Six Shooters in Dealey Plaza

[claviger]

SIX JFK SHOOTERS - 3 TIED TO CIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgfjGL0_xRM

Harry Weatherford
Position: On top of The County Records Bldg
Weapon: 30.06 Rifle with sabot inside 6.5mm Carcano FMJ
Wound: Back Shoulder
Shot: 1

Nestor "Tony" Izquierdo
Position: Dal Tex Bldg / Dallas Unranium & Oil Company
Weapon: Carcano Rifle - fired 3 shots [only unsilenced shots]
Wound: Head shot

Roscoe White
Position: Grassy Knoll
Weapon: 7.65 mauser
Wound: ?

Malcolm Wallace
Position: TSBD West side window
Weapon: ?
Wound: ?

Frank Sturgis
Position: North Triple Underpass
Weapon: ?
Wound: Right Temple

Jack Lawrence
Position: South Triple Underpass
Weapon: ?
Wound: made a hole in the windshield and punctured the throat


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W1T021VuOMY/Ur7jgy26uUI/AAAAAAAACCc/0h36isiluIo/s1600/124+The+approximate+shot+scenario.jpg

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/1312/0704f097a53b43b5dc52.jpeg

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/six-jfk-shooters-three-tied-to-cia-named-oswald-not-among-them/

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/12/six-jfk-shooters-including-three-tied.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1312/S00484/six-jfk-shooters-three-tied-to-cia-excluding-oswald.htm

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/truth-lies-and-conspiracy-theories/three-of-six-jfk-shooters-had-ties/

[Spence]

Really? Only six? (snicker)

[claviger]

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 9:15:10 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> SIX JFK SHOOTERS - 3 TIED TO CIA
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgfjGL0_xRM
>
> Harry Weatherford
> Position: On top of The County Records Bldg
> Weapon: 30.06 Rifle with sabot inside 6.5mm Carcano FMJ
> Wound: Back Shoulder
> Shot: 1
>
> Nestor "Tony" Izquierdo
> Position: Dal Tex Bldg / Dallas Unranium & Oil Company
> Weapon: Carcano Rifle - fired 3 shots [only unsilenced shots]
> Wound: Head shot

Roscoe White
Position: Grassy Knoll
Weapon: 7.65 mauser

Wound: No wound. Bullet missed and burrowed in the turf.

[OHLeeRedux]

L-L!

[Anthony Marsh]

HOAX

[bigdog]

They must have been the six worst marksman on the planet.

[Jason Burke]

More like total BS.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

So you finally gave up and came over to the dark side...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 6:11:14 PM UTC-4, Spence wrote:

Given the number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day, that's
about right.

Chris

[Spence]

Amazing they did not hit each other, or any innocent bystanders!

[claviger]

Yes, the CIA must have outsourced this ambush with "The Gang Who Couldn't
Shoot Straight". Really incompetent "triangulation of crossfire" when the
PLP did all the damage.

[mainframetech]

Actually, they DID hit a bystander. James Tague was all the way across
the plaza, but a bullet struck the curb near him and a chip came up and
cut his cheek.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Well, the government does award contracts to the lowest bidder.

I guess they gave this one to "Jerry's Live Bait and Sniper Store".

There is no absurdity that many in the CT crowd will reject in order to
support another absurdity. It's absurdities all the way down.

I always like to quote the political scientist Hannah Arendt. She said:
"Democracy is rule by the majority; oligarchy is rule by the few; and
bureaucracy is rule by no one."

Anyone who thinks that all of these US agencies could have gotten together
and pulled this out doesn't know much about how government works. And
doesn't work.

[bigdog]

Apparently those six shooters were Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Jose
Feliciano, Ronnie Milsap, Tom Sullivan, and Helen Keller.

[Anthony Marsh]

We don't need your damn stinkin Reductio ad Absurdum. How about if I
cite exactly the same skepticism to claim that we never tried to
assassination Castro? That's what Helms did and you fell for it. You
always fall for lies.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Oliver Stone. Jim Garrison. Fetzer. DiEugenio. Marrs. Lifton.

The prosecution rests.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:02:12 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

I didn't realize you believed in the "six shooters in Dealey Plaza"
explanation of the assassination.

I'll just note for the umpteenth time: the plots to kill Castro bear no
resemblance to what happened in Dallas that day. No similarity at all.

But at least you didn't bring up the Watergate analogy. That's some
progress.

[mainframetech]

One of the shooters was competent. He was the one that was forward of
JFK and put a shot right in the right forehead/temple of JFK. The wound
can be seen in the 'stare-of-death' autopsy photo linked here:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

By enlarging the photo and looking at the forehead along the hair
hanging down, there is a point where there is 'notch' and in that 'notch'
there is the bullet hole, with a slight rim around it. There is no doubt
about it, and the X-ray Technician at Bethesda also corroborates it when
he got a shot from the side and saw the metal fragments that began at that
wound and went to the rear in an expanding cone toward the blow-out at the
BOH.

Chris

[mainframetech]

All the agencies did NOT work together to cause the murder. A few
people from here and a few from there, on their own were part of the
conspiracy.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

Well, then, thanks for proving conspiracy, Chris.

[claviger]

So how did the "few" set up the ambush and control the autopsy?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

And alter the wounds, and alter the photos, and alter the film(s?) and
then cover it all up.

Just a couple of guys in various agencies? Nobody else was suspicious?
They just went along?

That's not the way human beings act.

Not in my world. In the conspiracy world anything goes, I guess.

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
- show quoted text -

All the agencies did NOT work together to cause the murder. A few
people from here and a few from there, on their own were part of the
conspiracy.

Chris

There was no conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination. You are living
in a dream world -- a dream world filled with your cut-and-paste,
preposterous fantasies.

[Anthony Marsh]

Just in case you didn't know, the assassination bureau in the CIA is a
separate section from the other divisions. It was part of PLANS.

[mainframetech]

By going to the Mafia and getting shooters from them. Maybe even the
famous James Files...:)

A few people getting together can work out the particulars of this
murder, but the most important part for their own safety was the framing
of Oswald, the 'patsy'. They absolutely HAD to make sure that the fault
was laid at the feet of Oswald, and Oswald had to be killed immediately
after the murder of JFK so that no one heard anything they shouldn't. I
believe (guessing here) that they wanted a cop to kill him in the TSBD,
but he figured out that he was the 'patsy' and got out of there before
they could get to him. Tippit furiously searched for someone, and I think
it was Oswald.

The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
things were aided by many of them being in the government service, and
some being in management positions. The faking of photos, film, and
X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses helped too.

With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still going on.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Prove it! Oh wait. Proving isn't your thing, just throwing out wild
statements or insults is.

My 'fantasies' come from official records, try beating that with you WC
lawyer's theories. The WC theories are closer to 'fantasies' than the
records.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Many of the alterations are really just missing items, such as photos.
Many photos that were taken were missing not too long after the murder.
Two photographers were ordered to sign off that there were NO missing
photos, even though they stated that there were some missing. But
altering photos and X-rays doesn't need a hundred people. One person can
do it, especially when all the evidence is kept in one place, or just a
few places. When you have the resources of the US Government available to
you, very little is impossible.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

James Files was not a famous shooter. He was a con man.

[bigdog]

Or Fredo Corleone.

> A few people getting together can work out the particulars of this
> murder, but the most important part for their own safety was the framing
> of Oswald, the 'patsy'. They absolutely HAD to make sure that the fault
> was laid at the feet of Oswald, and Oswald had to be killed immediately
> after the murder of JFK so that no one heard anything they shouldn't. I
> believe (guessing here) that they wanted a cop to kill him in the TSBD,
> but he figured out that he was the 'patsy' and got out of there before
> they could get to him. Tippit furiously searched for someone, and I think
> it was Oswald.
>

Oh. "They" wanted a cop to kill LHO. Baker had the chance. Why didn't he
do it. Or maybe you have evidence another cop was supposed to do it.
Right. And maybe I'll have the winning PowerBall numbers tonight.

> The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> things were aided by many of them being in the government service,

"Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.

> and
> some being in management positions. The faking of photos, film, and
> X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses helped too.
>

It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through rather than just admit
that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any mental gynmastics to
reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from point A to point B.

> With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still going on.

Don't blame us for your dismal failures.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Reductio ad Absurdum.

> Just a couple of guys in various agencies? Nobody else was suspicious?
> They just went along?
>

No.

> That's not the way human beings act.
>

No. That's how YOU act.

> Not in my world. In the conspiracy world anything goes, I guess.
>

No. Reductio ad Absurdum.


>
>
>

[tom...@cox.net]

HEY STEVEN;
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DEBATHE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESMONY FROM THE
COMMISSION'S 26 VOLUMES WITH ME ? ? ? ?
===========================================================================

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

"the faking of photos, film, and

> X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses helped too"

But he insists that it was just a few people in various agencies.

"Many in government service", faked films, faked x-rays, faked photos,
altered testimonies. Covered up for half a century.

All of this done by a few people here and there.

They always complain we're exaggerating what they believe happened. Then
when we ask them to explain "X" or "Y", our exaggerations are proven to be
accurate.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 9:45:53 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> HEY STEVEN;
> HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DEBATHE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESMONY FROM THE
> COMMISSION'S 26 VOLUMES WITH ME ? ? ? ?

Are you dumping me, Tom?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/16/2015 8:45 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> HEY STEVEN;
> HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DEBATHE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESMONY FROM THE
> COMMISSION'S 26 VOLUMES WITH ME ? ? ? ?
> ===========================================================================

Debate? DEBATE?
You don't debate. You SHOUT.
SHOUTING is not debating.

[Anthony Marsh]

Destroyed is not the same thing as missing.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

You're not to swift at this stuff, are you?

Baker had Truly right there behind him, and Oswald didn't do anything to
get shot for. As to whether Baker was the planned killer, I don't know.
Tippit was a possibility. Why shoot him after his long chase after
someone? He had to let on that he was an enemy in some way or another,
and got shot for it.

> > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
>
> "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
>

You said that, not me. You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
plan like this without making it a monster. But it didn't have to be.
But that's why they never recruited you.

