and he would have gotten it fixed,

> > since he was in the mood to shoot people. What ridiculous tripe!
> >
>
> Since there is ample evidence he shot at both Walker and JFK, I wouldn't
> expect you to believe it. You prefer your beliefs to have no supporting
> evidence.
>

WRONG! There is clear evidence that he did not shot at Walker and JFK.
That evidence has been shown to you and you have not opposed it.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > Oswald was a more careful person.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just what led you to that conclusion?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Reading up about him and his movements and choices and decisions. He
> > checked out the idea of a rifle long before he went and bought one.
>
> Oh, really. And what is your evidence of that. Oh wait. I keep forgetting
> you'd rather believe things for which there is no evidence.
>

WRONG! Don't pretend you're stupid. It won't work. There are stories
that Oswald went around to a few people and asked about rifles and such
before he bought one. Or don't you know much about the case?

> > Then
> > he got the cheapest one he could find.
>
> Because that was all he could afford.
>

He had money enough to buy a decent rifle. Here's the statement from
Marina:

"Priscilla McMillan: Later, she found what he'd left on the bureau. It
was $170, and she thought to herself that must be everything Lee had."

from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/oswald/transcript/

If he was carrying that much around, he could have easily have bought
a decent rifle from Klein's for $56 up to $89. The $89 would have bought
him an M-1, a gun he was familiar with and had earned his sharpshooter and
marksman ratings with. Instead he bought the cheapest thing he could
find. Those ads were there in the same catalog that Oswald used for his
cheapo rifle.

> > So already there is evidence that
> > he may not have cared much for the rifle, only the photos with it.
> >
>
> Only you would take that as evidence for that silly belief. It is simply
> an illogical conclusion. But drawing illogical conclusions is what you do
> best.
>

Oh? Point out the illogic, since you think you're an expert logician.

He was playing a part and needed to be seen to draw in the folks he
wanted to spy on.



>
> > His involvement with Jack Ruby he kept quiet, like any other things he was

> > doing, like with the Cubans.
> >
>
> There is no evidence he had an involvement with Ruby. Oh, wait. I keep
> forgetting you like to believe things that there is no evidence of.
>

There are a number of witnesses that said they had ben seen together
in the Carousel. Some of the strippers had said it. Of course, you want
to dismiss that evidence.

> >
> >
> > > > > > He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
> > > > > > the garage.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What we don't know is how many times he unrolled that blanket and got his
> > > > > rifle out. We do know that he used that rifle to try to kill Walker.
> > > > > Correction. Most of us know that. You seem to be in the dark about
> > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! We did NOT know that he tried to kill Walker.
> > >
> > > Right. WE don't. The rest of us do but you are still confused.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The evidence says he didn't. You always want to forget that.
> >
>
> Only your imaginary evidence.
>

WRONG! Show your evidence that Oswald fired at Walker with his MC
rifle. It's all 'after the fact' stuff.




> > > > And you know
> > > > what the evidence was. 2 detectives made out the Offense Report and

> > > > stated that the bullet was STEEL jacketed.
> > >
> > > Do you think the detective tested the metallurgical content of the bullet
> > > before he wrote the report? Do you know of anyone who made a steel
> > > jacketed 6.5mm bullet?
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The 2 detectives that made out the Offense Report both saw the
> > remaining mess that was the bullet, and it was STEEL jacketed,
>
> Except the Walker bullet which is in evidence is copper jacketed which
> indicates they were mistaken.
>

WRONG! Detectives know that if they let a mistake get into a report,
it could let a murderer get off. They are careful of their statements.
And in this case, there were 2 of them, so there was a check on the report
info. As to STEEL vs. Copper, it's not an easy mistake to make. Usually
lead would be expected or copper jacketed, but STEEL had to be
specifically recognized as such to be reported.

> > but they
> > noted at that time that it was impossible to tell what caliber it was
> > because of the damage, yet strangely enough, later the bullet is shown and
> > can be seen to have enough material in good order that determining the
> > caliber can be done! An Amazing transformation! And the bullet has also
> > changed to being COPPER jacketed!
> >
>
> Nothing changed. People more qualified than they were could determine the
> caliber. The FBI labs are very good at figuring those things out. When it
> was just Walker, there was no reason for the FBI to get involved.

The report was made out and the evidence was sealed in an evidence box. It wasn't opened until Frazier opened it after Dec. 4th. Suddenly the
bullet that was so deformed and had a STEEL jacket, was easy to determine
the caliber and could be matched to a gun barrel, and had a COPPER jacket
like Oswald's rifle used. Don't even begin to try attempting to explain
away the facts. The dog didn't eat the evidence, the authorities did.
The police detectives that viewed the Walker bullet saw it clearly and
knew that the jacket was STEEL. And they were smart enough to know what
the capabilities of the lab might be from past experience. There was no
sudden epiphany about the bullet replaced by Frazier with another of the
bullets saved from his testing of the MC rifle.

The bullet that was completely mangled was suddenly able to be
determined as to caliber, and even matched wit ha gun barrel if desired.
And I know of NO text describing any lab work on the mangled bullet after
it was brought out of the evidence box, do you?

> With the
> murder of JFK, even though it was a state crime, the FBI did get involved
> and used their experts to determine the Walker bullet was the same kind
> that killed JFK. It was too mangled to prove positively it was fired by
> Oswald' rifle, but it was the same kind of bullet.
>

WRONG! It was a replacement bullet. The original bullet was STEEL
jacketed, and was too mangled to determine caliber. The new replacement
bullet was easy to see it did NOT fit the description of the 2 detectives,
and Walker himself, who had seen the original bullet, said they should
retract the phony bullet, but they had evidence they wanted on Oswald and
so they ignored him.

.

> > Don't give me any of your horse manure. You know very well about those
> > problems.
> >
>
> They are only a problem for you because you are really bad at weighing
> evidence.
>

Or you are and are trying t blame me for your failure.

> > > > They also said that the bullet
> > > > was too damaged to be able to determine caliber or match to any gun.
> > > > Walker saw that bullet at his home. Yet when the bullet was shown
> > > > publicly and Walker saw it, it was a COPPER jacketed bullet, and the
> > > > damage was less enough to determine caliber and to match to a gun barrel.
> > > > Walker himself complained to the authorities that the bullet was NOT the
> > > > original bullet, but they ignored him now that they had more evidence
> > > > against Oswald.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Walker never denied the bullet was copper. The Walker bullet in evidence
> > > is badly mangled. Apparently Walker saw another bullet on TV and thought
> > > they were presenting that as the bullet fired at him.
> > >
> >
> >
> > BULLSHIT! He was an Army man for years and he wasn't fooled by a
> > bullet shown in a photo. He saw the bullet when it was found, and he knew
> > when he saw the bullet they showed, that it wasn't the right bullet. He
> > was sure enough to get his lawyer to write a letter demanding they retract
> > the phony bullet.
>
> The Walker bullet in evidence is badly mangled. The bullet he saw on TV
> was not badly mangled. That would indicate to a logical person that the
> bullet shown on TV was not the Walker bullet.
>

Show the cites and links for Walker seeing a undamaged bullet on TV.
I don't believe you can. Walker was an Army man and he easily knew what a
ne bullet looked like vs. a mangled bullet. That's one of the dumbest
excuses I've heard on this case.

> > And he didn't have to say anything about the bullet
> > jacket. That doesn't mean that he didn't recognize that the jacket wasn't
> > STEEL on the phony.
>
> It doesn't mean he did recognize it as steel. But you want to assume he
> recognized it as steel.
>
> >
> > 2 detectives didn't BOTH make a mistake on the
> > jacketing of the bullet they found.
>
> Funny how your standards change. With the autopsy report, Humes wrote it
> and the other two signed it. You are willing to believe that three
> pathologists made the same mistake but that two detectives couldn't make
> the same mistake.
>

Military pathologists being given orders is very different from 2
detectives writing up a report on what they both saw and not under orders.

> > > "The bullet used and pictured on the TV by US Senate G.Robert Blakey
> > > Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet
> > > completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any
> > > unfired bullet in shape or form."
> > >
> > > That indicates to me the bullet he saw on TV did bear a resemblance to an
> > > unfired bullet. CE573 is completely mutilated just as Walker said the
> > > bullet fired at him was. I don't think he would have described CE573 as a
> > > ridiculous substitute or bearing a resemblance to an unfired bullet in
> > > shape or form.
> > >
> >
> >
> > FALSE! Here's the phony Walker bullet (CE573):
> >
> > http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Dupe%20Images/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg
> >
> > You can clearly see that there is enough undamaged material at the
> > base to determine caliber, and the jacket is clearly NOT STEEL, but is
> > COPPER. The lack of damage to the bullet is enough that a match could
> > even be made with a gun barrel if one were compared.
> >
>
> So now you are a ballistics expert.

Nope, just a citizen that pays attention to documentation when he reads
it. I'm familiar enough with the idea of comparing a bullets
circumference with the barrel of a gun to determine if the bullet came out
of that gun. After seeing many tests on TV, it's clear that there was
enough material undamaged on the phony bullet to allow comparison. But
they had a reason for not doing the comparison. The bullet had been said
that it was TO mangled for comparison, so they decided they shouldn't do
the match because it would be too much and look set up, and the phony
would be suspected.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

On 7/13/17 4:26 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
>>> I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
>>> closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
>>> door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
>>> correct.
>>
>> So now woman's intuition trumps all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
>> in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. 53 three
>> years of crap like this and it continues to amuse.
>
>
>
> There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
> 12:30pm. And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
> MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.

You on crack, boy?

>
> You can't seem to get anything right! And at this point, it's doubtful
> that you're amused. You're fighting for your ego, not a humorous topic.
> However, I get a chuckle out of when you squirm trying to get out of your
> corner.

Answer seems to be an emphatic "Yes".

>
> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You are being silly. You are taking the word of 2 dumb cops who only
glanced at the bullet and did not test it scientifically over the expert
analysis by the head of the FBI lab. He tested it and found that the
jacket was copper and non-magnetic. They even dug out some of the jacket
and tested it.

Didn't you read the evidence sheet? CE 399 was called C-1 and Q-1 when it
was handed over to the FBI lab. Did you miss where he said it was
non-magnetic.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg

Just an alterationist.

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

Why do you continue to throw out these red herrings. Oh, that's right. You
don't have any real evidence. Never mind.

>
> And BTW, I never feel desperate when having to correct you.
>

You probably don't feel embarrassed either although you should be.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > and he never practiced with it either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A completely baseless assumption. Lack of proof that he practiced is not
> > > > > > proof he didn't practice. Is there any proof that I have practiced with my
> > > > > > guns in the past year? Does that prove I haven't practiced?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Do you intend to shoot at a prominent figure, like maybe Trump?
> > > >
> > > > That wasn't the question. Is a lack of evidence as to whether I have
> > > > practiced proof that I have not practiced?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It was never held up as proof of that. It was held up as a strong
> > > suggestion that he had no interest in the rifle other than to take photos
> > > with it.
> > >
> >
> > So being consistent (a real stretch for you), you would take the lack of
> > evidence that I have practiced as a strong suggestion that I have no
> > interest in my rifles other than to take photos with them.
> >
>
>
>
> Seems reasonable that if you have not practiced with your rifle, that
> you aren't all that interested in the rifle or shooting people with it.
>

I didn't say I hadn't practiced with them. I said there is no evidence
whether I had practiced or not. You just made the same mistake with me
that you made with Oswald. You took a lack of evidence that I had
practiced as evidence I had not practiced. To you that's one and the
same.

>
>
>
> > > > > If so, as a gun enthusiast you would practice with the gun you chose to do
> > > > > the job with, and if there was anything wrong with the scope, you'd find
> > > > > it out and have it fixed. Simple. Since Oswald's rifle had a misaligned
> > > > > scope and sticky bolt, it was OBVIOUSLY not checked and not practiced
> > > > > with.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now why don't you answer the question that was asked.
> > > >
> >
> > I guess the question was a stumper.
> >
>
>
> I looked a little ways back and didn't see a question, but you know me
> well enough to know that I answer ALL questions the first time, at least.
> Some times often. Try again.
>

Some times often??? WTF!!!

I have no idea what Oswald was thinking. I know what he did. I also know
he had no opportunity to practice with his rifle from the time he learned
JFK would be riding past his workplace. He had to make do with the rifle
in whatever condition it was in because he had no chance to zero it in. It
didn't need to be perfectly zeroed. He wasn't in a shooting competition
and he wasn't shooting for qualification. He was trying to kill a man. It
was plenty good enough to do that.

> why he would want to kill the person he thought of as a "Great
> Leader" and that he "loved"?
>

I have no idea but because I know he did kill JFK, he must have had some
reason. We'll never know what that was although it is fun to guess.

>
>
>
> > > On top of which, if he had shot at Walker, he would have known
> > > there was something wrong with the rifle and he would have gotten it fixed,
> > > since he was in the mood to shoot people. What ridiculous tripe!
> > >
> >
> > Since there is ample evidence he shot at both Walker and JFK, I wouldn't
> > expect you to believe it. You prefer your beliefs to have no supporting
> > evidence.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! There is clear evidence that he did not shot at Walker and JFK.
> That evidence has been shown to you and you have not opposed it.
>

I get a chuckle every time you present what you think is evidence.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Oswald was a more careful person.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just what led you to that conclusion?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Reading up about him and his movements and choices and decisions. He
> > > checked out the idea of a rifle long before he went and bought one.
> >
> > Oh, really. And what is your evidence of that. Oh wait. I keep forgetting
> > you'd rather believe things for which there is no evidence.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Don't pretend you're stupid. It won't work. There are stories
> that Oswald went around to a few people and asked about rifles and such
> before he bought one. Or don't you know much about the case?
>

You should be able to name a few of those people then.

>
>
> > > Then
> > > he got the cheapest one he could find.
> >
> > Because that was all he could afford.
> >
>
>
> He had money enough to buy a decent rifle. Here's the statement from
> Marina:
>
> "Priscilla McMillan: Later, she found what he'd left on the bureau. It
> was $170, and she thought to herself that must be everything Lee had."
>

That was how much money he had on 11/22/63. We have no idea how much money
he had when he ordered the rifle. It would be silly to think that he would
spend all the money he had on a rifle. He had no idea when he bought the
rifle what kind of opportunity would have 8 months later. If he bought it
to kill Walker, there is no reason to think he would spend every last dime
he had on the rifle.

> from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/oswald/transcript/
>
> If he was carrying that much around, he could have easily have bought
> a decent rifle from Klein's for $56 up to $89. The $89 would have bought
> him an M-1, a gun he was familiar with and had earned his sharpshooter and
> marksman ratings with. Instead he bought the cheapest thing he could
> find. Those ads were there in the same catalog that Oswald used for his
> cheapo rifle.

Given what he was able to do with the $21 rifle, I think he made a good
buy. He certainly didn't overspend on that rifle.

>
>
> > > So already there is evidence that
> > > he may not have cared much for the rifle, only the photos with it.
> > >
> >
> > Only you would take that as evidence for that silly belief. It is simply
> > an illogical conclusion. But drawing illogical conclusions is what you do
> > best.
> >
>
>
>
> Oh? Point out the illogic, since you think you're an expert logician.
>

Again? Your belief he bought the rifle on to have his picture taken with
it is purely an assumption. There is no evidence that tells us that is the
only reason he bought the rifle. Assumptions are not logical.

So he did want to stand out. You're starting to sound like Marsh. He
argues with himself too.

>
>
> >
> > > His involvement with Jack Ruby he kept quiet, like any other things he was
> > > doing, like with the Cubans.
> > >
> >
> > There is no evidence he had an involvement with Ruby. Oh, wait. I keep
> > forgetting you like to believe things that there is no evidence of.
> >
>
>
> There are a number of witnesses that said they had ben seen together
> in the Carousel. Some of the strippers had said it. Of course, you want
> to dismiss that evidence.
>

I would be impressed if one of them had gone on record as saying Ruby knew
Oswald before Ruby shot Oswald.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
> > > > > > > the garage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What we don't know is how many times he unrolled that blanket and got his
> > > > > > rifle out. We do know that he used that rifle to try to kill Walker.
> > > > > > Correction. Most of us know that. You seem to be in the dark about
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! We did NOT know that he tried to kill Walker.
> > > >
> > > > Right. WE don't. The rest of us do but you are still confused.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The evidence says he didn't. You always want to forget that.
> > >
> >
> > Only your imaginary evidence.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Show your evidence that Oswald fired at Walker with his MC
> rifle. It's all 'after the fact' stuff.
>

Shifting the burden again. You are the one who claims there is evidence
that Oswald did not shoot at Walker. I scoffed at that argument. So it is
up to your assertion is supported by evidence.

>
>
>
> > > > > And you know
> > > > > what the evidence was. 2 detectives made out the Offense Report and
> > > > > stated that the bullet was STEEL jacketed.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think the detective tested the metallurgical content of the bullet
> > > > before he wrote the report? Do you know of anyone who made a steel
> > > > jacketed 6.5mm bullet?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The 2 detectives that made out the Offense Report both saw the
> > > remaining mess that was the bullet, and it was STEEL jacketed,
> >
> > Except the Walker bullet which is in evidence is copper jacketed which
> > indicates they were mistaken.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Detectives know that if they let a mistake get into a report,
> it could let a murderer get off. They are careful of their statements.
> And in this case, there were 2 of them, so there was a check on the report
> info.

So how careful were they with this determination. Did they send the bullet
to a lab to have the metallurgical composition analyzed?

> As to STEEL vs. Copper, it's not an easy mistake to make. Usually
> lead would be expected or copper jacketed, but STEEL had to be
> specifically recognized as such to be reported.
>

No it didn't. They could write steel in their report without ever having
tested the make up of the bullet.

>
>
> > > but they
> > > noted at that time that it was impossible to tell what caliber it was
> > > because of the damage, yet strangely enough, later the bullet is shown and
> > > can be seen to have enough material in good order that determining the
> > > caliber can be done! An Amazing transformation! And the bullet has also
> > > changed to being COPPER jacketed!
> > >
> >
> > Nothing changed. People more qualified than they were could determine the
> > caliber. The FBI labs are very good at figuring those things out. When it
> > was just Walker, there was no reason for the FBI to get involved.
>
>
>
> The report was made out and the evidence was sealed in an evidence box. It wasn't opened until Frazier opened it after Dec. 4th. Suddenly the
> bullet that was so deformed and had a STEEL jacket, was easy to determine
> the caliber and could be matched to a gun barrel,

Frazier never matched the bullet to gun barrel because it didn't have
enough usable material to make such a match.

> and had a COPPER jacket
> like Oswald's rifle used. Don't even begin to try attempting to explain
> away the facts. The dog didn't eat the evidence, the authorities did.

Of course. Another piece of evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs and you
need an excuse to dismiss it. This is what you came up with.

> The police detectives that viewed the Walker bullet saw it clearly and
> knew that the jacket was STEEL. And they were smart enough to know what
> the capabilities of the lab might be from past experience.

Then why didn't they have a lab test it?

> There was no
> sudden epiphany about the bullet replaced by Frazier with another of the
> bullets saved from his testing of the MC rifle.
>
> The bullet that was completely mangled was suddenly able to be
> determined as to caliber, and even matched wit ha gun barrel if desired.

That's the second time you made that mistake.

> And I know of NO text describing any lab work on the mangled bullet after
> it was brought out of the evidence box, do you?
>

Apparently there was no lab work done before the detectives wrote their
report or they would know it was a copper jacket.

>
>
> > With the
> > murder of JFK, even though it was a state crime, the FBI did get involved
> > and used their experts to determine the Walker bullet was the same kind
> > that killed JFK. It was too mangled to prove positively it was fired by
> > Oswald' rifle, but it was the same kind of bullet.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! It was a replacement bullet.

More of your illogical assumptions.

> The original bullet was STEEL
> jacketed, and was too mangled to determine caliber. The new replacement
> bullet was easy to see it did NOT fit the description of the 2 detectives,
> and Walker himself, who had seen the original bullet, said they should
> retract the phony bullet, but they had evidence they wanted on Oswald and
> so they ignored him.
>

The WC published their report long before Walker raised objections to the
bullet.

He said the bullet that almost hit him was badly mangled. The Walker
bullet in evidence is badly mangled. His objection to the bullet he saw on
TV was that it was not badly mangled. Therefore the bullet on TV is not
the one in evidence and is not the one in evidence.

>
>
> > > And he didn't have to say anything about the bullet
> > > jacket. That doesn't mean that he didn't recognize that the jacket wasn't
> > > STEEL on the phony.
> >
> > It doesn't mean he did recognize it as steel. But you want to assume he
> > recognized it as steel.
> >
> > >
> > > 2 detectives didn't BOTH make a mistake on the
> > > jacketing of the bullet they found.
> >
> > Funny how your standards change. With the autopsy report, Humes wrote it
> > and the other two signed it. You are willing to believe that three
> > pathologists made the same mistake but that two detectives couldn't make
> > the same mistake.
> >
>
>
> Military pathologists being given orders is very different from 2
> detectives writing up a report on what they both saw and not under orders.
>

You assume they were given such orders. No evidence for that.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> > > I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
> > > closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
> > > door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
> > > correct.
> >
> > So now woman's intuition trumps all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> > in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. 53 three
> > years of crap like this and it continues to amuse.
>
>
>
> There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
> 12:30pm.

You mean other than his fingerprints, shells from his rifle which also
fired the only two recovered bullets, fibers matching his shirt on the
butt plate of the rifle, his fingerprints on a bag long enough to hold a
disassembled rifle and containing fibers matching the blanket he stored
his rifle in, and sworn testimony by an eyewitness who identified him as
well as the location of the shots. Hardly any evidence at all.

> And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
> MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.
>

See shirt fibers on the butt plate of the rifle and the eyewitness who
IDed him. But as for all the evidence against Oswald, you have an excuse
to dismiss it. That's the nice thing about being and LN. We don't need any
excuses to dismiss evidence. We just incorporate ALL the credible evidence
into our beliefs.

> You can't seem to get anything right! And at this point, it's doubtful
> that you're amused. You're fighting for your ego, not a humorous topic.
> However, I get a chuckle out of when you squirm trying to get out of your
> corner.
>

You never cease to amuse.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> > > I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
> > > closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
> > > door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
> > > correct.
> >
> > So now woman's intuition trumps all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> > in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. 53 three
> > years of crap like this and it continues to amuse.
>
>
>
> There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
> 12:30pm. And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
> MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.
>

*Nothing* could be further from the truth.

But Chris/Frame doesn't care. He'll continue to repeat the "There's No
Evidence..." crap until the cows come a-knockin'.

Pathetic.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:49:39 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> > > > I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
> > > > closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
> > > > door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
> > > > correct.
> > >
> > > So now woman's intuition trumps all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> > > in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. 53 three
> > > years of crap like this and it continues to amuse.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
> > 12:30pm.
>
> You mean other than his fingerprints, shells from his rifle which also
> fired the only two recovered bullets, fibers matching his shirt on the
> butt plate of the rifle, his fingerprints on a bag long enough to hold a
> disassembled rifle and containing fibers matching the blanket he stored
> his rifle in, and sworn testimony by an eyewitness who identified him as
> well as the location of the shots. Hardly any evidence at all.
>

WRONG! Every single bit of stuff you have just listed does NOT put a
rifle in the hands of Oswald and does NOT put him in the 6th floor window
at 12:30pm. With the exception of Brennan, who discredited himself with
his admissions of previous knowledge.

> > And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
> > MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.
> >
>
> See shirt fibers on the butt plate of the rifle and the eyewitness who
> IDed him. But as for all the evidence against Oswald, you have an excuse
> to dismiss it. That's the nice thing about being and LN. We don't need any
> excuses to dismiss evidence. We just incorporate ALL the credible evidence
> into our beliefs.
>

I dismiss nothing. The fact that you listed a bunch of meaningless
stuff does not mean I made a mistake, it means you did. None of that list
puts Oswald in the window at 12:30pm. and the Brennan sighting has been
discredited.

> > You can't seem to get anything right! And at this point, it's doubtful
> > that you're amused. You're fighting for your ego, not a humorous topic.
> > However, I get a chuckle out of when you squirm trying to get out of your
> > corner.
> >
>
> You never cease to amuse.

More squirming.

Chris

[mainframetech]

There is no reason for you to believe that Oswald killed JFK except
being brainwashed by the WCR, as was intended.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > On top of which, if he had shot at Walker, he would have known
> > > > there was something wrong with the rifle and he would have gotten it fixed,
> > > > since he was in the mood to shoot people. What ridiculous tripe!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Since there is ample evidence he shot at both Walker and JFK, I wouldn't
> > > expect you to believe it. You prefer your beliefs to have no supporting
> > > evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! There is clear evidence that he did not shot at Walker and JFK.
> > That evidence has been shown to you and you have not opposed it.
> >
>
> I get a chuckle every time you present what you think is evidence.
>

And you have not opposed what I specified as evidence.

> > > > > > Oswald was a more careful person.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just what led you to that conclusion?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reading up about him and his movements and choices and decisions. He
> > > > checked out the idea of a rifle long before he went and bought one.
> > >
> > > Oh, really. And what is your evidence of that. Oh wait. I keep forgetting
> > > you'd rather believe things for which there is no evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Don't pretend you're stupid. It won't work. There are stories
> > that Oswald went around to a few people and asked about rifles and such
> > before he bought one. Or don't you know much about the case?
> >
>
> You should be able to name a few of those people then.
>

If I bothered to refresh myself and read through a ton of stuff, that
would be true.

> > > > Then
> > > > he got the cheapest one he could find.
> > >
> > > Because that was all he could afford.
> > >
> >
> >
> > He had money enough to buy a decent rifle. Here's the statement from
> > Marina:
> >
> > "Priscilla McMillan: Later, she found what he'd left on the bureau. It
> > was $170, and she thought to herself that must be everything Lee had."
> >
>
> That was how much money he had on 11/22/63. We have no idea how much money
> he had when he ordered the rifle. It would be silly to think that he would
> spend all the money he had on a rifle. He had no idea when he bought the
> rifle what kind of opportunity would have 8 months later. If he bought it
> to kill Walker, there is no reason to think he would spend every last dime
> he had on the rifle.
>

He didn't spend "every last dime", since there were many guns offered
in the Klein's catalog that were half or less what he had that he left.
And why should he have lots of money near death than during his normal
life? Where would he get it, except save it, or get paid by the FBI for
ratting on someone.