> > and
> > some being in management positions. The faking of photos, film, and
> > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses helped too.
> >
>
> It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through rather than just admit
> that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any mental gynmastics to
> reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from point A to point B.
>
> > With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still going on.
>
> Don't blame us for your dismal failures.

There really are few hoops to go through to plan something like this.
hinmk it through.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 11:38:50 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> mainframetech
> - show quoted text -

> All the agencies did NOT work together to cause the murder. A few
> people from here and a few from there, on their own were part of the
> conspiracy.
>
> Chris
>
>

> There was no conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination. You are living
> in a dream world -- a dream world filled with your cut-and-paste,
> preposterous fantasies.



Prove it! Oh wait. Proving isn't your thing, just throwing out wild
statements or insults is.

My 'fantasies' come from official records, try beating that with you WC
lawyer's theories. The WC theories are closer to 'fantasies' than the
records.

Chris

Demanding that I prove a negative. Typical CT evasion.

Prove there is no Easter Bunny.

Prove the earth is not flat.

Prove that Barracks Obama is not a Klingon wearing a human suit.


It is up to you to prove your nonsense. All you have done is pick and
choose statements from the "official record" and claim they support your
theory, while at the same time labelling as lies and cover-ups anything in
that same official record that shoots your theory out of the sky like a
SAM missle.

Fifty-one years and counting, and still no proof of a conspiracy, just
wackos and nutcases coming out of the woodwork with ridiculous tales about
body snatching, surreptitious surgery, and bullets spilling out of JFK's
body like confetti.

What a sad and lonely little world you must live in.

[mainframetech]

Your exaggerations were proven to be exaggerations.

You forget that there were a number of FBI agents that were helping to
support the 'lone gunman' myth of the WC lawyers. Once Hoover mentioned
support for that theory, the agents would automatically go with it. They
didn't have to be in on the conspiracy, they just had to help with
intimidating witnesses, faking evidence and all the other things they have
been accused of doing in other major events. Even the DPD would help in
support of a 'lone gunman' scenario, since they had caught a guy and would
be only too glad to prosecute him as the only criminal, so that the burden
was off them.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Reductio ad Absurdum.

[bigdog]

Oh, so you don't know which cop was assigned to shoot Oswald but you just
assume there was one. If Baker was supposed to do it, why would he enlist
the help of Truly? Tippit? He was on patrol in Oak Cliff. If you have a
cop assigned to kill Oswald then you need his supervisor in on it too. If
you don't, then you don't know if your assigned cop would be in position
to kill Oswald. Funny how every time you come up with a new angle your
little conspiracy has to get a little bigger.

>
>
>
> > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
> >
> > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
> >
>
>
> You said that, not me.

No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
of them being in the government service".

> You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
> plan like this without making it a monster.

Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
add more conspirators.

> But it didn't have to be.
> But that's why they never recruited you.
>

That and I was in 7th grade at the time. I would have had to play hooky.

>
>
> > > and
> > > some being in management positions. The faking of photos, film, and
> > > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses helped too.
> > >
> >
> > It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through rather than just admit
> > that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any mental gynmastics to
> > reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from point A to point B.
> >
> > > With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still going on.
> >
> > Don't blame us for your dismal failures.
>
>
> There really are few hoops to go through to plan something like this.
> hinmk it through.
>

I have which is why I know this Rube Goldberg scheme required a hell of a
lot more than just the few people you keep insisting were all that was
needed to pull it off. Everytime you have to explain away a piece of
evidence, you have to add at least one conspirator to the mix. And you
have to explain away 53 pieces of evidence.

[bigdog]

Right. The President of the United States was assassinated and no one in
law enforcement wanted to catch who did it. All they wanted to do was
frame little old LHO. That includes the DPD. They didn't have any interest
in catching the person who killed one of the officers. They just wanted to
pin it on someone who didn't do it.

Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to live.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 9:10:02 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> mainframetech
> On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 11:38:50 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> > mainframetech
> > - show quoted text -
> > All the agencies did NOT work together to cause the murder. A few
> > people from here and a few from there, on their own were part of the
> > conspiracy.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > There was no conspiracy involved in the JFK assassination. You are living
> > in a dream world -- a dream world filled with your cut-and-paste,
> > preposterous fantasies.
>
>
>
> Prove it! Oh wait. Proving isn't your thing, just throwing out wild
> statements or insults is.
>
> My 'fantasies' come from official records, try beating that with you WC
> lawyer's theories. The WC theories are closer to 'fantasies' than the
> records.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Demanding that I prove a negative. Typical CT evasion.
>
> Prove there is no Easter Bunny.
>
> Prove the earth is not flat.
>
> Prove that Barracks Obama is not a Klingon wearing a human suit.
>

You mean that you can't prove the wacky theories of the WC lawyers?
I'm not surprised.

>
> It is up to you to prove your nonsense. All you have done is pick and
> choose statements from the "official record" and claim they support your
> theory, while at the same time labelling as lies and cover-ups anything in
> that same official record that shoots your theory out of the sky like a
> SAM missle.
>

I see once again you're afraid to mention specifics that you disagree
with. That's so that I can't make a fool out of you by responding with
the backup for ALL my statements. My challenge to you is for you to find
a statement that I've taken out of context, or that misrepresented the
truth and I'll happily respond and explain it. Want to take on the
challenge? Or just go on making typical ad hominem remarks to cover your
fear of getting into the detail.

> Fifty-one years and counting, and still no proof of a conspiracy, just
> wackos and nutcases coming out of the woodwork with ridiculous tales about
> body snatching, surreptitious surgery, and bullets spilling out of JFK's
> body like confetti.
>
> What a sad and lonely little world you must live in.

Or you're reflecting the way it all looks to you. You'll have to
modify your typical LN timing of 51 years. Most of the conspiracy was
shown in the ARRB records and files and testimonies, once the 'order of
silence' was lifted. And that was a lot less than 51 years ago. You've
been living back in 1963 I guess, while the rest of the world moved on
ahead.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Try to control your urge to jump off the bridge. I do indeed
assume that there had to be a way to shut Oswald up after he had been
blamed for the murder. He would not remain silent and just be taken off
to the electric chair. The best way was for a cop to shoot him during his
seeming effort to escape. As I noted, that is guessing on my part. How
would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the conspiracy? Just
pretend...:)

The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
make it a bigger operation.

> > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
> > >
> > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You said that, not me.
>
> No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
> of them being in the government service".
>

My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In the past I've
said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back. That remains the
same.

> > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
> > plan like this without making it a monster.
>
> Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
> add more conspirators.
>

WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone did, you
jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it, it's you.
Try using your head now and then.

> > But it didn't have to be.
> > But that's why they never recruited you.
> >
>
> That and I was in 7th grade at the time. I would have had to play hooky.
>
> >
> >
> > > > and
> > > > some being in management positions. The faking of photos, film, and
> > > > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses helped too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through rather than just admit
> > > that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any mental gynmastics to
> > > reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from point A to point B.
> > >
> > > > With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still going on.
> > >
> > > Don't blame us for your dismal failures.
> >
> >
> > There really are few hoops to go through to plan something like this.

> > think it through.

> >
>
> I have which is why I know this Rube Goldberg scheme required a hell of a
> lot more than just the few people you keep insisting were all that was
> needed to pull it off. Everytime you have to explain away a piece of
> evidence, you have to add at least one conspirator to the mix. And you
> have to explain away 53 pieces of evidence.

BULL! Wrong again! The addition is your doing, not mine. Everything
I've said depends on the numbers that I've quoted in the past. You're
just using the typical whine of the LNs, that it was a big conspiracy.


Chris

[bigdog]

A refreshing bit of honesty from you.

> How
> would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the conspiracy? Just
> pretend...:)
>

The question is based on the false premise that there was a conspiracy.
Bugliosi had the best answer for it. If Oswald were part of a conspiracy,
there would have been a getaway car waiting for him which would drive him
to his death.

> The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> make it a bigger operation.
>

Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.

>
>
> > > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> > > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
> > > >
> > > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You said that, not me.
> >
> > No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
> > of them being in the government service".
> >
>
>
> My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In the past I've
> said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back. That remains the
> same.
>

So in your mind "many" means 20 or less which is still only a subset of
the total conspirators since you said "many of them being in the
government service". You aren't even counting the ones who were not in
government service.

>
>
> > > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
> > > plan like this without making it a monster.
> >
> > Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
> > add more conspirators.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone did, you
> jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it, it's you.
> Try using your head now and then.
>

You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover up while
saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't wash. To make all
that evidence against Oswald go away, you need a small army of people
participating in the cover up and that makes your conspiracy very
large.

>
>
> > > But it didn't have to be.
> > > But that's why they never recruited you.
> > >
> >
> > That and I was in 7th grade at the time. I would have had to play hooky.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > some being in management positions. The faking of photos, film, and
> > > > > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses helped too.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through rather than just admit
> > > > that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any mental gynmastics to
> > > > reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from point A to point B.
> > > >
> > > > > With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still going on.
> > > >
> > > > Don't blame us for your dismal failures.
> > >
> > >
> > > There really are few hoops to go through to plan something like this.
> > > think it through.
> > >
> >
> > I have which is why I know this Rube Goldberg scheme required a hell of a
> > lot more than just the few people you keep insisting were all that was
> > needed to pull it off. Everytime you have to explain away a piece of
> > evidence, you have to add at least one conspirator to the mix. And you
> > have to explain away 53 pieces of evidence.
>
>
>
> BULL! Wrong again! The addition is your doing, not mine. Everything
> I've said depends on the numbers that I've quoted in the past. You're
> just using the typical whine of the LNs, that it was a big conspiracy.
>

Every explanation you give for dismissing evidence requires that the
person who collected or analyzed that evidence had to be involved in
falsifying it. Everyone of those people you accuse becomes part of your
conspiracy so try as you might, you can't make all that evidence go away
with just a small number of people participating.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! At least try to make sense some of the time. Most of law
enforcement would like to catch a criminal, and they would also like to
get the pressure off themselves, as has been the case for police forces
for many years. Once Oswald was named and caught, they were only too glad
to go with the FBI's choice of tying up loose ends.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No, they wanted to frame Oswald so that no one would look for the real
killers.

> frame little old LHO. That includes the DPD. They didn't have any interest

They called it a conspiracy and tried to get Frazier to sign a confession.
They were preparing to charge Oswald with being part of an International
Communist Conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think their theory is that Baker got there too early and couldn't
shoot Oswald with a witness watching him.

[mainframetech]

Are you suggesting that I'm usually dishonest? Or lying as its called?

> > How
> > would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the conspiracy? Just
> > pretend...:)
> >
>
> The question is based on the false premise that there was a conspiracy.
> Bugliosi had the best answer for it. If Oswald were part of a conspiracy,
> there would have been a getaway car waiting for him which would drive him
> to his death.
>

LOL! You mean like a green rambler pulling up in front of the TSBD?

> > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > make it a bigger operation.
> >
>
> Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
>

I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.

> >
> >
> > > > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> > > > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
> > > > >
> > > > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You said that, not me.
> > >
> > > No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
> > > of them being in the government service".
> > >
> >
> >
> > My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In the past I've
> > said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back. That remains the
> > same.
> >
>
> So in your mind "many" means 20 or less which is still only a subset of
> the total conspirators since you said "many of them being in the
> government service". You aren't even counting the ones who were not in
> government service.
>

I'm not including a few shooters from the Mafia as 'consultants'. Otherwise I'm stating the number I think can pull it off. And ALL others were in Government service...none on the outside so forget it.

> >
> >
> > > > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
> > > > plan like this without making it a monster.
> > >
> > > Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
> > > add more conspirators.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone did, you
> > jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it, it's you.
> > Try using your head now and then.
> >
>
> You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover up while
> saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't wash. To make all
> that evidence against Oswald go away, you need a small army of people
> participating in the cover up and that makes your conspiracy very
> large.
>

It washes very nicely. If you have a problem with it, it's your problem. I've schooled you on it all many times. The FBI agents were NOT in on the conspiracy for the most part. Only a few were. Give it up.

WRONG! And haven't you ever heard of multi-tasking?

Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might mean
something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on the
old, tired WC myths.

Chris

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 4:24:06 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 9:32:36 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 9:58:31 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 3:44:30 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 7:14:38 PM UTC-5, mainframetech
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:02:45 PM UTC-4,

> > > > > > stevemg...@yahoo.co=

> m wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 1:31:07 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 11:15:24 AM UTC-5, Spence wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:46:59 PM UTC-4, bigdog
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 6:11:14 PM UTC-4, Spence

> > > > > > > > > > wrot=

> e:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-4,

> > > > > > > > > > > claviger=

> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > SIX JFK SHOOTERS - 3 TIED TO CIA

> > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLgfjGL0_xRM
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Harry Weatherford =20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Position: On top of The County Records Bldg=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: 30.06 Rifle with sabot inside 6.5mm Carcano

> > > > > > > > > > > > F=

> MJ
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: Back Shoulder
> > > > > > > > > > > > Shot: 1

> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nestor "Tony" Izquierdo=09

> > > > > > > > > > > > Position: Dal Tex Bldg / Dallas Unranium & Oil

> > > > > > > > > > > > Compa=

> ny
> > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: Carcano Rifle - fired 3 shots [only

> > > > > > > > > > > > unsilenc=
> ed shots]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: Head shot
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Roscoe White =20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Position: Grassy Knoll
> > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: 7.65 mauser=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > Malcolm Wallace
> > > > > > > > > > > > Position: TSBD West side window
> > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: ?

> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Frank Sturgis=09

> > > > > > > > > > > > Position: North Triple Underpass
> > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: Right Temple=20
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jack Lawrence =20

> > > > > > > > > > > > Position: South Triple Underpass
> > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: made a hole in the windshield and punctured

> > > > > > > > > > > > th=
> e throat
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W1T021VuOMY/Ur7jgy26uUI/A
> > > > > > > > > > > > AA=
> AAAAACCc/0h36isiluIo/s1600/124+The+approximate+shot+scenario.jpg
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/1312/0704f097
> > > > > > > > > > > > a5=
> 3b43b5dc52.jpeg
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/six-jfk-sho
> > > > > > > > > > > > ot=
> ers-three-tied-to-cia-named-oswald-not-among-them/
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/12/six-jfk-sho
> > > > > > > > > > > > ot=
> ers-including-three-tied.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1312/S00484/six-jf
> > > > > > > > > > > > k-=
> shooters-three-tied-to-cia-excluding-oswald.htm
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/truth-lies-and-conspir
> > > > > > > > > > > > ac=
> y-theories/three-of-six-jfk-shooters-had-ties/
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > Really? Only six? (snicker)
> > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > They must have been the six worst marksman on the
> > > > > > > > > > planet.

> > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > Amazing they did not hit each other, or any innocent

> > > > > > > > > bystan=
> ders!
> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > Yes, the CIA must have outsourced this ambush with "The

> > > > > > > > Gang =
> Who Couldn't=20

> > > > > > > > Shoot Straight". Really incompetent "triangulation of

> > > > > > > > crossf=
> ire" when the=20

> > > > > > > > PLP did all the damage.

> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > Well, the government does award contracts to the lowest

> > > > > > >bidder. =20

> > > > > > > I guess they gave this one to "Jerry's Live Bait and Sniper

> > > > > > > Sto=
> re".
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > There is no absurdity that many in the CT crowd will reject

> > > > > > > in =
> order to=20

> > > > > > > support another absurdity. It's absurdities all the way down.

> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > I always like to quote the political scientist Hannah Arendt.

> > > > > > > S=
> he said:=20

> > > > > > > "Democracy is rule by the majority; oligarchy is rule by the

> > > > > > > fe=
> w; and=20

> > > > > > > bureaucracy is rule by no one."

> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > Anyone who thinks that all of these US agencies could have

> > > > > > > gott=
> en together=20

> > > > > > > and pulled this out doesn't know much about how government

> > > > > > > work=
> s. And=20
> > > > > > > doesn't work.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > All the agencies did NOT work together to cause the murder.

> > > > > > A=
> few=20

> > > > > > people from here and a few from there, on their own were part

> > > > > > of =
> the=20
> > > > > > conspiracy.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > >=20

> > > > > So how did the "few" set up the ambush and control the autopsy?

> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > By going to the Mafia and getting shooters from them. Maybe

> > > > even =
> the=20
> > > > famous James Files...:)
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Or Fredo Corleone.
> > >=20

> > > > A few people getting together can work out the particulars of

> > > > this=
> =20

> > > > murder, but the most important part for their own safety was the

> > > > fram=
> ing=20

> > > > of Oswald, the 'patsy'. They absolutely HAD to make sure that the

> > > > fa=
> ult=20

> > > > was laid at the feet of Oswald, and Oswald had to be killed

> > > > immediate=
> ly=20

> > > > after the murder of JFK so that no one heard anything they

> > > > shouldn't.=
> I=20

> > > > believe (guessing here) that they wanted a cop to kill him in the

> > > > TSB=
> D,=20

> > > > but he figured out that he was the 'patsy' and got out of there

> > > > befor=
> e=20

> > > > they could get to him. Tippit furiously searched for someone, and

> > > > I =
> think=20
> > > > it was Oswald.
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > Oh. "They" wanted a cop to kill LHO. Baker had the chance. Why didn't

> > > h=
> e=20

> > > do it. Or maybe you have evidence another cop was supposed to do

> > > it.=20 Right. And maybe I'll have the winning PowerBall numbers
> > >tonight. =20
> >=20
> >=20

> > You're not to swift at this stuff, are you?

> >=20

> > Baker had Truly right there behind him, and Oswald didn't do anything

> > to=
> =20

> > get shot for. As to whether Baker was the planned killer, I don't

> > know. =
> =20
> > Tippit was a possibility. Why shoot him after his long chase after=20

> > someone? He had to let on that he was an enemy in some way or another,

> > =
> =20

> > and got shot for it.

> >=20

>
> Oh, so you don't know which cop was assigned to shoot Oswald but you just
> assume there was one. If Baker was supposed to do it, why would he enlist
> the help of Truly? Tippit? He was on patrol in Oak Cliff. If you have a
> cop assigned to kill Oswald then you need his supervisor in on it too. If
> you don't, then you don't know if your assigned cop would be in position
> to kill Oswald. Funny how every time you come up with a new angle your
> little conspiracy has to get a little bigger.
>

> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but

> > > > ma=
> ny=20

> > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,

> > >=20
> > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.=20
> > >
> >=20
> >=20

> > You said that, not me.
>
> No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
> of them being in the government service".
>

> > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a=20

> > plan like this without making it a monster.
>
> Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
> add more conspirators.
>

> > But it didn't have to be. =20

> > But that's why they never recruited you.

> >=20

>
> That and I was in 7th grade at the time. I would have had to play hooky.
>

> >=20
> > =20
> > > > and=20

> > > > some being in management positions. The faking of photos, film,

> > > > and=
> =20

> > > > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses

> > > > helped =
> too.
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through rather than just

> > > admi=
> t=20

> > > that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any mental

> > > gynmastics =
> to=20

> > > reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from point A to point

> > > B=
> .
> > >=20

> > > > With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still going on.

> > >=20

> > > Don't blame us for your dismal failures.

> >=20
> >=20

> > There really are few hoops to go through to plan something like

> > this. =
> =20
> > hinmk it through.
> >=20

>
> I have which is why I know this Rube Goldberg scheme required a hell of a
> lot more than just the few people you keep insisting were all that was
> needed to pull it off. Everytime you have to explain away a piece of
> evidence, you have to add at least one conspirator to the mix. And you
> have to explain away 53 pieces of evidence.