> > from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/oswald/transcript/
> >
> > If he was carrying that much around, he could have easily have bought
> > a decent rifle from Klein's for $56 up to $89. The $89 would have bought
> > him an M-1, a gun he was familiar with and had earned his sharpshooter and
> > marksman ratings with. Instead he bought the cheapest thing he could
> > find. Those ads were there in the same catalog that Oswald used for his
> > cheapo rifle.
>
> Given what he was able to do with the $21 rifle, I think he made a good
> buy. He certainly didn't overspend on that rifle.
>

He did nothing with the $21 rifle. And you cannot prove otherwise.
I know because you've tried and failed miserably.

> >
> >
> > > > So already there is evidence that
> > > > he may not have cared much for the rifle, only the photos with it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only you would take that as evidence for that silly belief. It is simply
> > > an illogical conclusion. But drawing illogical conclusions is what you do
> > > best.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh? Point out the illogic, since you think you're an expert logician.
> >
>
> Again? Your belief he bought the rifle on to have his picture taken with
> it is purely an assumption. There is no evidence that tells us that is the
> only reason he bought the rifle. Assumptions are not logical.
>

Assumptions can indeed be logical. Think it through. There is indeed
evidence that the rifle wasn't of concern to him. He got his photos and
rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in the garage. That's an
act than clearly says he didn't much care about the rifle.

Don't start being foolish. Playing a part for a few specific people is
NOT standing out. Think it through before you blat.

> > > > His involvement with Jack Ruby he kept quiet, like any other things he was
> > > > doing, like with the Cubans.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is no evidence he had an involvement with Ruby. Oh, wait. I keep
> > > forgetting you like to believe things that there is no evidence of.
> > >
> >
> >

> > There are a number of witnesses that said they had been seen together

> > in the Carousel. Some of the strippers had said it. Of course, you want
> > to dismiss that evidence.
> >
>
> I would be impressed if one of them had gone on record as saying Ruby knew
> Oswald before Ruby shot Oswald.
>

No problem. Here's a couple:

"At 20, "Little Lynn" (in private life, Karen Carlin) was Jack's youngest
stripper. With long locks of artificially colored gray hair, Lynn had the
body of swimsuit contestant—but, on stage, wore little other than
a big smile, pink heels and a matching G-string.

On November 24, 1963, Little Lynn told U.S. Secret Service agent Roger
Warner that she, in his words, "was under the impression that Lee Harvey
Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other individuals unknown to her, were involved in
a plot to assassinate President Kennedy and that she would be killed if
she gave any information to authorities." Lynn reportedly died of a
gunshot wound in Houston in 1964, according to the Encyclopedia of the JFK
Assassination."

And:

"By some accounts, even before her boss murdered Oswald, Jack's featured
stripper, 27-year-old "Jada" (real name, Janet Conforto) told reporters
that Ruby and Oswald were acquainted."

Both from: http://www.crimemagazine.com/did-jack-ruby-know-lee-harvey-oswald

> > > > > > > > He got his photos with it, then rolled it up in a blanket and threw it in
> > > > > > > > the garage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What we don't know is how many times he unrolled that blanket and got his
> > > > > > > rifle out. We do know that he used that rifle to try to kill Walker.
> > > > > > > Correction. Most of us know that. You seem to be in the dark about
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! We did NOT know that he tried to kill Walker.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. WE don't. The rest of us do but you are still confused.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! The evidence says he didn't. You always want to forget that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only your imaginary evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Show your evidence that Oswald fired at Walker with his MC
> > rifle. It's all 'after the fact' stuff.
> >
>
> Shifting the burden again. You are the one who claims there is evidence
> that Oswald did not shoot at Walker. I scoffed at that argument. So it is
> up to your assertion is supported by evidence.
>

I have spoken of the proof that Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker, and
the main reason is that the bullet that was used was STEEL jacketed, and
the bullet the authorities tried to say was the Walker bullet was a fake.
Why fake a bullet unless Oswald was innocent of the crime? Not to mention
the boy that saw men leaving in cars immediately after the shot did not
describe anyone that fit Oswald's description. Why do you constantly
force repetition?

> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > And you know
> > > > > > what the evidence was. 2 detectives made out the Offense Report and
> > > > > > stated that the bullet was STEEL jacketed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think the detective tested the metallurgical content of the bullet
> > > > > before he wrote the report? Do you know of anyone who made a steel
> > > > > jacketed 6.5mm bullet?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! The 2 detectives that made out the Offense Report both saw the
> > > > remaining mess that was the bullet, and it was STEEL jacketed,
> > >
> > > Except the Walker bullet which is in evidence is copper jacketed which
> > > indicates they were mistaken.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Detectives know that if they let a mistake get into a report,
> > it could let a murderer get off. They are careful of their statements.
> > And in this case, there were 2 of them, so there was a check on the report
> > info.
>
> So how careful were they with this determination. Did they send the bullet
> to a lab to have the metallurgical composition analyzed?
>

There was no need. They could see the metal type from looking at it,
and so could Walker when they showed it to him. There is a big difference
in the look of STEEL and COPPER.

> > As to STEEL vs. Copper, it's not an easy mistake to make. Usually
> > lead would be expected or copper jacketed, but STEEL had to be
> > specifically recognized as such to be reported.
> >
>
> No it didn't. They could write steel in their report without ever having
> tested the make up of the bullet.
>

Don't be a boob. They wrote STEEL because that's what they saw.

> >
> >
> > > > but they
> > > > noted at that time that it was impossible to tell what caliber it was
> > > > because of the damage, yet strangely enough, later the bullet is shown and
> > > > can be seen to have enough material in good order that determining the
> > > > caliber can be done! An Amazing transformation! And the bullet has also
> > > > changed to being COPPER jacketed!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nothing changed. People more qualified than they were could determine the
> > > caliber. The FBI labs are very good at figuring those things out. When it
> > > was just Walker, there was no reason for the FBI to get involved.
> >
> >
> >
> > The report was made out and the evidence was sealed in an evidence box. It wasn't opened until Frazier opened it after Dec. 4th. Suddenly the
> > bullet that was so deformed and had a STEEL jacket, was easy to determine
> > the caliber and could be matched to a gun barrel,
>
> Frazier never matched the bullet to gun barrel because it didn't have
> enough usable material to make such a match.
>

FALSE! You can see there is enough clear material on the phony bullet
for a match, but since the original description was that it was too
mangled to match, they didn't dare match it. But I don't for a minute
doubt that the bullet would match the MC rifle or Oswald's, since Frazier
replaced the original Walker bullet with one of the saved MC rifle test
bullets.

> > and had a COPPER jacket
> > like Oswald's rifle used. Don't even begin to try attempting to explain
> > away the facts. The dog didn't eat the evidence, the authorities did.
>
> Of course. Another piece of evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs and you
> need an excuse to dismiss it. This is what you came up with.
>

WRONG! The evidence doesn't fit the truth. Nothing to do with
anything I think.

> > The police detectives that viewed the Walker bullet saw it clearly and
> > knew that the jacket was STEEL. And they were smart enough to know what
> > the capabilities of the lab might be from past experience.
>
> Then why didn't they have a lab test it?
>

You would have to ask them, but it being a STEEL bullet, they may have
figured it wasn't necessary, there were few enough people using the steel
jacket bullets.

> > There was no
> > sudden epiphany about the bullet replaced by Frazier with another of the
> > bullets saved from his testing of the MC rifle.
> >
> > The bullet that was completely mangled was suddenly able to be

> > determined as to caliber, and even matched with a gun barrel if desired.

>
> That's the second time you made that mistake.
>

WRONG! The mistake is yours. There was enough material to match the
bullet if they had tried, but they didn't dare.

> > And I know of NO text describing any lab work on the mangled bullet after
> > it was brought out of the evidence box, do you?
> >
>
> Apparently there was no lab work done before the detectives wrote their
> report or they would know it was a copper jacket.
>

WRONG! As you ought to know, COPPER jacketed bullets are obvious by
comparison with STEEL jacketed ones.

> >
> >
> > > With the
> > > murder of JFK, even though it was a state crime, the FBI did get involved
> > > and used their experts to determine the Walker bullet was the same kind
> > > that killed JFK. It was too mangled to prove positively it was fired by
> > > Oswald' rifle, but it was the same kind of bullet.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! It was a replacement bullet.
>
> More of your illogical assumptions.
>
> > The original bullet was STEEL
> > jacketed, and was too mangled to determine caliber. The new replacement
> > bullet was easy to see it did NOT fit the description of the 2 detectives,
> > and Walker himself, who had seen the original bullet, said they should
> > retract the phony bullet, but they had evidence they wanted on Oswald and
> > so they ignored him.
> >
>
> The WC published their report long before Walker raised objections to the
> bullet.
>

Walker raised objections to the bullet when he saw what they said was
the Walker bullet. He even had his lawyer write a letter.

> > new bullet looked like vs. a mangled bullet. That's one of the dumbest

> > excuses I've heard on this case.
> >
>
> He said the bullet that almost hit him was badly mangled. The Walker
> bullet in evidence is badly mangled.

WRONG! The original bullet could not be checked for caliber, and could
not be matched to a gun barrel. But the phony bullet could easily be
determined to be a specific caliber, and there was enough material to use
it to match to a barrel, which they didn't dare do. We have photos of the
phony bullet and what I say is clear from the photos.

> His objection to the bullet he saw on
> TV was that it was not badly mangled. Therefore the bullet on TV is not
> the one in evidence and is not the one in evidence.

Show me where he said the phony was not badly mangled. Which is what
I just said above. You have stated the truth above. They showed a bullet
that was NOT the Walker bullet, but they said it was.

> > > > And he didn't have to say anything about the bullet
> > > > jacket. That doesn't mean that he didn't recognize that the jacket wasn't
> > > > STEEL on the phony.
> > >
> > > It doesn't mean he did recognize it as steel. But you want to assume he
> > > recognized it as steel.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2 detectives didn't BOTH make a mistake on the
> > > > jacketing of the bullet they found.
> > >
> > > Funny how your standards change. With the autopsy report, Humes wrote it
> > > and the other two signed it. You are willing to believe that three
> > > pathologists made the same mistake but that two detectives couldn't make
> > > the same mistake.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Military pathologists being given orders is very different from 2
> > detectives writing up a report on what they both saw and not under orders.
> >
>
> You assume they were given such orders. No evidence for that.
>

WRONG! Once again you get it wrong. You've been given the evidence,
you might have dismissed it as you often do, but it as shown to you.

[John McAdams]

On 15 Jul 2017 15:42:15 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:48:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>
>> I would be impressed if one of them had gone on record as saying Ruby knew
>> Oswald before Ruby shot Oswald.
>>
>
>
> No problem. Here's a couple:
>
>"At 20, "Little Lynn" (in private life, Karen Carlin) was Jack's youngest
>stripper. With long locks of artificially colored gray hair, Lynn had the

>body of swimsuit contestant傭ut, on stage, wore little other than

>a big smile, pink heels and a matching G-string.
>
>On November 24, 1963, Little Lynn told U.S. Secret Service agent Roger
>Warner that she, in his words, "was under the impression that Lee Harvey
>Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other individuals unknown to her, were involved in
>a plot to assassinate President Kennedy and that she would be killed if
>she gave any information to authorities." Lynn reportedly died of a
>gunshot wound in Houston in 1964, according to the Encyclopedia of the JFK
>Assassination."

In the first place, she didn't claim to have any *knowledge* of any
such thing. It was something she seemed to fear.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/warner_r.htm

In the second place, you have intentionally *omitted* a large part of
that document.

<Quote on>

Later, toward the end of the interview, which lasted about 45 minutes,
Mrs. Carlin became much calmer. She stated that she had no memory of
Oswald whatsoever until she had heard Mr. Dewar's statement repeated
on television. Also that she had no information in her possession
which indicated that Ruby was involved in a plot to assassinate
President Kennedy. She did ask that all information she had related be
kept confidential to prevent retaliation against her in case there was
a plot afoot. She stated that she did not wish to get involved in the
matter at hand.

<End quote>

See what happens when you rely on secondary sources that aren't
telling you the truth?

>
>And:
>
>"By some accounts, even before her boss murdered Oswald, Jack's featured
>stripper, 27-year-old "Jada" (real name, Janet Conforto) told reporters
>that Ruby and Oswald were acquainted."
>
>Both from: http://www.crimemagazine.com/did-jack-ruby-know-lee-harvey-oswald
>

That is flatly untrue. Apparently it comes from Beverly Oliver.

But what did Jada say on the evening of Ruby's assassination of
Oswald?

A radio interview, with KRLD news director Eddie Barker, included
this:

<Quote on>

Barker: Did you know Lee Oswald?

Jada: No, I didn't at all.

Barker: You never saw him in the club?

Jada: No, no I haven't worked there for about, uh, since Halloween
night.

<end quote>

(Source: Reel 49. KDFW-TV Collection/The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey
Plaza.) No account of her saying she saw Ruby and Oswald together
appeared in any newspapers, nor anywhere else. And she explicitly told
the FBI that she had never seen them together.

Again, you were suckered by an unreliable secondary source.

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

[Jason Burke]

On 7/15/17 7:56 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
>>>> I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
>>>> closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
>>>> door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
>>>> correct.
>>>
>>> So now woman's intuition trumps all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
>>> in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. 53 three
>>> years of crap like this and it continues to amuse.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
>> 12:30pm. And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
>> MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.
>>
>
> *Nothing* could be further from the truth.
>
> But Chris/Frame doesn't care. He'll continue to repeat the "There's No
> Evidence..." crap until the cows come a-knockin'.

If it keeps him from going outside and possibly hurting himself, I guess
it's a good thing.