===========================================================================
==== hey Corbett;
tell us exactly WHY THE DPD REGULAR DALLAS P[OLICE DISPATCHER WAS REPLACED
ON 11/22/63? ? ? ?
===========================================================================
=====

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 18, 2015 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 11:09:13 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 8:32:36 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 9:58:31 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 3:44:30 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 7:14:38 PM UTC-5, mainframetech

> > > > > > wrot=

> e:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:02:45 PM UTC-4,

> > > > > > > stevemg...@yahoo.=

> com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 1:31:07 PM UTC-5, claviger
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 11:15:24 AM UTC-5, Spence
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 8:46:59 PM UTC-4, bigdog

> > > > > > > > > > wrote=

> :
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 6:11:14 PM UTC-4, Spence

> > > > > > > > > > > wr=

> ote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-4,

> > > > > > > > > > > > clavig=

> er wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SIX JFK SHOOTERS - 3 TIED TO CIA

> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLgfjGL0_xRM
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Harry Weatherford =20

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Position: On top of The County Records Bldg=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: 30.06 Rifle with sabot inside 6.5mm

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carcano=

> FMJ
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: Back Shoulder
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shot: 1

> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nestor "Tony" Izquierdo=09

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Position: Dal Tex Bldg / Dallas Unranium & Oil

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Com=

> pany
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: Carcano Rifle - fired 3 shots [only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsile=
> nced shots]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: Head shot
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Roscoe White =20

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Position: Grassy Knoll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: 7.65 mauser=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Malcolm Wallace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Position: TSBD West side window
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank Sturgis=09

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Position: North Triple Underpass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: Right Temple=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jack Lawrence =20

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Position: South Triple Underpass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Weapon: ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wound: made a hole in the windshield and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > punctured =
> the throat
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W1T021VuOMY/Ur7jgy26uUI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > /A=
> AAAAAAACCc/0h36isiluIo/s1600/124+The+approximate+shot+scenario.jpg
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/1312/0704f0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 97=
> a53b43b5dc52.jpeg
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/six-jfk-s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ho=
> oters-three-tied-to-cia-named-oswald-not-among-them/
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/12/six-jfk-s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ho=
> oters-including-three-tied.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1312/S00484/six-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > jf=
> k-shooters-three-tied-to-cia-excluding-oswald.htm
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/truth-lies-and-consp
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ir=
> acy-theories/three-of-six-jfk-shooters-had-ties/

> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > Really? Only six? (snicker)
> > > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > > They must have been the six worst marksman on the

> > > > > > > > > > > plane=
> t.
> > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > Amazing they did not hit each other, or any innocent

> > > > > > > > > > byst=
> anders!
> > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > Yes, the CIA must have outsourced this ambush with "The

> > > > > > > > > Gan=
> g Who Couldn't=20

> > > > > > > > > Shoot Straight". Really incompetent "triangulation of

> > > > > > > > > cros=
> sfire" when the=20

> > > > > > > > > PLP did all the damage.

> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > Well, the government does award contracts to the lowest

> > > > > > > > bidde=
> r.
> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > I guess they gave this one to "Jerry's Live Bait and Sniper

> > > > > > > > S=
> tore".
> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > There is no absurdity that many in the CT crowd will reject

> > > > > > > > i=
> n order to=20

> > > > > > > > support another absurdity. It's absurdities all the way

> > > > > > > >down. =20

> > > > > > > > I always like to quote the political scientist Hannah

> > > > > > > > Arendt.=
> She said:=20

> > > > > > > > "Democracy is rule by the majority; oligarchy is rule by

> > > > > > > > the =
> few; and=20

> > > > > > > > bureaucracy is rule by no one."

> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > Anyone who thinks that all of these US agencies could have

> > > > > > > > go=
> tten together=20

> > > > > > > > and pulled this out doesn't know much about how government

> > > > > > > > wo=
> rks. And=20

> > > > > > > > doesn't work.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > All the agencies did NOT work together to cause the

> > > > > > > murder. =
> A few=20

> > > > > > > people from here and a few from there, on their own were part

> > > > > > > o=
> f the=20
> > > > > > > conspiracy.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > So how did the "few" set up the ambush and control the autopsy?

> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20

> > > > > By going to the Mafia and getting shooters from them. Maybe

> > > > > eve=
> n the=20

> > > > > famous James Files...:)
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Or Fredo Corleone.
> > > >=20

> > > > > A few people getting together can work out the particulars of

> > > > > th=
> is=20

> > > > > murder, but the most important part for their own safety was the

> > > > > fr=
> aming=20

> > > > > of Oswald, the 'patsy'. They absolutely HAD to make sure that

> > > > > the =
> fault=20

> > > > > was laid at the feet of Oswald, and Oswald had to be killed

> > > > > immedia=
> tely=20

> > > > > after the murder of JFK so that no one heard anything they

> > > > > shouldn'=
> t. I=20

> > > > > believe (guessing here) that they wanted a cop to kill him in the

> > > > > T=
> SBD,=20

> > > > > but he figured out that he was the 'patsy' and got out of there

> > > > > bef=
> ore=20

> > > > > they could get to him. Tippit furiously searched for someone,

> > > > > and =
> I think=20

> > > > > it was Oswald.
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > Oh. "They" wanted a cop to kill LHO. Baker had the chance. Why

> > > > didn't=
> he=20

> > > > do it. Or maybe you have evidence another cop was supposed to do

> > > > it.=
> =20

> > > > Right. And maybe I'll have the winning PowerBall numbers tonight.

> > > >=20

> > > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out,

> > > > > but =
> many=20

> > > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government
> > > > > service,

> > > >=20
> > > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.=20
> > > >=20
> > > > > and=20

> > > > > some being in management positions. The faking of photos, film,

> > > > > an=
> d=20

> > > > > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses

> > > > > helpe=
> d too.
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through rather than just

> > > > ad=
> mit=20

> > > > that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any mental

> > > > gynmastic=
> s to=20

> > > > reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from point A to

> > > > point=
> B.
> > > >=20

> > > > > With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still going on.

> > > >=20

> > > > Don't blame us for your dismal failures.

> > >=20

> > > "but many
> > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,

> > > > =20
> > >=20

> > > "the faking of photos, film, and
> > > > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many witnesses

> > > > helped =
> too"
> > >=20

> > > But he insists that it was just a few people in various agencies.

> > >=20

> > > "Many in government service", faked films, faked x-rays, faked

> > > photos,=
> =20

> > > altered testimonies. Covered up for half a century.

> > >=20

> > > All of this done by a few people here and there.

> > >=20

> > > They always complain we're exaggerating what they believe happened.

> > > The=
> n=20

> > > when we ask them to explain "X" or "Y", our exaggerations are proven

> > > to=
> be=20
> > > accurate.
> >=20
> >=20

> > Your exaggerations were proven to be exaggerations.

> >=20

> > You forget that there were a number of FBI agents that were helping

> > to=
> =20

> > support the 'lone gunman' myth of the WC lawyers. Once Hoover

> > mentioned=
> =20

> > support for that theory, the agents would automatically go with it.

> > They=
> =20
> > didn't have to be in on the conspiracy, they just had to help with=20

> > intimidating witnesses, faking evidence and all the other things they

> > hav=
> e=20

> > been accused of doing in other major events. Even the DPD would help

> > in=
> =20

> > support of a 'lone gunman' scenario, since they had caught a guy and

> > woul=
> d=20

> > be only too glad to prosecute him as the only criminal, so that the

> > burde=
> n=20
> > was off them.
> >=20

>
> Right. The President of the United States was assassinated and no one in
> law enforcement wanted to catch who did it. All they wanted to do was
> frame little old LHO. That includes the DPD. They didn't have any
> interest in catching the person who killed one of the officers. They just
> wanted to pin it on someone who didn't do it.
>
> Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to live.

===========================================================================
=== CORBETT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE SWINGLE BLLET WAS BORN ! ! !
!

[bigdog]

I guess they didn't give a shit if the guy who murdered their fellow
officer got away with it.

[bigdog]

There's that damn "they" again.

> > frame little old LHO. That includes the DPD. They didn't have any interest
>
> They called it a conspiracy and tried to get Frazier to sign a confession.
> They were preparing to charge Oswald with being part of an International
> Communist Conspiracy.
>

Early on, they may have assumed that for no other reason than Oswald had
defected to the USSR and then later returned. Of course they never found
any real evidence to support that assumption. Despite 50 years of trying,
neither have the conspiracy hobbyists.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:39:47 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > A refreshing bit of honesty from you.
> >
> Are you suggesting that I'm usually dishonest? Or lying as its called?
>

I don't think we are allowed to suggest something like that.

>
>
> > > How
> > > would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the conspiracy? Just
> > > pretend...:)
> > >
> >
> > The question is based on the false premise that there was a conspiracy.
> > Bugliosi had the best answer for it. If Oswald were part of a conspiracy,
> > there would have been a getaway car waiting for him which would drive him
> > to his death.
> >
>
>
> LOL! You mean like a green rambler pulling up in front of the TSBD?
>

Which only Roger Craig claims to have seen and which Oswald never got into.

>
>
> > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > > make it a bigger operation.
> > >
> >
> > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> >
>
>
> I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
>

If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> > > > > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You said that, not me.
> > > >
> > > > No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
> > > > of them being in the government service".
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In the past I've
> > > said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back. That remains the
> > > same.
> > >
> >
> > So in your mind "many" means 20 or less which is still only a subset of
> > the total conspirators since you said "many of them being in the
> > government service". You aren't even counting the ones who were not in
> > government service.
> >
>
>
> I'm not including a few shooters from the Mafia as 'consultants'. Otherwise I'm stating the number I think can pull it off. And ALL others were in Government service...none on the outside so forget it.
>

It doesn't matter if they were in government service or not. If they participated in the cover up, they were part of the conspiracy wheter you want to count them or not.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
> > > > > plan like this without making it a monster.
> > > >
> > > > Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
> > > > add more conspirators.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone did, you
> > > jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it, it's you.
> > > Try using your head now and then.
> > >
> >
> > You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover up while
> > saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't wash. To make all
> > that evidence against Oswald go away, you need a small army of people
> > participating in the cover up and that makes your conspiracy very
> > large.
> >
>
>
> It washes very nicely. If you have a problem with it, it's your problem. I've schooled you on it all many times. The FBI agents were NOT in on the conspiracy for the most part. Only a few were. Give it up.
>

A "few" from the FBI. A "few" from the SS. A "few" from the DPD. A "few" from the miilitary. With all the covering up you are alleging, that is a lot of fews.

Each person in the FBI specialized in analyzing different forms of
evidence. You have fingerprint experts. You had ballistic experts. You had
fiber experts and so on. In addition the WC went outside the FBI to get
second opinions on key pieces of evidence. At every turn, that evidence
pointed to Oswald alone as the shooter. To claim all that evidence was
falsified, you knew a small army of people doiing the falsifying.

> Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might mean
> something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on the
> old, tired WC myths.
>

You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an indication that
Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't mean
anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest as an
indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it means
anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder weapon
which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who fired the
murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where this is
going.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:51:10 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> ===========================================================================
> === CORBETT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE SWINGLE BLLET WAS BORN ! ! !
> !
> ===========================================================================

Corbett doesn't need to know exactly when the SBT was born.

[Anthony Marsh]

Childish logic. Is that what the Mafia does to all its hitmen?
Is that what the CIA does to the Navy Seals?

>> The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
>> cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
>> make it a bigger operation.
>>
>
> Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
>>>>>> things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You said that, not me.
>>>
>>> No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
>>> of them being in the government service".
>>>
>>
>>
>> My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In the past I've
>> said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back. That remains the
>> same.
>>
>
> So in your mind "many" means 20 or less which is still only a subset of
> the total conspirators since you said "many of them being in the
> government service". You aren't even counting the ones who were not in
> government service.
>

You are being silly just to prove that you are silly.

>>
>>
>>>> You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
>>>> plan like this without making it a monster.
>>>
>>> Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
>>> add more conspirators.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone did, you
>> jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it, it's you.
>> Try using your head now and then.
>>
>
> You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover up while
> saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't wash. To make all

If you can't understand that the cover-up is not the same thing as the
crime then how do you explain Watergate? Did Nixon pick the locks?

No.

[mainframetech]

More important when it died, which it did!

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:39:47 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >
> > > A refreshing bit of honesty from you.
> > >
> > Are you suggesting that I'm usually dishonest? Or lying as its called?
> >
> I don't think we are allowed to suggest something like that.

I suggest you keep it in mind.

> >
> >
> > > > How
> > > > would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the conspiracy? Just
> > > > pretend...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > The question is based on the false premise that there was a conspiracy.
> > > Bugliosi had the best answer for it. If Oswald were part of a conspiracy,
> > > there would have been a getaway car waiting for him which would drive him
> > > to his death.
> > >
> >
> >
> > LOL! You mean like a green rambler pulling up in front of the TSBD?
> >
> Which only Roger Craig claims to have seen and which Oswald never got into.

WRONG! A number of witnesses saw the Rambler pull up, and some of them
also saw an Oswald lookalike run down to it and get in. The witnesses
were Roger Craig, Marvin C. Robinson, Richard Carr, Helen Forrest, Roy
Cooper, and James Pennington. That's 6 witnesses. Don't you keep up with
the case? From:
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/roger-craig-vs-lone-gunman
-zealots.html

> >
> >
> > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > > > make it a bigger operation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
> >
> If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.

Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for someone.
No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to talk to
someone was Oswald.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> > > > > > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You said that, not me.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
> > > > > of them being in the government service".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In the past I've
> > > > said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back. That remains the
> > > > same.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So in your mind "many" means 20 or less which is still only a subset of
> > > the total conspirators since you said "many of them being in the
> > > government service". You aren't even counting the ones who were not in
> > > government service.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'm not including a few shooters from the Mafia as 'consultants'. Otherwise I'm stating the number I think can pull it off. And ALL others were in Government service...none on the outside so forget it.
> >

> It doesn't matter if they were in government service or not. If they participated in the cover up, they were part of the conspiracy whether you want to count them or not.

You can make the plotters as many as you want, no one can convince you
of anything sensible. But don't make out that I had said anything like
what you would like to hear. I've given you my numbers.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
> > > > > > plan like this without making it a monster.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
> > > > > add more conspirators.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone did, you
> > > > jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it, it's you.
> > > > Try using your head now and then.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover up while
> > > saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't wash. To make all
> > > that evidence against Oswald go away, you need a small army of people
> > > participating in the cover up and that makes your conspiracy very
> > > large.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It washes very nicely. If you have a problem with it, it's your problem. I've schooled you on it all many times. The FBI agents were NOT in on the conspiracy for the most part. Only a few were. Give it up.
> >
> A "few" from the FBI. A "few" from the SS. A "few" from the DPD. A "few" from the miilitary. With all the covering up you are alleging, that is a lot of fews.

WRONG! I never said military, and the DPD is only a guess as to there
being one guy to kill Oswald. And as it worked out, a mafia guy did it
after all.

WRONG! As usual you fail to use your head for thinking. Whether a
person specializes or not, they can still multi-task for a special project
like murdering JFK!

Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
because he was being set up. There was NO bullets from the MC rifle that
hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
previously.

The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
like you running around irresponsibly saying there is tons of evidence,
when there really isn't much at all.

> > Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might mean
> > something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on the
> > old, tired WC myths.
> >
>
> You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an indication that
> Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't mean
> anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest as an
> indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it means
> anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder weapon
> which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who fired the
> murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where this is
> going.

Talk about foolish! Finding a couple bullets that match the MC rifle
is a long way from finding bullets in a body, or proof that those bullets
hit or hurt anyone. And all the other items we've talked to death, and
they don't show any more than the bullets that connect to no harm to
anyone. But Your WC lawyers told you Oswald was the guy, so you go with
it to the end.

Chris

[mainframetech]

In their minds, he was caught and then killed. They got the killer
(Ruby) and they were done. All tied up in a neat package. As to them not
caring, it's amazing how little the police and the prosecutors care
sometimes. look into the statistics for the "Innocence Project".
They've caught and convicted many totally innocent people, just to get the
crime solved.

Chris

[bigdog]

You guys can't seem to understand that participating in the cover up would
make these people accessories after the fact which makes them part of the
conspiracy. Even more ludicrous is to think these alleged plotters would
enter into this crime and then recruit all these investigators to cover it
up after the deed was done. How could they possibly know they could count
on the investigators complicity after the fact unless they had them on
board before the assassination. It's preposterous whether you think they
had this small army of investigators on board ahead of time or you think
they were recruited afterwards. Only in the wacky world of Conspiracyland
would such a thing make sense.

[claviger]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 9:02:32 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:39:47 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A refreshing bit of honesty from you.
> > > >
> > > Are you suggesting that I'm usually dishonest? Or lying as its called?
> > >
> > I don't think we are allowed to suggest something like that.
>
> I suggest you keep it in mind.
>
> > > > > How
> > > > > would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the conspiracy? Just
> > > > > pretend...:)
> > > >
> > > > The question is based on the false premise that there was a conspiracy.
> > > > Bugliosi had the best answer for it. If Oswald were part of a conspiracy,
> > > > there would have been a getaway car waiting for him which would drive him
> > > > to his death.
> > >
> > > LOL! You mean like a green rambler pulling up in front of the TSBD?
>
> > Which only Roger Craig claims to have seen and which Oswald never got into.
>
> WRONG! A number of witnesses saw the Rambler pull up, and some of them
> also saw an Oswald lookalike run down to it and get in. The witnesses
> were Roger Craig, Marvin C. Robinson, Richard Carr, Helen Forrest, Roy
> Cooper, and James Pennington. That's 6 witnesses. Don't you keep up with
> the case? From:
> http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/roger-craig-vs-lone-gunman
> -zealots.html

So the LHO lookalike was the sniper on the 6th floor? Was he dressed
exactly like LHO? Explain how he got up to the 6th floor, fired the
shots, and got back down to the main floor without being seen. Where was
the PLP the whole time this was going on?

> > > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > > > > make it a bigger operation.
> > > >
> > > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> > > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
> > >
> > If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.
>
> Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for someone.
> No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to talk to
> someone was Oswald.

If he was looking for LHO why not park on his street? If he was only
looking for someone, who would that be and how would he know he had the
right guy? Sounds more like a regular police officer responding to the
APB description which wasn't all that accurate.

It's possible Tippit did not connect LHO to that APB. One theory is LHO
changed directions when he saw the police car coming down the street,
which will always get a cop's attention. It could be Tippit thought he
was merely a local punk looking for an easy burglary situation.

Had Tippit any suspicion LHO was the sniper he should have called in for
backup. As it was LHO caught this neighborhood cop completely off guard.
People had a tendency to underestimate LHO. He proved that was a deadly
mistake twice in one day.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

> WRONG! As usual you fail to use your head for thinking. Whether a
> person specializes or not, they can still multi-task for a special project
> like murdering JFK!
>
> Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
> anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
> evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
> suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
> anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
> was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
> because he was being set up. There was NO bullets from the MC rifle that
> hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
> had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
> previously.
>
> The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
> like you running around irresponsibly saying there is tons of evidence,
> when there really isn't much at all.

There is basic forensic evidence and a ton of circumstantial evidence.

> > > Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might mean
> > > something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on the
> > > old, tired WC myths.
> > >
> >
> > You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an indication that
> > Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't mean
> > anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest as an
> > indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it means
> > anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder weapon
> > which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who fired the
> > murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where this is
> > going.
>
> Talk about foolish! Finding a couple bullets that match the MC rifle
> is a long way from finding bullets in a body, or proof that those bullets
> hit or hurt anyone.

One bullet was found on the floorboard that matched CABL and a slightly
deformed bullet was found on a stretcher in ER that matched rifle barrel
striations. SSA Kinney claims he found that bullet on the floorboard and
put it on the stretcher. If true, completely unprofessional behavior but
maybe he was in shock.

If you believe this was a pre-fired bullet to frame LHO please explain why
TGC anticipated the need for a whole bullet compatible with a
through-and-through wound. CTs don't believe the SBT so why would the TGC
anticipate this kind of perforating wound in the first place? Is this why
they chose the so called "Mannlicher-Carcano" rifle knowing of its
notorious reputation of high penetration of human targets so they could
plant a bullet?

Wouldn't they need to confirm the neck wound first before planting this
whole bullet? As it was, the ER doctors did not realize there was a
through-and-through bullet wound on the body at the time, thinking the
throat wound was an entrance wound. So how would TGC confirm there was
such a wound or did they just run the risk of planting the bullet, hoping
it did not make one too many bullets associated with the autopsy.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 10:02:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:39:47 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A refreshing bit of honesty from you.
> > > >
> > > Are you suggesting that I'm usually dishonest? Or lying as its called?
> > >
> > I don't think we are allowed to suggest something like that.
>
>
>
> I suggest you keep it in mind.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > How
> > > > > would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the conspiracy? Just
> > > > > pretend...:)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The question is based on the false premise that there was a conspiracy.
> > > > Bugliosi had the best answer for it. If Oswald were part of a conspiracy,
> > > > there would have been a getaway car waiting for him which would drive him
> > > > to his death.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! You mean like a green rambler pulling up in front of the TSBD?
> > >
> > Which only Roger Craig claims to have seen and which Oswald never got into.
>
>
> WRONG! A number of witnesses saw the Rambler pull up, and some of them
> also saw an Oswald lookalike run down to it and get in. The witnesses
> were Roger Craig, Marvin C. Robinson, Richard Carr, Helen Forrest, Roy
> Cooper, and James Pennington. That's 6 witnesses. Don't you keep up with
> the case? From:
> http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/roger-craig-vs-lone-gunman
> -zealots.html
>

Oh, the Oswald look alike got in the Rambler. That makes sense. Maybe they
killed their patsy's lookalike.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > > > > make it a bigger operation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> > > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
> > >
> > If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.
>
>
>
> Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for someone.
> No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to talk to
> someone was Oswald.
>

Tippit was on patrol in Oak Cliff which is what his assignment was at the
time.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work out, but many
> > > > > > > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government service,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You said that, not me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You wrote "many
> > > > > > of them being in the government service".
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In the past I've
> > > > > said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back. That remains the
> > > > > same.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So in your mind "many" means 20 or less which is still only a subset of
> > > > the total conspirators since you said "many of them being in the
> > > > government service". You aren't even counting the ones who were not in
> > > > government service.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not including a few shooters from the Mafia as 'consultants'. Otherwise I'm stating the number I think can pull it off. And ALL others were in Government service...none on the outside so forget it.
> > >
> > It doesn't matter if they were in government service or not. If they participated in the cover up, they were part of the conspiracy whether you want to count them or not.
>
> You can make the plotters as many as you want, no one can convince you
> of anything sensible.

How would you know? You've never presented anything sensible.

> But don't make out that I had said anything like
> what you would like to hear. I've given you my numbers.
>

Yes you've given me numbers and they don't square with your bullshit
story. You say the conspiracy consisted of 20 people tops and yet you have
53 pieces of evidence to explain away and some of those 53 pieces were
analyzed by more than one person and that evidence all pointed to Oswald.
You need a lot more than 20 people to falsify that much evidence.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
> > > > > > > plan like this without making it a monster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
> > > > > > add more conspirators.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone did, you
> > > > > jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it, it's you.
> > > > > Try using your head now and then.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover up while
> > > > saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't wash. To make all
> > > > that evidence against Oswald go away, you need a small army of people
> > > > participating in the cover up and that makes your conspiracy very
> > > > large.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It washes very nicely. If you have a problem with it, it's your problem. I've schooled you on it all many times. The FBI agents were NOT in on the conspiracy for the most part. Only a few were. Give it up.
> > >
> > A "few" from the FBI. A "few" from the SS. A "few" from the DPD. A "few" from the miilitary. With all the covering up you are alleging, that is a lot of fews.
>
>
>
> WRONG! I never said military,

OK. So you are exhonorating Humes, Boswell, Finck, and their superiors.
Nice to know you no longer think they falsified their autopsy report.

> and the DPD is only a guess as to there
> being one guy to kill Oswald. And as it worked out, a mafia guy did it
> after all.
>

Did what? Kill Oswald? So if you are letting the DPD off the hook, that
means you don't think they deliberately set up Oswald to be murdered. It
means you accept the validity of the palm print Lt. Day lifted from the
barrel of the Carcano. It means that all the other evidence they gathered
at the crime scene was legitimate. And if you are going to claim they only
had one guy who was supposed to kill Oswald, that means either a cop who
was supposed to kill him in the TSBD or Tippit. You can have one but not
both if only one guy was supposed to kill him.

Name one FBI expert who analyzed different forms of evidence and then
testified to that before the WC. Nobody did that. If you are going to
claim that evidence was falsified, you need at least on person for each of
those pieces of evidence. And since in a number of cases more than one
person was asked to render a judgement on a particular piece of evidence,
you need more than one person participating for each of those pieces.

> Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
> anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
> evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
> suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
> anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
> was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
> because he was being set up. There was NO bullets from the MC rifle that
> hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
> had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
> previously.

You are claiming that the evidence that indicates Oswald was guilty was
falsified by the investigators. You have 53 pieces of evidence to explain
away. Many of those 53 pieces had multiple people handling and analyzing
it. To claim that all that evidence was fraudulent, you need to have a
small army of people doing the falsifying.

>
> The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
> like you running around irresponsibly saying there is tons of evidence,
> when there really isn't much at all.
>

There is ample evidence of his guilt. And a good conspiracy hobbyist will
invent any silly excuse he can to dismiss it all.

>
> > > Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might mean
> > > something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on the
> > > old, tired WC myths.
> > >
> >
> > You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an indication that
> > Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't mean
> > anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest as an
> > indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it means
> > anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder weapon
> > which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who fired the
> > murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where this is
> > going.
>
>
> Talk about foolish! Finding a couple bullets that match the MC rifle
> is a long way from finding bullets in a body, or proof that those bullets
> hit or hurt anyone.

Since there were no bullets in the body, I guess that means nobody did it.
Where did you get the crazy idea that bullets need to be found in the body
to be probative? When I was on a jury in a murder trial, we were given two
bullets that had been recovered OUTSIDE the victim's body. Both were
admitted into evidence without objection by the defense and without any
proof offered by the prosecution that they were the bullets that had
killed the victim.

> And all the other items we've talked to death, and
> they don't show any more than the bullets that connect to no harm to
> anyone. But Your WC lawyers told you Oswald was the guy, so you go with
> it to the end.
>

I will concede that conspiracy hobbyists are creative enough to invent any
excuse they need to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt. That
doesn't make the evidence go away. It just gives them the excuses they
need to claim Oswald was framed.

[bigdog]

It you don't think a police department is going to do everything in their
power to nail somebody who murdered one of their officers, you don't know
cops very well. And they are going to want get the right guy, not just get
the case off the books.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The United States as a banana republic. Coup leaders kill off then
president then everyone else goes silently and willingly along.

That's what many of them think. Those that believe in a government-wide
conspiracy involving major elements of it.

THEN they, i.e., the original conspirators, counted on the successors to
these people continuing the coverup decades later.

AND they also believe that the news media is controlled by the government
and had also gone along.

The conspiracy crowd complain that we create straw men about what they
believe. That we exaggerate their theories.

Really? Who is creating a fantasy world here?

[Anthony Marsh]

I like your new theory that the CIA sent its Oswald double to assassinate
the President. How could they make sure that he wouldn't run into the real
Oswald? What if he got thirsty and went down to get a Coke?

>
>>>>>> The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
>>>>>> cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
>>>>>> make it a bigger operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
>>>>> Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
>>>>
>>> If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for someone.
>> No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to talk to
>> someone was Oswald.
>
> If he was looking for LHO why not park on his street? If he was only

He was not looking for Oswald. There was no APB out yet for Oswald. You
are terribly confused. Are you saying that Tippit knew that Oswald had
left the TSBD therefore he MUST be the assassin? And yet he gives Givens a
pass?

> looking for someone, who would that be and how would he know he had the
> right guy? Sounds more like a regular police officer responding to the
> APB description which wasn't all that accurate.
>

Maybe he was looking for Lovelady. He looked suspicious. And HE was
wearing an ugly shirt.

> It's possible Tippit did not connect LHO to that APB. One theory is LHO
> changed directions when he saw the police car coming down the street,
> which will always get a cop's attention. It could be Tippit thought he
> was merely a local punk looking for an easy burglary situation.
>
> Had Tippit any suspicion LHO was the sniper he should have called in for
> backup. As it was LHO caught this neighborhood cop completely off guard.

Did he call anything in?
The cop caught Oswald completely off guard and Oswald panicked.

> People had a tendency to underestimate LHO. He proved that was a deadly
> mistake twice in one day.
>

Did the FBI underestimate him when they took him off the watch list
AFTER he had met with the KGB's head of assassinations?

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> WRONG! As usual you fail to use your head for thinking. Whether a
>> person specializes or not, they can still multi-task for a special project
>> like murdering JFK!
>>
>> Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
>> anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
>> evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
>> suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
>> anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
>> was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
>> because he was being set up. There was NO bullets from the MC rifle that
>> hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
>> had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
>> previously.
>>
>> The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
>> like you running around irresponsibly saying there is tons of evidence,
>> when there really isn't much at all.
>
> There is basic forensic evidence and a ton of circumstantial evidence.
>

You don't have any of that.

>>>> Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might mean
>>>> something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on the
>>>> old, tired WC myths.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an indication that
>>> Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't mean
>>> anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest as an
>>> indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it means
>>> anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder weapon
>>> which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who fired the
>>> murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where this is
>>> going.
>>
>> Talk about foolish! Finding a couple bullets that match the MC rifle
>> is a long way from finding bullets in a body, or proof that those bullets
>> hit or hurt anyone.
>
> One bullet was found on the floorboard that matched CABL and a slightly

Which bullet? Show me. Do you realize that even the FBI admitted that
the CABL was junk science? You are living in the last century.

> deformed bullet was found on a stretcher in ER that matched rifle barrel
> striations. SSA Kinney claims he found that bullet on the floorboard and
> put it on the stretcher. If true, completely unprofessional behavior but
> maybe he was in shock.
>

I don't think that's true. Are you claiming that CE399 just fell onto
the floor?

> If you believe this was a pre-fired bullet to frame LHO please explain why
> TGC anticipated the need for a whole bullet compatible with a

What TGC?

> through-and-through wound. CTs don't believe the SBT so why would the TGC

IF CE399 was planted it would be to assure that SOME bullet could be
linked to Oswald's rifle. Even it they were lucky enough to hit anyone
those Carcano bullets have a tendency to go right through the person and
keep going for another 1/4 mile.

> anticipate this kind of perforating wound in the first place? Is this why
> they chose the so called "Mannlicher-Carcano" rifle knowing of its
> notorious reputation of high penetration of human targets so they could
> plant a bullet?

They chose it because Oswald was so cheap that was the only rifle he
could afford. I think maybe even you might be a little suspicious if
they found a $5,000 CIA assassination rifle.

>
> Wouldn't they need to confirm the neck wound first before planting this
> whole bullet? As it was, the ER doctors did not realize there was a

No, stop being silly.