So there is that.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 3:36:55 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:49:39 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> > > > > I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
> > > > > closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
> > > > > door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
> > > > > correct.
> > > >
> > > > So now woman's intuition trumps all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> > > > in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. 53 three
> > > > years of crap like this and it continues to amuse.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
> > > 12:30pm.
> >
> > You mean other than his fingerprints, shells from his rifle which also
> > fired the only two recovered bullets, fibers matching his shirt on the
> > butt plate of the rifle, his fingerprints on a bag long enough to hold a
> > disassembled rifle and containing fibers matching the blanket he stored
> > his rifle in, and sworn testimony by an eyewitness who identified him as
> > well as the location of the shots. Hardly any evidence at all.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Every single bit of stuff you have just listed does NOT put a
> rifle in the hands of Oswald and does NOT put him in the 6th floor window
> at 12:30pm. With the exception of Brennan, who discredited himself with
> his admissions of previous knowledge.
>

If there was a film of Oswald firing the shots, you would claim the film
was a fake.

If Oswald had signed a confession, you would say it was coerced.

The evidence listed above is more than enough to convince any objective
person of Oswald's guilt. For a dedicated anybody-but-Oswald buff, no
amount of proof could ever be enough.

>
> > > And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
> > > MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.
> > >
> >
> > See shirt fibers on the butt plate of the rifle and the eyewitness who
> > IDed him. But as for all the evidence against Oswald, you have an excuse
> > to dismiss it. That's the nice thing about being and LN. We don't need any
> > excuses to dismiss evidence. We just incorporate ALL the credible evidence
> > into our beliefs.
> >
>
>
> I dismiss nothing.

You just did. It's a few paragraphs above.

> The fact that you listed a bunch of meaningless
> stuff does not mean I made a mistake, it means you did. None of that list
> puts Oswald in the window at 12:30pm. and the Brennan sighting has been
> discredited.
>

Thank you for once again proving my point.

>
> > > You can't seem to get anything right! And at this point, it's doubtful
> > > that you're amused. You're fighting for your ego, not a humorous topic.
> > > However, I get a chuckle out of when you squirm trying to get out of your
> > > corner.
> > >
> >
> > You never cease to amuse.
>
>
>
> More squirming.
>

More amusement.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/15/2017 3:57 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2017 15:42:15 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:48:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> I would be impressed if one of them had gone on record as saying Ruby knew
>>> Oswald before Ruby shot Oswald.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No problem. Here's a couple:
>>
>> "At 20, "Little Lynn" (in private life, Karen Carlin) was Jack's youngest
>> stripper. With long locks of artificially colored gray hair, Lynn had the

>> body of swimsuit contestant???but, on stage, wore little other than

>> a big smile, pink heels and a matching G-string.
>>
>> On November 24, 1963, Little Lynn told U.S. Secret Service agent Roger
>> Warner that she, in his words, "was under the impression that Lee Harvey
>> Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other individuals unknown to her, were involved in
>> a plot to assassinate President Kennedy and that she would be killed if
>> she gave any information to authorities." Lynn reportedly died of a
>> gunshot wound in Houston in 1964, according to the Encyclopedia of the JFK
>> Assassination."
>
> In the first place, she didn't claim to have any *knowledge* of any
> such thing. It was something she seemed to fear.
>

Working for Mob punk? What would anyone have to be afraid of?

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/warner_r.htm
>
> In the second place, you have intentionally *omitted* a large part of
> that document.
>

Please. Only researchers do documents.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 3:57:25 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2017 15:42:15 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:48:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >>
> >> I would be impressed if one of them had gone on record as saying Ruby knew
> >> Oswald before Ruby shot Oswald.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No problem. Here's a couple:
> >
> >"At 20, "Little Lynn" (in private life, Karen Carlin) was Jack's youngest
> >stripper. With long locks of artificially colored gray hair, Lynn had the
> >body of swimsuit contestant傭ut, on stage, wore little other than
> >a big smile, pink heels and a matching G-string.
> >
> >On November 24, 1963, Little Lynn told U.S. Secret Service agent Roger
> >Warner that she, in his words, "was under the impression that Lee Harvey
> >Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other individuals unknown to her, were involved in
> >a plot to assassinate President Kennedy and that she would be killed if
> >she gave any information to authorities." Lynn reportedly died of a
> >gunshot wound in Houston in 1964, according to the Encyclopedia of the JFK
> >Assassination."
>
> In the first place, she didn't claim to have any *knowledge* of any
> such thing. It was something she seemed to fear.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/warner_r.htm
>
> In the second place, you have intentionally *omitted* a large part of
> that document.
>

That's a bullshit attack. I did nothing of the kind. I copied out
the relevant part of the article I found, and I did NOT intentionally omit
anything. And you've just told us from your copy that Carlin was
seriously scared of being killed just like Lee Bowers and others in the
case. That fear could be the reason she didn't want to give the full
story of Oswald and Jack Ruby. So your passage rally kills itself.

> <Quote on>
>
> Later, toward the end of the interview, which lasted about 45 minutes,
> Mrs. Carlin became much calmer. She stated that she had no memory of
> Oswald whatsoever until she had heard Mr. Dewar's statement repeated
> on television. Also that she had no information in her possession
> which indicated that Ruby was involved in a plot to assassinate
> President Kennedy. She did ask that all information she had related be
> kept confidential to prevent retaliation against her in case there was
> a plot afoot. She stated that she did not wish to get involved in the
> matter at hand.
>
> <End quote>
>
> See what happens when you rely on secondary sources that aren't
> telling you the truth?
>

Oh, you mean YOU know the TRUTH? Or have you just mentioned your
opinion of what was true? See what happened when you don't read your own
evidence all the way through? The girl was scared to death of speaking of
Ruby and Oswald, and at the end, she backed out of the whole thing, and
that made her feel better. See what opinion can do? She lied to save
herself....maybe. The affidavit is suggestive.

> >
> >And:
> >
> >"By some accounts, even before her boss murdered Oswald, Jack's featured
> >stripper, 27-year-old "Jada" (real name, Janet Conforto) told reporters
> >that Ruby and Oswald were acquainted."
> >
> >Both from: http://www.crimemagazine.com/did-jack-ruby-know-lee-harvey-oswald
> >
>
> That is flatly untrue. Apparently it comes from Beverly Oliver.
>
> But what did Jada say on the evening of Ruby's assassination of
> Oswald?
>
> A radio interview, with KRLD news director Eddie Barker, included
> this:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Barker: Did you know Lee Oswald?
>
> Jada: No, I didn't at all.
>
> Barker: You never saw him in the club?
>
> Jada: No, no I haven't worked there for about, uh, since Halloween
> night.
>
> <end quote>
>
> (Source: Reel 49. KDFW-TV Collection/The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey
> Plaza.) No account of her saying she saw Ruby and Oswald together
> appeared in any newspapers, nor anywhere else. And she explicitly told
> the FBI that she had never seen them together.
>
> Again, you were suckered by an unreliable secondary source.
>

Or you were suckered into a source that was merely putting forward
info without finding out if the girl was like 'little Lynn' and avoiding
the subject for fear of her life. I'm sure the girls that worked at the
Carousel knew the connections that Ruby had. You need to give more play
to the context so you can see these things in the proper light.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 10:56:18 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-4, Jonny Mayer wrote:
> > > > I beleive her original statement. I think the closer to the time the
> > > > closer to the truth regarding witnesses. She left at 12:25 from the front
> > > > door and saw someone she "felt" was Oswald. Woman's intuition is usually
> > > > correct.
> > >
> > > So now woman's intuition trumps all the forensic evidence that Oswald was
> > > in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. 53 three
> > > years of crap like this and it continues to amuse.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
> > 12:30pm. And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
> > MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.
> >
>
> *Nothing* could be further from the truth.
>
> But Chris/Frame doesn't care. He'll continue to repeat the "There's No
> Evidence..." crap until the cows come a-knockin'.
>
> Pathetic.
>
>

what's pathetic is your complete inability to argue a point. You have
lots of opinion about me, but nothing that can be used in a decent
argument for your beliefs. I put out cites and links. Try it sometime
and stop with the ad hominem attacks. If you think I'm wrong about there
not being any evidence that put s rifle in Oswald's hands and puts him in
the 6th floor window, then show it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke
with opinions against my facts.

Go ahead and list your evidence that Oswald killed JFK from the 6th
floor window with the MC rifle, and I'll give you facts that will blast
your list to hell. The gauntlet is thrown down. Face up or run away.
Your choice.

[John McAdams]

On 15 Jul 2017 23:20:19 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 3:57:25 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2017 15:42:15 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:48:56 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would be impressed if one of them had gone on record as saying Ruby knew
>> >> Oswald before Ruby shot Oswald.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > No problem. Here's a couple:
>> >
>> >"At 20, "Little Lynn" (in private life, Karen Carlin) was Jack's youngest
>> >stripper. With long locks of artificially colored gray hair, Lynn had the

>> >body of swimsuit contestant?ut, on stage, wore little other than

>> >a big smile, pink heels and a matching G-string.
>> >
>> >On November 24, 1963, Little Lynn told U.S. Secret Service agent Roger
>> >Warner that she, in his words, "was under the impression that Lee Harvey
>> >Oswald, Jack Ruby, and other individuals unknown to her, were involved in
>> >a plot to assassinate President Kennedy and that she would be killed if
>> >she gave any information to authorities." Lynn reportedly died of a
>> >gunshot wound in Houston in 1964, according to the Encyclopedia of the JFK
>> >Assassination."
>>
>> In the first place, she didn't claim to have any *knowledge* of any
>> such thing. It was something she seemed to fear.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/warner_r.htm
>>
>> In the second place, you have intentionally *omitted* a large part of
>> that document.
>>
>
> That's a bullshit attack. I did nothing of the kind. I copied out
>the relevant part of the article I found, and I did NOT intentionally omit
>anything.

I stand corrected.

You didn't intentionally delete relevant stuff.

You just got suckered by a secondary source that did.

>And you've just told us from your copy that Carlin was
>seriously scared of being killed just like Lee Bowers and others in the
>case. That fear could be the reason she didn't want to give the full
>story of Oswald and Jack Ruby. So your passage rally kills itself.
>

Lee Bowers was alive at the time of the interview.

It seems you will quote her when it serves your purposes, and then
call her a liar when I point out something you find embarrassing.

>
>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Later, toward the end of the interview, which lasted about 45 minutes,
>> Mrs. Carlin became much calmer. She stated that she had no memory of
>> Oswald whatsoever until she had heard Mr. Dewar's statement repeated
>> on television. Also that she had no information in her possession
>> which indicated that Ruby was involved in a plot to assassinate
>> President Kennedy. She did ask that all information she had related be
>> kept confidential to prevent retaliation against her in case there was
>> a plot afoot. She stated that she did not wish to get involved in the
>> matter at hand.
>>
>> <End quote>
>>
>> See what happens when you rely on secondary sources that aren't
>> telling you the truth?
>>
>
>
> Oh, you mean YOU know the TRUTH? Or have you just mentioned your
>opinion of what was true? See what happened when you don't read your own
>evidence all the way through? The girl was scared to death of speaking of
>Ruby and Oswald, and at the end, she backed out of the whole thing, and
>that made her feel better. See what opinion can do? She lied to save
>herself....maybe. The affidavit is suggestive.
>

Again, you are calling her a liar.

The document "suggests" what she somehow suspected a conspiracy, but
had no actual evidence of it. That's what she said. But that's
inconvenient, so you call her a liar.

Do you really think that nobody ever gets scared for no reason?

First you post what amount to lies about what these women said. You
do it because you uncritically accept secondary sources.

And then when I point out the lie, you just say "pay no attention to
what these women said, they were scared and were lying."

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

[David Von Pein]

If you really and truly believe this statement of yours....

"There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at 12:30pm.
And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the MC rifle
and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None."

....then I feel sorry for you and your investigative skills, because they
are very poor indeed.

It seems that the only possible thing that would convince you that Lee
Harvey Oswald fired the shots from the Depository's 6th floor would be a
4K hi-def video shot with a zoom lens (to capture every one of LHO's nose
hairs) as he was pulling the trigger. Or would even *that* suffice in your
CT world of ever-present fakery and skullduggery?

No, we don't have that 4K hi-def video of Oswald's nose hairs as he was
assassinating JFK, but we do have lots of other things that all ADD UP to
Mr. Oswald's obvious guilt....including a witness whom you and other CTers
seem to make a living out of totally avoiding and/or attempting to make
out to be a liar---Howard Leslie Brennan....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

...And then there's THE RIFLE (which was OSWALD'S and was found on the
same sixth floor as THE ASSASSIN).

...And there are the 3 spent shells in the Sniper's Nest--fired positively
from OSWALD'S RIFLE.

...And there are the two bullet fragments in JFK's car that were fired
from OSWALD'S RIFLE. (And I'd still like to get an honest reply from a
conspiracy theorist to this question that I asked many years ago----

Who is MORE LIKELY to have used Oswald's C2766 rifle on ANY GIVEN DAY
(including 11/22/63): Lee Harvey Oswald or ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD?

...And there are the multiple prints on the two boxes in the Sniper's Nest
(exactly where THE ASSASSIN was located when he was shooting President
Kennedy). Very convenient and handy for the "Patsy Framers", wasn't it?

...And there's that pesky paper bag in the Sniper's Nest that you (no
doubt) think was planted after the shooting. It was an EMPTY bag with
OSWALD'S prints on it and fibers in it consistent with the blanket that
was used to hold OSWALD'S RIFLE in Ruth Paine's garage. (Again, very
convenient evidence for those very lucky Patsy Framers, huh? Or was all
that stuff linking the paper bag to OSWALD---the prints and the
fibers---all manufactured from whole cloth by those super efficient
plotters too?)