They have teams of CIA stooges to explain away any contradictions.
Remember that the Parkland doctors said that the throat wound was an
entrance and the bullet blew out the back of his head. We even have one
kook who says the throat wound was an entrance and the bullet exited JFK's
back and then magically disappeared.

> through-and-through bullet wound on the body at the time, thinking the
> throat wound was an entrance wound. So how would TGC confirm there was
> such a wound or did they just run the risk of planting the bullet, hoping
> it did not make one too many bullets associated with the autopsy.
>

Wake up. It doesn't matter. The CIA can explain away anything. Just as
they explained that the throat wound was an entrance wound because JFK had
turned to look back at the TSBD and exposed his throat to Oswald's rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. You know nothing about the law. Are they going to prosecute
themselves?

> enter into this crime and then recruit all these investigators to cover it

All? Why stop there? Why not claim that everyone on the planet had to be
part of the conspiracy?

> up after the deed was done. How could they possibly know they could count
> on the investigators complicity after the fact unless they had them on

Maybe they couldn't so they murdered all the loose ends.

> board before the assassination. It's preposterous whether you think they

You are preposterous.

> had this small army of investigators on board ahead of time or you think
> they were recruited afterwards. Only in the wacky world of Conspiracyland
> would such a thing make sense.
>

Only in the world of the cover-up must everyone be part of the plot.

>

[Spence]

You and OJ will be looking for the "real killers" for a long, long time.

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly, which is why they planned to charge him with being part of an
International Communist Conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

> http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/roger-craig-vs-lone-gunman=
>
>
-zealots.html
>

Roger Craig was a liar. Don't you keep up with the case?
Stamped Mauser? Really, dude?

[Anthony Marsh]

No one is asking you for the exact second. Or even the hour.
How about the day? Or the month? Or the year? Or the Century?

[Anthony Marsh]

Much more than that. Specific hoaxes.

[Anthony Marsh]

Female troubles?

[bigdog]

OK, Clarence Darrow, tell us who "they" are? Wade? The Texas AG. The
United States AG? Are you claiming everyone who was in a position to
prosecute the conspirators was part of the conspiracy?

> > enter into this crime and then recruit all these investigators to cover it
>
> All? Why stop there? Why not claim that everyone on the planet had to be
> part of the conspiracy?
>

You guys are certainly moving in that direction.

> > up after the deed was done. How could they possibly know they could count
> > on the investigators complicity after the fact unless they had them on
>
> Maybe they couldn't so they murdered all the loose ends.
>

Such as...???

> > board before the assassination. It's preposterous whether you think they
>
> You are preposterous.
>

At least I can present a logical argument. You present absuridities. Your
reply is a fine example of that.

> > had this small army of investigators on board ahead of time or you think
> > they were recruited afterwards. Only in the wacky world of Conspiracyland
> > would such a thing make sense.
> >
>
> Only in the world of the cover-up must everyone be part of the plot.

Since all the evidence pointed to Oswald, to claim Oswald was framed is to
claim everyone was in on the plot. If only some of the investigators
falsified evidence to frame Oswald, that evidence would conflict with the
evidence gathered by the honest investigators. There is no conflict in the
evidence. It all indicates Oswald was guilty. It's an all or nothing
proposition. It's either all fake or all genuine.

[bigdog]

OJ has a better chance of succeeding.

[bigdog]

I'm pretty sure it was in the 20th century.

[mainframetech]

The fantasy world is being created by those who sit at home eating
their pizza and watching their favorite sitcom while feeling perfectly
satisfied that there is no conspiracy and no coup that took place. If
they thought that a coup had happened, then they would have to do
something about it, and that means work.

Government is full of folks that would like to advance themselves, by
hook or crook. It also has folks that would be scared to step up and open
their mouths about the doings of others high above them. They would
rather sit quietly and wait for their opportunity to feather their own
nest. Look what has happened to many whistleblowers. Few have the guts
to do that job. I'm sure that a number of high ranking folks in the
government of 1963 figured out what happened and maybe even who was the
leader of the conspiracy. But they weren't about to open their mouths and
join the ranks of the dead.

Chris

[mainframetech]

::: sigh :::

You stuck your oar in and made your usual mistake! I said lookalike
because there was also evidence that an Oswald like person had taken a bus
and a cab in leaving the TSBD. I mention the Nash Rambler because 6
witnesses saw it and saw an Oswald looking person get into it.

> > > > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > > > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > > > > > make it a bigger operation.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> > > > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
> > > >
> > > If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for someone.
> > No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to talk to
> > someone was Oswald.
> >
>
> Tippit was on patrol in Oak Cliff which is what his assignment was at the
> time.
>

Check it out. Tippit was reporting in now and then as if he was where
he was supposed to be, but he was running around looking for someone. He
stopped at a record store to make a phone call. He didn't use his radio
so it wasn't official business. He stopped a civilian driving and checked
him out then rushed off when it wasn't who he was looking for. Tippit
wasn't acting like he was on his normal patrol.

NOPE, WRONG! I don't have 53 pieces of evidence to explain, Bugliosi
has. I have to explain the few people that did the murder. The agents
that helped support the 'lone gunman' wacky theory were just following
Hoover, and were not in on any conspiracy.

> > > > > > > > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a
> > > > > > > > plan like this without making it a monster.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you need to
> > > > > > > add more conspirators.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone did, you
> > > > > > jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it, it's you.
> > > > > > Try using your head now and then.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover up while
> > > > > saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't wash. To make all
> > > > > that evidence against Oswald go away, you need a small army of people
> > > > > participating in the cover up and that makes your conspiracy very
> > > > > large.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It washes very nicely. If you have a problem with it, it's your problem. I've schooled you on it all many times. The FBI agents were NOT in on the conspiracy for the most part. Only a few were. Give it up.
> > > >
> > > A "few" from the FBI. A "few" from the SS. A "few" from the DPD. A "few" from the miilitary. With all the covering up you are alleging, that is a lot of fews.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! I never said military,
>
> OK. So you are exhonorating Humes, Boswell, Finck, and their superiors.
> Nice to know you no longer think they falsified their autopsy report.
>

Give it up. It appears that you can't understand anything you've had
explained to you. The prosectors were NOT in on any conspiracy. They
were ordered to sign of on the AR that Humes wrote.

> > and the DPD is only a guess as to there
> > being one guy to kill Oswald. And as it worked out, a mafia guy did it
> > after all.
> >
>
> Did what? Kill Oswald? So if you are letting the DPD off the hook, that
> means you don't think they deliberately set up Oswald to be murdered. It
> means you accept the validity of the palm print Lt. Day lifted from the
> barrel of the Carcano. It means that all the other evidence they gathered
> at the crime scene was legitimate. And if you are going to claim they only
> had one guy who was supposed to kill Oswald, that means either a cop who
> was supposed to kill him in the TSBD or Tippit. You can have one but not
> both if only one guy was supposed to kill him.
>

As usual, you jump into the fire from the frying pan you were in. I did
NOT say the DPD was in in any conspiracy. A cop MAY have been enlisted,
or may not have been. I don't know what method they had for killing
Oswald, but it had to be done somehow. Since the MC rifle was Oswald's, I
would expect his prints to be on it. I only believe that they had hopes
of killing Oswald in the TSBD because they were very frustrated when he
got away, as far as Tippit's mad flight to find someone shows.

Don't be ridiculous. Specializing doesn't mean someone can't be part
of a murder conspiracy, and multi-task. No one said anything about
testifying within their specialty. There was not too much evidence that
needed a specialist. The bullet custodian was in a position to do the
most for the evidence. Most other stuff was general like witnesses and
what they had to say. That could be done by anyone. Give examples of
evidence that had to be tampered with and I'll let you know if a
specialist was needed.

> > Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
> > anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
> > evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
> > suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
> > anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
> > was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but

> > because he was being set up. There were NO bullets from the MC rifle that

> > hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
> > had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
> > previously.
>
> You are claiming that the evidence that indicates Oswald was guilty was
> falsified by the investigators. You have 53 pieces of evidence to explain
> away. Many of those 53 pieces had multiple people handling and analyzing
> it. To claim that all that evidence was fraudulent, you need to have a
> small army of people doing the falsifying.
>

BULL! I don't have 53 pieces of anything. Bugliosi may have. Name
the evidence that had to be tampered with and I'll let you know if a
specialist is necessary, or who might be able to handle it.

> >
> > The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people

> > like you running around irresponsibly saying there was tons of evidence,

> > when there really isn't much at all.
> >
>
> There is ample evidence of his guilt. And a good conspiracy hobbyist will
> invent any silly excuse he can to dismiss it all.
>

"Ample evidence" is your opinion, and opinion doesn't make for good
evidence at a trial.

> >
> > > > Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might mean
> > > > something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on the
> > > > old, tired WC myths.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an indication that
> > > Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't mean
> > > anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest as an
> > > indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it means
> > > anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder weapon
> > > which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who fired the
> > > murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where this is
> > > going.
> >
> >
> > Talk about foolish! Finding a couple bullets that match the MC rifle
> > is a long way from finding bullets in a body, or proof that those bullets
> > hit or hurt anyone.
>
> Since there were no bullets in the body, I guess that means nobody did it.
> Where did you get the crazy idea that bullets need to be found in the body
> to be probative? When I was on a jury in a murder trial, we were given two
> bullets that had been recovered OUTSIDE the victim's body. Both were
> admitted into evidence without objection by the defense and without any
> proof offered by the prosecution that they were the bullets that had
> killed the victim.
>

Don't bother to do the dramatic exaggerations. It's phony device.
There are a number of ways that bullets can leave a body, if they were
there in the first place. Your trial has no bearing here. The situation
is different. We've been over all that. One way has been suggested by
your LN buddies. A bullet fell out of a body. Custer saw a bullet fall
out of the back of JFK, so if a bullet could fall out to land on a gurney,
why can't one fall out onto a table during the autopsy? Another way is
for certain people to actually search the body and retrieve bullets
surgically, as was the case with Humes and Boswell.