...And then there are OSWALD'S lies that he fed to the police for two days
after his arrest. Or don't you think Oswald told ANY lies at all on
November 22-23, 1963, Chris? Not even the lie about those "curtain rods"
that nobody ever found?

And there's so much more too (linked below)....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

But, despite the above laundry list, we're supposed to believe this
moronic utterance authored by Chris/Frame....

"There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at 12:30pm.
And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the MC rifle
and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None."

Yeah, right.

And Jack Ruby was innocent too, right?

[mainframetech]

Now I have your opinion. But you have mine. The strippers at
Carousel probably knew the connections that Ruby had and some of the
seamier side of Dallas, and were (as some other witnesses) afraid to say
much of anything about Oswald or Ruby. So you got suckered into believing
the story that they knew nothing, just like Lee Bowers, who saw no one
shooting at the motorcade yet saw a flash at the fence, and later told
others that he had lied to the WC. But his testimony was that he knew
nothing of any shooters.

> >And you've just told us from your copy that Carlin was
> >seriously scared of being killed just like Lee Bowers and others in the
> >case. That fear could be the reason she didn't want to give the full
> >story of Oswald and Jack Ruby. So your passage rally kills itself.
> >
>
> Lee Bowers was alive at the time of the interview.
>

As were the girls of the Carousel. What bearing has that?

> It seems you will quote her when it serves your purposes, and then
> call her a liar when I point out something you find embarrassing.
>

If I know the instance you're thinking of, I'll be glad to agree or
disagree with that.

> >
> >
> >> <Quote on>
> >>
> >> Later, toward the end of the interview, which lasted about 45 minutes,
> >> Mrs. Carlin became much calmer. She stated that she had no memory of
> >> Oswald whatsoever until she had heard Mr. Dewar's statement repeated
> >> on television. Also that she had no information in her possession
> >> which indicated that Ruby was involved in a plot to assassinate
> >> President Kennedy. She did ask that all information she had related be
> >> kept confidential to prevent retaliation against her in case there was
> >> a plot afoot. She stated that she did not wish to get involved in the
> >> matter at hand.
> >>
> >> <End quote>
> >>
> >> See what happens when you rely on secondary sources that aren't
> >> telling you the truth?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh, you mean YOU know the TRUTH? Or have you just mentioned your
> >opinion of what was true? See what happened when you don't read your own
> >evidence all the way through? The girl was scared to death of speaking of
> >Ruby and Oswald, and at the end, she backed out of the whole thing, and
> >that made her feel better. See what opinion can do? She lied to save
> >herself....maybe. The affidavit is suggestive.
> >
>
> Again, you are calling her a liar.
>

I'm calling her a survivor in a sleazy world. She was not the only
witness that was scared to say things. Quite honestly, I'm not sure
whether she was lying or not. Given the fear that you brought out. You
see, primary sources can also be fraught with problems. The Autopsy
Report (AR) was written by Humes, as primary a source as you can get, but
the evidence says that he was ordered to write incorrect information to
support the phony 'lone nut' scanario. If the evidence is true that he
was ordered to lie in the AR, then the secondary sources that I found may
have the truth, and not the primary.


You can't let yourself get too locked in to primary sources.

> The document "suggests" what she somehow suspected a conspiracy, but
> had no actual evidence of it. That's what she said. But that's
> inconvenient, so you call her a liar.
>
> Do you really think that nobody ever gets scared for no reason?
>

I think of people in their situation as surviving in a cruel world,
and though they are lying, I give them some credit for keeping alive.
Some deaths in this case aren't easily digested as normal.

I posted that they had said certain things, and you popped up with a
cite that said they changed what they said and were scared. I said scared
is a good reason to say other than the true story, which should give more
credence to my post. I guess there are 2 opinions as to how to see it.
Humans do that, and it makes for a reason to have this forum, where folks
that see the same things differently can discuss it.

I don't fault you for your views, and I certainly don't want to call
your views bullshit. I simply disagree generally with the silly WCR.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Depends on the evidence.

> If Oswald had signed a confession, you would say it was coerced.
>

Depends on the evidence.

> The evidence listed above is more than enough to convince any objective
> person of Oswald's guilt. For a dedicated anybody-but-Oswald buff, no
> amount of proof could ever be enough.
>

WRONG! The evidence listed above does NOT prove that Oswald was in
the 6th floor window, and doesn't prove he had a rifle and was firing it
into the motorcade. And even if he was, you have not a shred of proof
that any MC bullet hit or hurt anyone. You can play games with your
meager list of a few things you call evidence, but it isn't evidence of
murder.

Remember, that in this case, a number of people have accused the
authorities of using Oswald as a 'patsy' and there have been also
accusations of a duplicate Oswald, and also accusations of faking of
evidence, and even proof of the FBI changing witness statements. With all
this, it demands a greater amount of proof of intent to murder than what
you've put up.

If Oswald was truly a 'patsy' by people that were present on the 6th
floor, and one scenario has that happening, you need to get serious and
stop repeating the standard line and find valid evidence.

Remember, Oswald was seen at about 12:15pm or even as late as 12:25pm in
the 2nd floor lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold. At about the same time 2 men
with a gun were seen in the 6th floor window. Oswald wouldn't be allowed
near the 5th floor window if he tried to get there with 2 men already
having it staked out. So there is evidence that has to be overcome to
make Oswald guilty.

There is even other evidence that suggests that Oswald had no interest
in shooting anyone, and his rifle was just for show. Not to mention with
all the credence given to what Marina had to say about Oswald, you seemed
to have missed where she said Oswald said that JFK was a "great leader",
and that he "liked" him. That also suggests that Oswald had no intent to
murder JFK. However, MANY other people had reason to murder JFK, for
revenge and for position and for profit. None of which fit Oswald.

Chris

> >
> > > > And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the
> > > > MC rifle and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.
> > > >
> > >
> > > See shirt fibers on the butt plate of the rifle and the eyewitness who
> > > IDed him. But as for all the evidence against Oswald, you have an excuse
> > > to dismiss it. That's the nice thing about being and LN. We don't need any
> > > excuses to dismiss evidence. We just incorporate ALL the credible evidence
> > > into our beliefs.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I dismiss nothing.
>
> You just did. It's a few paragraphs above.
>

False! I accept (not dismiss) that there were shirt fibers on the rifle, but it was his rifle and the fibers could get there any day of the month.

> > The fact that you listed a bunch of meaningless
> > stuff does not mean I made a mistake, it means you did. None of that list
> > puts Oswald in the window at 12:30pm. and the Brennan sighting has been
> > discredited.
> >
>
> Thank you for once again proving my point.
>

You had no point. If you want to try again to say that I dismiss evidence, you're wrong again. I accept most reasonable evidence, but that doesn't mean that I interpret it the same as you.

> >
> > > > You can't seem to get anything right! And at this point, it's doubtful
> > > > that you're amused. You're fighting for your ego, not a humorous topic.
> > > > However, I get a chuckle out of when you squirm trying to get out of your
> > > > corner.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You never cease to amuse.
> >
> >
> >
> > More squirming.
> >
>
> More amusement.

Naah. This isn't fun for you. It's a duel to recover your ego. Lost lo these many years ago.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 2:46:32 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 11:21:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > Go ahead and list your evidence that Oswald killed JFK from the 6th
> > floor window with the MC rifle, and I'll give you facts that will blast
> > your list to hell. The gauntlet is thrown down. Face up or run away.
> > Your choice.
> >
>
> If you really and truly believe this statement of yours....
>
> "There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at 12:30pm.
> And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the MC rifle
> and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None."
>
> ....then I feel sorry for you and your investigative skills, because they
> are very poor indeed.
>
> It seems that the only possible thing that would convince you that Lee
> Harvey Oswald fired the shots from the Depository's 6th floor would be a
> 4K hi-def video shot with a zoom lens (to capture every one of LHO's nose
> hairs) as he was pulling the trigger. Or would even *that* suffice in your
> CT world of ever-present fakery and skullduggery?
>
> No, we don't have that 4K hi-def video of Oswald's nose hairs as he was
> assassinating JFK, but we do have lots of other things that all ADD UP to
> Mr. Oswald's obvious guilt....including a witness whom you and other CTers
> seem to make a living out of totally avoiding and/or attempting to make
> out to be a liar---Howard Leslie Brennan....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html
>

In short, the evidence we have of Oswald's guilt is everything we would
expect to have if Oswald was guilty. And he was.

[mainframetech]

More ad hominem talk. Full of opinions, but no arguments for your
beliefs.

> It seems that the only possible thing that would convince you that Lee
> Harvey Oswald fired the shots from the Depository's 6th floor would be a
> 4K hi-def video shot with a zoom lens (to capture every one of LHO's nose
> hairs) as he was pulling the trigger. Or would even *that* suffice in your
> CT world of ever-present fakery and skullduggery?
>

More negative opinion. Still no facts.

> No, we don't have that 4K hi-def video of Oswald's nose hairs as he was
> assassinating JFK, but we do have lots of other things that all ADD UP to
> Mr. Oswald's obvious guilt....including a witness whom you and other CTers
> seem to make a living out of totally avoiding and/or attempting to make
> out to be a liar---Howard Leslie Brennan....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html
>

False! I not only do not avoid Brennan, I leap in ands discredit him
with ease. And I would think a supposed historian like yourself saving up
JFK memorabilia would know that Brennan admitted that he saw Oswald on TV
twice before he went down to the lineup. He also admitted that a
detective at the lineup told him in advance what position Oswald was in
the lineup!! This was in his own autobiography:

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

Use 'detective' and 'TV' as search entries for the article. So now
Brennan is answered.

> ...And then there's THE RIFLE (which was OSWALD'S and was found on the
> same sixth floor as THE ASSASSIN).
>

I admit that the rifle was probably Oswald's. But that doesn't put it
in his hands or him in the window. If someone tricked him into bringing
it in to the TSBD and hiding it, he remains innocent. Remember, he was at
the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm or later up to 12:45pm. And at
about that time 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun. If
Oswald tried to go to the 6th floor, and get to the window, those 2 men
would shoo him away quickly, since they obviously had staked it out for
themselves to fire on the motorcade.

> ...And there are the 3 spent shells in the Sniper's Nest--fired positively
> from OSWALD'S RIFLE.
>

Ah, but WHO fired it? Not Oswald if he was unable to get to the 6th
floor because of the 2 men with a gun.

> ...And there are the two bullet fragments in JFK's car that were fired
> from OSWALD'S RIFLE. (And I'd still like to get an honest reply from a
> conspiracy theorist to this question that I asked many years ago----
>

Tell me how the finding of 2 fragments right below the bullet strike
that slammed into the chrome bar over the windshield says they hit or hurt
anyone? The bullet slammed into the chrome bar and broke into 2 fragments
and they fell directly down to the front seat. No one was hit.

> Who is MORE LIKELY to have used Oswald's C2766 rifle on ANY GIVEN DAY
> (including 11/22/63): Lee Harvey Oswald or ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD?
>

Since he was a 'patsy' it could be anyone that helped to set him up.
All they had to do was convince him to bring in the rifle and they would
do the rest. So a CT has easily answered your question, so please don't
pretend you didn't get an answer, even if you don't like it.

> ...And there are the multiple prints on the two boxes in the Sniper's Nest
> (exactly where THE ASSASSIN was located when he was shooting President
> Kennedy). Very convenient and handy for the "Patsy Framers", wasn't it?
>

Oswald worked there in the TSBD, and it could have been any day that
month that Oswald was looking for a particular set of books and shifted
them around to find what he was looking for. There was also a print of
Mac Wallace there too. And of course many will say the print was false,
and the print expert was discredited. But they kind of have to say
something.

> ...And there's that pesky paper bag in the Sniper's Nest that you (no
> doubt) think was planted after the shooting. It was an EMPTY bag with
> OSWALD'S prints on it and fibers in it consistent with the blanket that
> was used to hold OSWALD'S RIFLE in Ruth Paine's garage.

Yep, I agree that there was a paper bag that could be used to smuggle a
rifle into the TSBD away from the eyes of a supervisor, so he wouldn't get
angry at a worker doing something else on the job. But since we already
talked about someone convincing Oswald to bring in the rife, the paper bag
was just a way for him to do it. We sill haven't put a rifle in his hands
on the 6th floor firing into the motorcade.

> (Again, very
> convenient evidence for those very lucky Patsy Framers, huh? Or was all
> that stuff linking the paper bag to OSWALD---the prints and the
> fibers---all manufactured from whole cloth by those super efficient
> plotters too?)
>

Se above. Your sarcasm is wasted. I agree the paper bag was used to
smuggle the rifle in to the TSBD.

> ...And then there are OSWALD'S lies that he fed to the police for two days
> after his arrest. Or don't you think Oswald told ANY lies at all on
> November 22-23, 1963, Chris? Not even the lie about those "curtain rods"
> that nobody ever found?
>

When a guy that is grabbed under these circumstances after realizing
he was a patsy, he would certainly lie to save his butt, knowing he was a
'patsy'. Lying doesn't necessarily prove that some one is guilty of
something. Ask Trump Jr. about that.

> And there's so much more too (linked below)....
>
> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>

That hasn't been anything so far. Please see above because all your
so-called evidence has been answered and it doesn't amount to a hill of
beans. I appreciate that your OPINION is that Oswald is guilty because
the WCR told you that, but the evidence I've mentioned partly above says
otherwise, and there's lots more.

> But, despite the above laundry list, we're supposed to believe this
> moronic utterance authored by Chris/Frame....
>

It's not much of a laundry list, and I've wasted it...see above.

> "There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at 12:30pm.
> And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the MC rifle
> and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None."
>
> Yeah, right.
>

Yep, right.

> And Jack Ruby was innocent too, right?
>

Nope, they got him for sure. and he admitted it. He was trying to save
Jackie from going to a trial, right? You believe that, right?

Try again.

Chris

[bigdog]

The evidence of Oswald's guilt is exactly what we would expect it to be if
Oswald was guilty. Everything we would expect to be there is there.
Nothing which is incompatible with his guilt is there. That tells any
objective person that Oswald was guilty. There is no amount of evidence
that could ever convince an Oswald denier such as yourself.

[bigdog]

I believe Jack Ruby acted impulsively when he shot Oswald. He dreamed up
the reason after the fact.

[David Von Pein]

STUPID STATEMENT REPRISE....

CHRIS SAID:

There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at 12:30pm.
And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the MC rifle
and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then why did the Dallas Police Department, prior to midnight on 11/22/63,
officially charge Oswald with the murder of John F. Kennedy?

Did the DPD have a habit of CHARGING A PERSON WITH THE MURDER OF ANOTHER
PERSON without having ANY evidence whatsoever to back up that charge?

Perry, your witness....

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:46:53 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

Brennan, IMO, gave a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation for why
he failed to positively identify Oswald at the police lineup. You know
what that explanation is, but you just don't want to believe it. Isn't
that the truth of the matter, Chris? Because if Howard Brennan WASN'T A
LIAR, then Oswald HAS been "positively identified" as President Kennedy's
assassin by an eyewitness.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan-part-2.html

>
> > ...And then there's THE RIFLE (which was OSWALD'S and was found on the
> > same sixth floor as THE ASSASSIN).
> >
>
> I admit that the rifle was probably Oswald's. But that doesn't put it
> in his hands or him in the window. If someone tricked him into bringing
> it in to the TSBD and hiding it, he remains innocent. Remember, he was at
> the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm or later up to 12:45pm. And at
> about that time 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun. If
> Oswald tried to go to the 6th floor, and get to the window, those 2 men
> would shoo him away quickly, since they obviously had staked it out for
> themselves to fire on the motorcade.
>
>

You're making up silly scenarios in order to keep Oswald innocent.

None of the witness "timelines" are written in stone and you know it.

As for Carolyn Walther....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-960.html

>
> > ...And there are the 3 spent shells in the Sniper's Nest--fired positively
> > from OSWALD'S RIFLE.
> >
>
>
> Ah, but WHO fired it? Not Oswald if he was unable to get to the 6th
> floor because of the 2 men with a gun.
>
>
>
> > ...And there are the two bullet fragments in JFK's car that were fired
> > from OSWALD'S RIFLE. (And I'd still like to get an honest reply from a
> > conspiracy theorist to this question that I asked many years ago----
> >
>
> Tell me how the finding of 2 fragments right below the bullet strike
> that slammed into the chrome bar over the windshield says they hit or hurt
> anyone? The bullet slammed into the chrome bar and broke into 2 fragments
> and they fell directly down to the front seat. No one was hit.
>

Check Bob Frazier's WC testimony. He said the bullet(s) which caused the
damage to the windshield and chrome could not have been caused by a
pristine bullet (i.e., a bullet moving at full muzzle velocity). It must
have hit something first. And the only "something" it could have been
(after evaluating the totality of evidence in the JFK case) is John
Kennedy's head.

More here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-316.html

>
>
> > Who is MORE LIKELY to have used Oswald's C2766 rifle on ANY GIVEN DAY
> > (including 11/22/63): Lee Harvey Oswald or ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD?
> >
>
>
> Since he was a 'patsy' it could be anyone that helped to set him up.
> All they had to do was convince him to bring in the rifle and they would
> do the rest. So a CT has easily answered your question, so please don't
> pretend you didn't get an answer, even if you don't like it.
>
>

You didn't answer my question, Chris. So don't pretend you did. I asked
who was <b>MORE LIKELY</b> to use Oswald's rifle on any given day--Oswald
himself or some other person? (Key word there being "More".)

You never answered that question at all. Want to try again?

>
>
> > ...And there are the multiple prints on the two boxes in the Sniper's Nest
> > (exactly where THE ASSASSIN was located when he was shooting President
> > Kennedy). Very convenient and handy for the "Patsy Framers", wasn't it?
> >
>
>
> Oswald worked there in the TSBD, and it could have been any day that
> month that Oswald was looking for a particular set of books and shifted
> them around to find what he was looking for. There was also a print of
> Mac Wallace there too. And of course many will say the print was false,
> and the print expert was discredited. But they kind of have to say
> something.
>
>

Yeah, kind of like CTers always feeling compelled to give the pat answer
of "He worked there" when confronted with the fact that multiple
fingerprints and palmprints of *OSWALD'S* were found in the very same
Sniper's Nest *WHERE JFK'S KILLER WAS LOCATED ON 11/22/63*.

Here's what I said when arguing with Rob Caprio about the "Box Prints"
subject ten years ago:

"The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of
Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key
LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES)
next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the
door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those
prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the
Sniper's Nest.

It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints
(which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's
Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked
there".

The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy
theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes,
IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on
November 22nd." -- DVP; November 18, 2007

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-57.html

>
> > ...And there's that pesky paper bag in the Sniper's Nest that you (no
> > doubt) think was planted after the shooting. It was an EMPTY bag with
> > OSWALD'S prints on it and fibers in it consistent with the blanket that
> > was used to hold OSWALD'S RIFLE in Ruth Paine's garage.
>
>
>
> Yep, I agree that there was a paper bag that could be used to smuggle a
> rifle into the TSBD away from the eyes of a supervisor, so he wouldn't get
> angry at a worker doing something else on the job.

Once again we're treated to Chris/Frame inventing scenarios in order to
clean the skirts of "Patsy" Oswald.

But isn't the "Oswald Shot Kennedy" scenario MUCH more reasonable and
logical here, Chris? Why invent some ALTERNATE theory about Oswald wanting
to smuggle his rifle into the building, when a much more reasonable
explanation is right there to work with --- i.e., Oswald wanted to use
that rifle he was smuggling in to shoot the President (and hence the
reason LHO made up the "curtain rod" lie that he twice told to Buell
Frazier)?

Is the idea of Oswald committing the assassination with his own weapon
such an unpalatable idea to you, Chris, that you must keep *inventing*
alternate scenarios that make much *less* sense when compared to the sum
total of "Oswald's Guilty" evidence which is piled up in this case?

> But since we already
> talked about someone convincing Oswald to bring in the rife, the paper bag

> was just a way for him to do it. We still haven't put a rifle in his hands

> on the 6th floor firing into the motorcade.
>
>
> > (Again, very
> > convenient evidence for those very lucky Patsy Framers, huh? Or was all
> > that stuff linking the paper bag to OSWALD---the prints and the
> > fibers---all manufactured from whole cloth by those super efficient
> > plotters too?)
> >
>
>

> See above. Your sarcasm is wasted. I agree the paper bag was used to

> smuggle the rifle in to the TSBD.
>
>

Well, at least that's something. Most Internet CTers will fight
tooth-and-nail to keep from admitting that CE142 (Oswald's empty brown
paper bag) is actually a real and legitimate piece of evidence that wasn't
faked or planted by the DPD.

>
> > ...And then there are OSWALD'S lies that he fed to the police for two days
> > after his arrest. Or don't you think Oswald told ANY lies at all on
> > November 22-23, 1963, Chris? Not even the lie about those "curtain rods"
> > that nobody ever found?
> >
>
>
>
> When a guy that is grabbed under these circumstances after realizing
> he was a patsy, he would certainly lie to save his butt, knowing he was a
> 'patsy'. Lying doesn't necessarily prove that some one is guilty of
> something. Ask Trump Jr. about that.
>
>

But telling this many lies to the police after he was arrested....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/liar-oswald-part-1.html

....sure doesn't provide *me* with any confidence whatsoever that Oswald
was suddenly telling the *truth* when he told this whopper to the press on
live television --- "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir."

[mainframetech]

Naah. You have nothing. The WC tried to turn your nothing into
something and failed miserably. I've made comments on each of your list
of evidence, which is rather sparse and tells little about where Oswald
was during the motorcade, and where the 2 men with a gun were in the 6th
floor window.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/17/2017 5:43 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> STUPID STATEMENT REPRISE....
>
> CHRIS SAID:
>
> There is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at 12:30pm.
> And there is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the MC rifle
> and firing it into Dealey Plaza. None.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Then why did the Dallas Police Department, prior to midnight on 11/22/63,
> officially charge Oswald with the murder of John F. Kennedy?
>

Why did the assistant DA plan to charge Oswald with conspiracy.
If they charge someone with a crime you think that proves it is true?

> Did the DPD have a habit of CHARGING A PERSON WITH THE MURDER OF ANOTHER
> PERSON without having ANY evidence whatsoever to back up that charge?
>

Yes, they did.

> Perry, your witness....
>

[bigdog]

Even Hamilton Burger could have convicted Oswald.

[Anthony Marsh]

Same as for a person being framed.

[bigdog]

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:46:53 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>

> Since he was a 'patsy' it could be anyone that helped to set him up.
> All they had to do was convince him to bring in the rifle and they would
> do the rest. So a CT has easily answered your question, so please don't
> pretend you didn't get an answer, even if you don't like it.
>

One of your arguments has been that since it can't be proven where Oswald
bought ammo or a clip that indicates he had no interest in shooting
anyone. So can you prove where the person who convinced Oswald to bring
his rifle to work bought the ammo and the clip? If not, by your logic,
that would indicate that person also had no interest in shooting
anyone.

[bigdog]

So tell us. If Oswald was guilty what evidence would you expect there to
be of his guilt that isn't there?

What evidence is there that doesn't fit the conclusion that Oswald was the
assassin?

Take your time. I know these are toughies.

[mainframetech]

It sounds like you didn't read the autobiography of Brennan's where he
discredited himself. It doesn't make a hill of beans that he used the
excuse that he was afraid to ID Oswald. He had reason to know what Oswald
looked like and he is used as a witness by you pretending that Oswald was
recognized in a window that he couldn't have been in. You have completely
ignored the evidence I gave you and were completely unable to oppose it,
yet you come back with your OPINION that Brennan was clean. You are
relating to his incorrect ID at first, and I'm NOT speaking of that. I'm
speaking of his ability to see 6 stories up the clear face of a criminal
and describe him, when a teenager right near him was unable to see any of
that detail that Brennan swore he could see. And all the other people in
the street who saw a man with a gun, could not give a description as
detailed as Brennan.

Brennan has a better chance of being a shill than having really seen
Oswald.

> > > ...And then there's THE RIFLE (which was OSWALD'S and was found on the
> > > same sixth floor as THE ASSASSIN).
> > >
> >
> > I admit that the rifle was probably Oswald's. But that doesn't put it
> > in his hands or him in the window. If someone tricked him into bringing
> > it in to the TSBD and hiding it, he remains innocent. Remember, he was at
> > the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm or later up to 12:45pm. And at
> > about that time 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun. If
> > Oswald tried to go to the 6th floor, and get to the window, those 2 men
> > would shoo him away quickly, since they obviously had staked it out for
> > themselves to fire on the motorcade.
> >
> >
>
> You're making up silly scenarios in order to keep Oswald innocent.
>

FALSE! I did NOT "make up" the story of the 2 men with a gun in the
6th floor window, and that's basically calling me a liar, which I am not.
There were 3 witnesses to the 2 men in the 6th floor window, so it's
corroborated. Maybe you need to study this case a little more.

> None of the witness "timelines" are written in stone and you know it.
>
> As for Carolyn Walther....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-960.html
>

Sucker bait. The arguments there are foolish. People in the street
saw a man with a gun it the 6th floor window, but 3 people saw 2 men with
a gun. Those that saw one man did NOT prove that there was only one man
there. There could have been a hundred there and they happened to see
only one of them. But some of the people saw 2 men there, which means
there were at least 2 men with a gun there. The situation I described
therefore remains solid. Why would 2 men with a gun let Oswald get to
their window when the motorcade was coming?

> > > ...And there are the 3 spent shells in the Sniper's Nest--fired positively
> > > from OSWALD'S RIFLE.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ah, but WHO fired it? Not Oswald if he was unable to get to the 6th
> > floor because of the 2 men with a gun.
> >
> >
> >
> > > ...And there are the two bullet fragments in JFK's car that were fired
> > > from OSWALD'S RIFLE. (And I'd still like to get an honest reply from a
> > > conspiracy theorist to this question that I asked many years ago----
> > >
> >
> > Tell me how the finding of 2 fragments right below the bullet strike
> > that slammed into the chrome bar over the windshield says they hit or hurt
> > anyone? The bullet slammed into the chrome bar and broke into 2 fragments
> > and they fell directly down to the front seat. No one was hit.
> >
>
> Check Bob Frazier's WC testimony. He said the bullet(s) which caused the
> damage to the windshield and chrome could not have been caused by a
> pristine bullet (i.e., a bullet moving at full muzzle velocity). It must
> have hit something first. And the only "something" it could have been
> (after evaluating the totality of evidence in the JFK case) is John
> Kennedy's head.
>

In looking at Frazier's testimony, I don't find the term chrome or
windshield associated with anything that we're talking about. It would be
useful for you to supply the cite and link as most do here. Thank you in
advance.

> More here:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-316.html




> > > Who is MORE LIKELY to have used Oswald's C2766 rifle on ANY GIVEN DAY
> > > (including 11/22/63): Lee Harvey Oswald or ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Since he was a 'patsy' it could be anyone that helped to set him up.
> > All they had to do was convince him to bring in the rifle and they would
> > do the rest. So a CT has easily answered your question, so please don't
> > pretend you didn't get an answer, even if you don't like it.
> >
> >
>
> You didn't answer my question, Chris. So don't pretend you did. I asked
> who was <b>MORE LIKELY</b> to use Oswald's rifle on any given day--Oswald
> himself or some other person? (Key word there being "More".)
>
> You never answered that question at all. Want to try again?
>

I'll rephrase my answer. Oswald was not able to be at the window as
per previous evidence I've put forward. We know that a shooter at the
window had a rifle and was pointing it at the motorcade. Therefore the
answer HAS TO BE some other person.

>
>
> >
> >
> > > ...And there are the multiple prints on the two boxes in the Sniper's Nest
> > > (exactly where THE ASSASSIN was located when he was shooting President
> > > Kennedy). Very convenient and handy for the "Patsy Framers", wasn't it?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oswald worked there in the TSBD, and it could have been any day that
> > month that Oswald was looking for a particular set of books and shifted
> > them around to find what he was looking for. There was also a print of
> > Mac Wallace there too. And of course many will say the print was false,
> > and the print expert was discredited. But they kind of have to say
> > something.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, kind of like CTers always feeling compelled to give the pat answer
> of "He worked there" when confronted with the fact that multiple
> fingerprints and palmprints of *OSWALD'S* were found in the very same
> Sniper's Nest *WHERE JFK'S KILLER WAS LOCATED ON 11/22/63*.
>

Yep. And my answer hasn't been opposed by you, that his work there
could easily have caused him to move any number of boxes to get what he
was looking for. For fun, here's a real scenario put forward by someone
else:

Oswald put together the 'nest' for others to prove that he was one of
them, but when it came to actually shooting someone, like the POTUS, he
balked and wouldn't do it, and the conspirators grabbed his rifle and used
it to fire into the motorcade, causing 3 shells to be ejected at the
window.

Now that may or may not be true, but it's also possible. That Oswald
knew some of the shooters and was trying to get in with them so he would
have something to impart to the FBI later. Oswald had a thing about the
TV program "I Led Three Lives".

> Here's what I said when arguing with Rob Caprio about the "Box Prints"
> subject ten years ago:
>
> "The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of
> Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key
> LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES)
> next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the
> door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those
> prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the
> Sniper's Nest.
>
> It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints
> (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's
> Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked
> there".
>

I've given you more than "he worked there", and even a scenario that
someone else thinks happened. But as you say, they are "not (themselves)
conclusive proof".

> The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy
> theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes,
> IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on
> November 22nd." -- DVP; November 18, 2007
>

Tell me what else was found in the 'nest'? Shells from the MC rifle?
I don't think that proves that Oswald fire into the motorcade either.




> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-57.html


I don't know what that link is, but it doesn't seem to be the normal
link that people here use. Is it your personal website?

> > > ...And there's that pesky paper bag in the Sniper's Nest that you (no
> > > doubt) think was planted after the shooting. It was an EMPTY bag with
> > > OSWALD'S prints on it and fibers in it consistent with the blanket that
> > > was used to hold OSWALD'S RIFLE in Ruth Paine's garage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yep, I agree that there was a paper bag that could be used to smuggle a
> > rifle into the TSBD away from the eyes of a supervisor, so he wouldn't get
> > angry at a worker doing something else on the job.
>
> Once again we're treated to Chris/Frame inventing scenarios in order to
> clean the skirts of "Patsy" Oswald.
>

I suggested a reasonable possibility. It is plausible and the paper
bag does not say anything about Oswald firing out the window at the
motorcade. It only talks about getting the rifle into the TSBD.

> But isn't the "Oswald Shot Kennedy" scenario MUCH more reasonable and
> logical here, Chris?

Actually, no. You weren't aware of all the other evidence I've put
forward about Oswald and his rifle. But It was clear that Oswald had no
interest in his rifle after getting photos with it, and there was no
interest in shooting anyone with it.

> Why invent some ALTERNATE theory about Oswald wanting
> to smuggle his rifle into the building, when a much more reasonable
> explanation is right there to work with --- i.e., Oswald wanted to use
> that rifle he was smuggling in to shoot the President (and hence the
> reason LHO made up the "curtain rod" lie that he twice told to Buell
> Frazier)?
>

Because your suggestion is ridiculous when looking at the evidence
that you obviously have passed over. Your theory, which is all it is, is
the oddity considering Oswald's previous moves. I guess I'll have to go
through it all again. Telling Frazier that he was carrying curtain rods
fits in with his using the paper bag to avoid a supervisor's anger. But a
number of places you'll hear that Oswald was very secretive normally.

> Is the idea of Oswald committing the assassination with his own weapon
> such an unpalatable idea to you, Chris, that you must keep *inventing*
> alternate scenarios that make much *less* sense when compared to the sum
> total of "Oswald's Guilty" evidence which is piled up in this case?
>

"Much less sense" is again your OPINION of what something is.


OK. I'm going to have to go through all this again. Try to follow:

Oswald went to the Klein's catalog and found the cheapest rifle he
could. After everything they found that he had $170 to give to Marina.
So he had been keeping money on himself, and could have bought a better
rifle, including an M-1, that he was familiar with for $89. In the ad for
his rifle there was a added ad for a clip and ammunition. He did NOT take
either one, even though he needed both. He then picked up his rifle and
when he got home, had his photo taken with him holding the rifle and his
communist literature. When he got his photo, he rolled the rifle up in a

blanket and threw it in the garage.

The FBI tried hard to find where Oswald bought ammunition for his
rifle which, at the time, was an oddity. There were only 2 places that
sold that ammunition and one of them had reloaded the cartridges with lead
bullets for hunting. The FBI found no place that sold that kind of
ammunition or clip to Oswald. As well, they looked hard for a place where
he might have practiced and they couldn't find that anywhere in the area.

So far, we find the information suggests that Oswald had no interest in
his rifle except for the photos, and no interest in practicing either.
Why did he take the photos when he had so few photos in his life? Was it
to prove to someone that he was rough and ready for action, in a effort to
get in with someone?

Next, we come to the set up for the Walker shooting. The Walker
shooting happened and a boy that lived right next door immediately rushed
to the back fence and looked over it. He saw 2 men going to their cars,
neither of whom appeared to be Oswald. As well, 2 detectives found the
bullet and declared for their Offense Report that it was STEEL jacketed.
The LNs seem to always forget that. And wit h2 detectives declaring that,
it should be true. If they make a mistake on a report, they could let
some killer go on a technicality. So I expect they are careful. They
also declared that the bullet was so mangled that it could not be used for
determining caliber, and it was no good for a match to a gun barrel.

Later, after Dec. 4th, the sealed box of Walker evidence was opened and
the bullet taken out by Robert Frazier, the FBI firearms expert.
Suddenly, when the bullet was shown to the public, it had become COPPER
jacketed, and had material enough to allow for caliber measuring, and
enough for comparison to gun barrels. Of course, Robert Frazier had been
the one who tested the MC rifle the next day after the JFK murder, and he
had fired over 60 bullets for testing into various materials. So he had
quite a stock of COPPER jacketed bullets fired by the MC rifle. When he
saw the COPPER jacketed bullet, Walker himself, who had seen the original
bullet at his home, said immediately that the bullet was not from his
shooting, and should be withdrawn. The authorities wanted their Oswald
evidence, so they ignore d Walker.

By itself the oddity of the STEEL jacket turning into a COPPPER jacket
might have been accepted, but the exact same problem arose in the JFK
case, where when later there was complaint about the CE399 bullet, that
supposedly hit both JFK and Connally, the authorities got the CE399 bullet
and showed it to 4 men that had handled the original bullet the day of the
murder of JFK. Not one of the 4 men would identify the bullet. 2 of the
men were SS agents and knew to initial the bullet to ID it later at trial,
and they refused to ID the bullet. As well, their initials could not be
found on the bullet. Another man of the 4 said the bullet they showed him
was the wrong shape, that it was round nosed and not pointy nosed like the
original bullet. So now we had 2 different crimes of shooting, and yet in
both cases the person that had seen the original bullet would not identify
the bullet later as the same one.

I would have to suggest that the FBI bullet custodian (Frazier) replaced
both bullets with his stock of MC test bullets, so that the crimes would
have MC bullets involved and therefore implicate Oswald. An easy thing to
do.

An added problem with Oswald being the shooter is that Marina stated
that Oswald thought JFK was a "Great Leader" and that he "liked' him, and
later she said he "loved" him. Why would he shoot the person he had such
respect for?



So there are some of the reasons I know that Oswald didn't fire his
rifle out the window at the motorcade.




> > But since we already
> > talked about someone convincing Oswald to bring in the rifle, the paper bag

> > was just a way for him to do it. We still haven't put a rifle in his hands
> > on the 6th floor firing into the motorcade.
> >
> >
> > > (Again, very
> > > convenient evidence for those very lucky Patsy Framers, huh? Or was all
> > > that stuff linking the paper bag to OSWALD---the prints and the
> > > fibers---all manufactured from whole cloth by those super efficient
> > > plotters too?)
> > >
> >
> >
> > See above. Your sarcasm is wasted. I agree the paper bag was used to
> > smuggle the rifle in to the TSBD.
> >
> >
>
> Well, at least that's something. Most Internet CTers will fight
> tooth-and-nail to keep from admitting that CE142 (Oswald's empty brown
> paper bag) is actually a real and legitimate piece of evidence that wasn't
> faked or planted by the DPD.
>

Weell, there were some issues with it, as to how the DPD handled it as
evidence differently than other pieces of evidence, but for the sake of
argument, I accept that it was used to get the rifle in without the
supervisor or others seeing it.

>
> >
> > > ...And then there are OSWALD'S lies that he fed to the police for two days
> > > after his arrest. Or don't you think Oswald told ANY lies at all on
> > > November 22-23, 1963, Chris? Not even the lie about those "curtain rods"
> > > that nobody ever found?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > When a guy that is grabbed under these circumstances after realizing
> > he was a patsy, he would certainly lie to save his butt, knowing he was a

> > 'patsy'. Lying doesn't necessarily prove that someone is guilty of

> > something. Ask Trump Jr. about that.
> >
> >
>
> But telling this many lies to the police after he was arrested....
>

This many? Do you suppose some of them were true? Like he didn't
shoot anyone?



> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/liar-oswald-part-1.html
>

I don't know what that link is but it doesn't look like the normal ones
I'm sued to seeing here. If it's from your website, how could I trust it?
You're a dedicated LN. And you would reflect that on your website for all
to see.

> ....sure doesn't provide *me* with any confidence whatsoever that Oswald
> was suddenly telling the *truth* when he told this whopper to the press on
> live television --- "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir."
>

So your OPINION was that Oswald was guilty.

[mainframetech]

So then you believe he had NO reason to do it and just made up the
Jackie reason? He just felt like killing someone at that moment? That's
not believable. It's more believable to think that there was a plot that
Ruby was involved in and was part of setting up Oswald as the 'patsy', and
his plan for the cops to kill Oswald in the TSBD didn't work and his
bosses made him go kill him before he talked.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Thank you. I'll point out that police depts. all over the country
have picked out people to be the criminal in many crimes to get the
pressure of the public off their backs. The proof of that is the many
that have been found innocent by the Innocence Project, which mainly works
on death row inmates.

In the case of the JFK killing, the pressure was as extreme as it could
be, and finding a guilty party was necessary. The FBI was involved and
Hoover was pushing the 'lone nut' theory and they had found a guy that
worked in the TSBD that was also involved in the death of a DPD cop, so
they put the whole thing on Oswald as Hoover and the FBI wanted, and it
saved themselves a lot of grief and investigation. From then on, it was
always Oswald alone, and when he was killed, they held the WC to prove it
because there wasn't going to be a public trial proving to everyone that
the 'lone nut' theory was correct.

I rest my case.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Tony,

Do you think, as Chris/Frame has suggested, that the Dallas Police
Department had "absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was in the 'nest' at
12:30pm" [Chris' quote]?

And, Tony, do you also believe, as Chris/Frame also suggested, that "there

is absolutely NO evidence that Oswald was holding the MC rifle and firing

it into Dealey Plaza" [Chris' quote]?


> > Perry, your witness....
> >

[bigdog]

I believe he had a reason. He just didn't spend much time thinking out
that reason. He saw Oswald and for reasons known only to him he snapped,
pulled out his revolver, rushed up and shot him. He probably spent less
time considering it than I have spent typing this sentence.

> He just felt like killing someone at that moment?

That's certainly my belief.

> That's not believable.

Of course it's believable because I believe it. That alone proves your
statement wrong.

> It's more believable to think that there was a plot that
> Ruby was involved in and was part of setting up Oswald as the 'patsy', and
> his plan for the cops to kill Oswald in the TSBD didn't work and his
> bosses made him go kill him before he talked.
>

Well I won't make the same mistake you just did by saying that is
unbelievable but there is no more evidence that Jack Ruby was acting on
behalf of someone else when he shot Oswald that there is that Oswald was
acting on behalf of someone else when he shot JFK.

[David Von Pein]

An "autobiography" where he DISCREDITS HIMSELF? That's very odd, isn't it?

Does that mean Brennan proves himself to be the liar you say he is (was)
in his VERY OWN BOOK? That's ridiculous.

Here....

Mr. DULLES - I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the indentation
in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the windshield, but on
the inside, could that have been caused by a fragment of a bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been
caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity
from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity
which struck the inside surface of the chrome.

Mr. DULLES - Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that you
have identified as having been found on the front seat or near the front
seat of the car?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the two
fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat.

=========================

Mr. SPECTER - Did you also examine the front portion of the Presidential
limousine?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; we did. That portion, the dashboard below the
windshield and the dashboard in the area immediately under that were
particularly examined, because the rest of it would have been shielded
from a shot due to the height of the dashboard and the height of the back
of the front seat.

Mr. SPECTER - Did any of that area examined disclose any impact of such a
missile?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; not of a high velocity. Only the lead area smeared
on the inside of the windshield from a relatively light object which
struck the inside, and did not even break the inside surface of the glass,
and then there was a possible bullet impact area at the top of the chrome
to the right of the rearview mirror. This was made by a projectile not
having the weight or velocity of a whole bullet moving at, in the range of
a thousand to 1,500 feet per second or more.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm

>
>
>
> > More here:
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-316.html
>
>
>
>
> > > > Who is MORE LIKELY to have used Oswald's C2766 rifle on ANY GIVEN DAY
> > > > (including 11/22/63): Lee Harvey Oswald or ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since he was a 'patsy' it could be anyone that helped to set him up.
> > > All they had to do was convince him to bring in the rifle and they would
> > > do the rest. So a CT has easily answered your question, so please don't
> > > pretend you didn't get an answer, even if you don't like it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You didn't answer my question, Chris. So don't pretend you did. I asked
> > who was <b>MORE LIKELY</b> to use Oswald's rifle on any given day--Oswald
> > himself or some other person? (Key word there being "More".)
> >
> > You never answered that question at all. Want to try again?
> >
>
>
>
> I'll rephrase my answer. Oswald was not able to be at the window as
> per previous evidence I've put forward. We know that a shooter at the
> window had a rifle and was pointing it at the motorcade. Therefore the
> answer HAS TO BE some other person.
>

Another non-answer. I guess Chris/Frame just refuses to answer the question *I* asked. It's apparently just too much trouble for him to answer it. So I'll answer it for him (with the only answer possible).....

Lee Oswald is the person MOST LIKELY to use HIS RIFLE on any given day of the year.

Yes. One of 65.

Check out Bob Frazier's testimony (again)....

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this [CE573] a steel-jacketed bullet?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

Yes. And my opinion is backed up by all the physical evidence in the case, plus a lot of additional circumstantial evidence as well (including all the abnormal things Oswald did on both November 21st and November 22nd of 1963).

[Anthony Marsh]

It's specious on it's face. It is possible, but not easy, to fire the
Carcano without a clip.
And maybe he person buying it already had a clip from another Carcano.
Anyway, nice try. Next, try nailing jello to the wall.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Even Wade could have convicted a Ham sandwich.

[mainframetech]

WRONG again! When will you listen and not jump? I have pointed out
that there is no evidence that Oswald bought ANY ammunition or a clip,
since he passed on the deal that Klein's offered him. As well, the FBI
could not locate any place where he practiced with his rifle. And also
that the rifle condition was such that it was OBVIOUS that he had not
practiced with the rifle or he would have had it fixed if he was going to
shoot the POTUS, the man he thought was a "Great Leader" and that he
"liked". Also, When he got his rifle, he took photos and then rolled it
up in a blanket and threw in the garage.

All those reasons were part of my belief that Oswald had no idea to
shoot anyone. You have to consider them all. I believe Oswald was into
playing at being a rat for the FBI of one of the agencies, not a killer of
a person that he respected and "liked". He was probably still playing "I
Led Three Lives".

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

WHAT are you trying to ask me? If CHris is a moron?
I am not allowed to answer. I have said that I DOUBT that Oswald was
shooting. I did not and can not rule it out.
However, what YOU call evidence is crap.

>
>>> Perry, your witness....
>>>
>
>

[mainframetech]

You don't seem to track very well. I have NEVER said that Brennan was
a liar. I have said that he has discredited himself. And the way he did
it was to admit that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to the
lineup, and a detective at the lineup told him which position Oswald was
in the lineup. Those statements discredited him as identifying witness.
It would seem that you didn't check out his autobiography, even though I
gave the link and the key words to search for.

You might find all that "odd", but by checking it, you will find it to
be true. Perhaps you didn't check it so you could continue to pretend it
wasn't done. As to Beennan's motive, I know he wanted to make a fortune
from his book...though it went nowhere.

Thank you for the cite. What we have then is Frazier's guess. Now if
we take the CE399 bullet which hit 2 men 7 times including 2 bone strikes,
we have a bullet that hit a person (supposedly). The 2 fragments from the
limousine did NOT look like that after hitting only a skull once and then
striking the chrome bar, which is metal. Did BOTH fragments hit the skull
and then bounce to the exact point on the chrome bar? No. Was there a
wound in the head pointing in the right direction to go toward the top of
the windshield? No.

The odds are far greater that the bullet that hit the chrome bar was an
original bullet and not fragments that were hoped to be from the head of
JFK. That is even sillier when it's discovered that there is a bullet
hole in the right forehead of JFK. Most LNs can't admit it, but there it
is. Missed by the person that vetted the 'leaked' autopsy photos.
Easily seen with the right instructions.

And then we have Frazier, who I long ago put on the list of probable
plotters. I think you're wrong about fragments hitting the chrome bar and
causing that deep strike point.

Bull! The question is set up to have only one answer, and that's not an
honest test. If the question has a problem it's with the questioner, not
the person answering. Since Oswald was proved to not be in the window,
the answer is proper and the question is questionable. Also, since Oswald
was unlikely to be the shooter at any time, as shown by the evidence
presented, someone else MUST have been the shooter.

Yep. Frazier was long ago put on my list of probable plotters. He
was instrumental in covering up some parts of the case, and important in
building evidence against Oswald. You have him stating that 2 detectives
(that's 2 of them) wrote in their Offense Report that the bullet was STEEL
jacketed and that it was so mangled that it couldn't be used to determine
caliber or matched to a gun barrel.

Later, when Frazier opens the sealed evidence box, it is suddenly
COPPER jacketed, and has enough material to determine caliber and even
match to a gun barrel! Amazing magically box that did all that to the
bullet! And on top of it, the victim who saw the original bullet says the
bullet shown was NOT the right bullet, and should be withdrawn! But you
think Frazier is telling the truth against 2 detectives who KNOW that a
mistake on their part could mean that a killer could get away on a
technicality, and a witness that saw the original bullet! Suure! And 2
detectives are too dumb about bullets that when an odd bullet comes up,
they think it's STEEL jacketed. Experienced detectives who practice
shooting probably every year.

But of course, Frazier's guess fits your WCR theory, so you go with it,
even though it's not sensible! Let me ask your kind of question...isn't
it more likely that the 2 detectives knew their job and Walker knew what
his bullet looked like, than Frazier's guess about mistakes?

Weell, wait a minute there. We've just shown that there isn't all that
physical evidence in the case. But certainly a few "circumstantial" bits
here and there. Naturally what Oswald did on Thursday and Friday
basically related to getting the rifle and bringing it in to work. The
reason might have been many things. Sale, trade, show...who knows.
Maybe he was suckered into bringing it in by shooter who used it to fire
on the motorcade.

[mainframetech]

You think there is no evidence for Ruby being involved with the Mafia?
Given the history he had with them and their hate of JFK? And since JFK
was killed in Dallas and the Mafia wanted him dead, Ruby as their
representative in Dallas, might know something about it? And maybe even
be used by them in doing the killing? You find that unpalatable?

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

If the ham sandwich had the evidence against it that Oswald did, then
yeah.

And the phrase is "indict a ham sandwich" not convict one.

You're welcome.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 2:28:25 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:29 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:46:53 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > Since he was a 'patsy' it could be anyone that helped to set him up.
> > > All they had to do was convince him to bring in the rifle and they would
> > > do the rest. So a CT has easily answered your question, so please don't
> > > pretend you didn't get an answer, even if you don't like it.
> > >
> >
> > One of your arguments has been that since it can't be proven where Oswald
> > bought ammo or a clip that indicates he had no interest in shooting
> > anyone. So can you prove where the person who convinced Oswald to bring
> > his rifle to work bought the ammo and the clip? If not, by your logic,
> > that would indicate that person also had no interest in shooting
> > anyone.
>
>
>
> WRONG again! When will you listen and not jump? I have pointed out
> that there is no evidence that Oswald bought ANY ammunition or a clip,
> since he passed on the deal that Klein's offered him.

Which isn't evidence that he never bought ammo or a clip but you don't
seem able to grasp that.

> As well, the FBI
> could not locate any place where he practiced with his rifle.

Which isn't evidence he never practiced but you don't seem able to grasp
that.

> that the rifle condition was such that it was OBVIOUS that he had not
> practiced with the rifle or he would have had it fixed if he was going to
> shoot the POTUS, the man he thought was a "Great Leader" and that he
> "liked".

The recovered bullets and shells establish the rifle was capable of doing
what Oswald wanted it to do, assuming of course his target was JFK.

> Also, When he got his rifle, he took photos and then rolled it
> up in a blanket and threw in the garage.
>

You have no evidence that Oswald never took the rifle out of the blanket.
You simply assume what you can't prove.

> All those reasons were part of my belief that Oswald had no idea to
> shoot anyone.

Pretty silly reasoning.

> You have to consider them all.

Let me think about that.

OK I thought about it. It's still silly.

> I believe Oswald was into
> playing at being a rat for the FBI of one of the agencies, not a killer of
> a person that he respected and "liked". He was probably still playing "I
> Led Three Lives".
>

It's hilarious what you believe.

[David Von Pein]

That's good. So we've got a positive identification of Oswald as the
assassin coming from a person who was telling the truth and not lying.
Thank you.

[Anthony Marsh]

You needed to think about it? He is ALWAYS silly. Silly is his middle
name.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

So, you actually *do* think Oswald brought curtain rods to work? You're
not trolling?

And he actually did want to leave work right after the shooting to see a
movie (going with a loaded revolver and extra bullets in his pocket)? He
wasn't in flight?

You actually, truly believe this?

You find none of this suspicious at all?

[Anthony Marsh]

You need to update your jokes. So last century.

[mainframetech]

FALSE! You didn't see me say anything of the kind. I DID say that
Brennan discredited himself. as he lying? I don't know if he knew what
he was doing, but he certainly knew when he discredited himself.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:40:44 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 2:28:25 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:19:29 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:46:53 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Since he was a 'patsy' it could be anyone that helped to set him up.
> > > > All they had to do was convince him to bring in the rifle and they would
> > > > do the rest. So a CT has easily answered your question, so please don't
> > > > pretend you didn't get an answer, even if you don't like it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One of your arguments has been that since it can't be proven where Oswald
> > > bought ammo or a clip that indicates he had no interest in shooting
> > > anyone. So can you prove where the person who convinced Oswald to bring
> > > his rifle to work bought the ammo and the clip? If not, by your logic,
> > > that would indicate that person also had no interest in shooting
> > > anyone.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG again! When will you listen and not jump? I have pointed out
> > that there is no evidence that Oswald bought ANY ammunition or a clip,
> > since he passed on the deal that Klein's offered him.
>
> Which isn't evidence that he never bought ammo or a clip but you don't
> seem able to grasp that.
>

How dumb can you get? I haven't said that. But it is very suggestive
when you include all the other evidence.

> > As well, the FBI
> > could not locate any place where he practiced with his rifle.
>
> Which isn't evidence he never practiced but you don't seem able to grasp
> that.
>

Same answer as above. Get a grip.

> > that the rifle condition was such that it was OBVIOUS that he had not
> > practiced with the rifle or he would have had it fixed if he was going to
> > shoot the POTUS, the man he thought was a "Great Leader" and that he
> > "liked".
>
> The recovered bullets and shells establish the rifle was capable of doing
> what Oswald wanted it to do, assuming of course his target was JFK.
>

WRONG! The recovered bullet and the phony CE399 do NOT prove that the
rifle was successful at killing or even harming anyone. Through all your
protestations we're still at that point where an MC bullet did NOT hit or
hurt anyone.

> > Also, When he got his rifle, he took photos and then rolled it
> > up in a blanket and threw in the garage.
> >
>
> You have no evidence that Oswald never took the rifle out of the blanket.
> You simply assume what you can't prove.
>

You have no evidence that he took it out of the blanket until Thursday
before the killing. And we KNOW at least that he rolled it up in the
blanket.

> > All those reasons were part of my belief that Oswald had no idea to
> > shoot anyone.
>
> Pretty silly reasoning.
>

Not really. I rather think your reasoning that Oswald, who thought JFK
was a "Great Leader", was silly.

> > You have to consider them all.
>
> Let me think about that.
>
> OK I thought about it. It's still silly.
>

Yep. the limit of your thinking. Rather like Trump.

> > I believe Oswald was into

> > playing at being a rat for the FBI or one of the agencies, not a killer of

> > a person that he respected and "liked". He was probably still playing "I
> > Led Three Lives".
> >
>
> It's hilarious what you believe.

Not nearly as hilarious as your think the WCR was honest...:)

Chris