> > And all the other items we've talked to death, and
> > they don't show any more than the bullets that connect to no harm to
> > anyone. But Your WC lawyers told you Oswald was the guy, so you go with
> > it to the end.
> >
>
> I will concede that conspiracy hobbyists are creative enough to invent any
> excuse they need to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt. That
> doesn't make the evidence go away. It just gives them the excuses they
> need to claim Oswald was framed.

First, I don't make "claims', and second, I don't dismiss evidence, I
use it one way or another. Sometimes it shows conspiracy or tampering
with evidence or whatever, but I don't simply dismiss it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You forget that Oswald did NOT fire any shots out any window. We know
he left the TDBD early though.

>
> > > > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > > > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > > > > > make it a bigger operation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> > > > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
> > > >
> > > If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.
> >
> > Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for someone.
> > No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to talk to
> > someone was Oswald.
>
> If he was looking for LHO why not park on his street? If he was only
> looking for someone, who would that be and how would he know he had the
> right guy? Sounds more like a regular police officer responding to the
> APB description which wasn't all that accurate.
>

We don't know if Tippit was looking for Oswald. There WAS a cop car
that stopped on Oswald's street, but I don't know who was driving.
Tippit's movements were not recorded at the dispatch point. So he was
moving on his own without any supervisor's direction, or any APB.

> It's possible Tippit did not connect LHO to that APB. One theory is LHO
> changed directions when he saw the police car coming down the street,
> which will always get a cop's attention. It could be Tippit thought he
> was merely a local punk looking for an easy burglary situation.
>

W don't know if Oswald changed directions, and we don't know why Tippit
stopped him to talk. But since Tippit's main goal was to look for
someone, it's possible he stopped Oswald in furtherance of that goal.

> Had Tippit any suspicion LHO was the sniper he should have called in for
> backup. As it was LHO caught this neighborhood cop completely off guard.
> People had a tendency to underestimate LHO. He proved that was a deadly
> mistake twice in one day.
>

We don't know that Tippit was looking for a shooter. He was on his
own. And Oswald was not someone that used weapons. We know that.

> > WRONG! As usual you fail to use your head for thinking. Whether a
> > person specializes or not, they can still multi-task for a special project
> > like murdering JFK!
> >
> > Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
> > anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
> > evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
> > suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
> > anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
> > was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
> > because he was being set up. There was NO bullets from the MC rifle that
> > hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
> > had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
> > previously.
> >
> > The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
> > like you running around irresponsibly saying there is tons of evidence,
> > when there really isn't much at all.
>
> There is basic forensic evidence and a ton of circumstantial evidence.
>

There's no basic evidence that Oswald was the shooter. Ownership of
the rifle doesn't mean that the owner did any shooting. We know he didn't
even do any practicing.

> > > > Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might mean
> > > > something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on the
> > > > old, tired WC myths.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an indication that
> > > Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't mean
> > > anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest as an
> > > indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it means
> > > anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder weapon
> > > which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who fired the
> > > murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where this is
> > > going.
> >
> > Talk about foolish! Finding a couple bullets that match the MC rifle
> > is a long way from finding bullets in a body, or proof that those bullets
> > hit or hurt anyone.
>
> One bullet was found on the floorboard that matched CABL and a slightly
> deformed bullet was found on a stretcher in ER that matched rifle barrel
> striations. SSA Kinney claims he found that bullet on the floorboard and
> put it on the stretcher. If true, completely unprofessional behavior but
> maybe he was in shock.
>

There were 2 fragments found 'supposedly' on the front seat of the
limo, just under the impact point on the chrome overhead bar. That impact
could easily cause the damage to the bullet the fragments came from, and
then they fell to the front seat area. They hit nothing except the limo
overhead bar. Not a shred of proof that those fragments hit or hurt any
person.

You need to stop playing with abbreviations to look knowledgeable.
What's CABL? Any thing to do with TV?

The bullet that was found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland was determined
to be a test bullet that as used to replace the original CE399 bullet that
had a pointy nose, and not a round one like the MC bullets.

> If you believe this was a pre-fired bullet to frame LHO please explain why
> TGC anticipated the need for a whole bullet compatible with a
> through-and-through wound. CTs don't believe the SBT so why would the TGC
> anticipate this kind of perforating wound in the first place? Is this why
> they chose the so called "Mannlicher-Carcano" rifle knowing of its
> notorious reputation of high penetration of human targets so they could
> plant a bullet?
>

Still playing with abbreviations? What's TGC? Otherwise the sentence
means nothing to me. It's not a matter of not believing the SBT. You
fail to understand that it had been proven to have NOT existed from the
beginning. I don't see how anyone could anticipate any SPECIFIC kind of
wound. I seriously doubt that anyone in any conspiracy "chose" the MC
rifle.

Oswald wasn't getting anywhere trying to get in with some folks there
in Dallas, so it was suggested to him to get a rifle and look like he was
serious. He went out and bought the cheapest rifle he could find. There
was NO consideration of the penetrating power of that cheapo, junk rifle.

The evidence is strong that the bullet on the WRONG gurney was planted.
They had to get a bullet in place that could later be used as proof that
Oswald had fired a bullet at JFK. It didn't work though., The bullet that
was left on the gurney was the wrong shape, and later when it was replaced
by an Oswald bullet, the replacement was caught by 4 men that had handled
the original bullet.

[mainframetech]

Well of course! Think it through! They HAD the right guy that shot a
cop as far as they knew. Their anger was taken care of when Ruby did him
in. The cops were satisfied.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You can't seem to understand that we've had that discussion. Doing
something without knowing there is a conspiracy does NOT make someone
guilty of conspiracy. There HAS to be knowledge that you're aiding a
conspiracy. Otherwise it's just tampering with evidence or obstruction.
I've put up the legal definition of accessory a number of times, and you
still can't get it right.

Investigators weren't "recruited" to join in a crime. They did what the
FBI has often done, and helped make a person look guilty. They've been
doing that for a long, long time. And only been caught at it a few times.
Back then when Hoover went in a direction, all the agents went there too.
There was no "army of investigators on board ahead of time". Give up that
stupid obsession. You're coming from the wacky world of conspiracy
denialism.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why does the CIA still withhold documents from WWI or even the
Civil War? Or classify the Caesar code as Top Secret Crypto?

> AND they also believe that the news media is controlled by the government
> and had also gone along.
>

Not all. Not always.

> The conspiracy crowd complain that we create straw men about what they
> believe. That we exaggerate their theories.
>
> Really? Who is creating a fantasy world here?
>

YOU.

[bigdog]

There are no sitcoms I regularly watch anymore but I do sit at home and
eat pizza knowing full well there was no conspiracy in the JFK
assassination that needs to be hunted down. If there had been, somebody
would have found proof of it a long time ago.

> Government is full of folks that would like to advance themselves, by
> hook or crook.

File this one under No Shit, Sherlock.

> It also has folks that would be scared to step up and open
> their mouths about the doings of others high above them.

Ditto.

> They would
> rather sit quietly and wait for their opportunity to feather their own
> nest. Look what has happened to many whistleblowers. Few have the guts
> to do that job. I'm sure that a number of high ranking folks in the
> government of 1963 figured out what happened and maybe even who was the
> leader of the conspiracy. But they weren't about to open their mouths and
> join the ranks of the dead.
>

And so you think in 2015 there are still people in government covering up
your imaginary conspiracy. Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to
live.

[bigdog]

So was it the real Oswald or a lookalike who got arrested at the Texas
Theater. With the Tippit murder weapon in his hand. And a transfer from
Cecil McWatters bus in his pocket.

Specializing means the fingerprint expert is not going to be working on
the ballistics evidence and vice versa. Every piece of evidence was
analyzed by a seperate individual or group in the FBI so if you are going
to allege all the evidence was falsified, you need a different person
doing the falsifying for each different type of evidence.

> No one said anything about
> testifying within their specialty. There was not too much evidence that
> needed a specialist.

Do you seriously think the people who analyze different forms of evidence
for the FBI don't specialize in that particular area? Do you think they
are general practicioners?

> The bullet custodian was in a position to do the
> most for the evidence. Most other stuff was general like witnesses and
> what they had to say. That could be done by anyone. Give examples of
> evidence that had to be tampered with and I'll let you know if a
> specialist was needed.

Fingerprint evidence.
Ballistic evidence.
Fiber evidence.
Photographic evidence.
Medical evidence.
Handwriting evidence.

That should be a good for starters.

>
>
>
> > > Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
> > > anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
> > > evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
> > > suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
> > > anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
> > > was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
> > > because he was being set up. There were NO bullets from the MC rifle that
> > > hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
> > > had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
> > > previously.
> >
> > You are claiming that the evidence that indicates Oswald was guilty was
> > falsified by the investigators. You have 53 pieces of evidence to explain
> > away. Many of those 53 pieces had multiple people handling and analyzing
> > it. To claim that all that evidence was fraudulent, you need to have a
> > small army of people doing the falsifying.
> >
>
>
> BULL! I don't have 53 pieces of anything. Bugliosi may have. Name
> the evidence that had to be tampered with and I'll let you know if a
> specialist is necessary, or who might be able to handle it.
>

I just did.

>
>
> > >
> > > The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
> > > like you running around irresponsibly saying there was tons of evidence,
> > > when there really isn't much at all.
> > >
> >
> > There is ample evidence of his guilt. And a good conspiracy hobbyist will
> > invent any silly excuse he can to dismiss it all.
> >
>
>
> "Ample evidence" is your opinion, and opinion doesn't make for good
> evidence at a trial.
>

Thank you for proving what I just said.

The common denominator is that the deceased was killed by two bullets that
went completely through their bodies and it is not necessary to prove that
those bullets passed through the bodies for the bullets to be probative.
This is just another of your red herring excuses for dismissing damning

evidence of Oswald's guilt.

> We've been over all that. One way has been suggested by
> your LN buddies. A bullet fell out of a body. Custer saw a bullet fall
> out of the back of JFK, so if a bullet could fall out to land on a gurney,
> why can't one fall out onto a table during the autopsy?

The bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh had been severly slowed by
passing through two torsos and striking Connally's wrist. What do you
suppose could have slowed the bullet that Custer allegedly saw fall out of
JFK's back?

> Another way is
> for certain people to actually search the body and retrieve bullets
> surgically, as was the case with Humes and Boswell.
>

Oh, this is where you get to make up stuff for which you have no evidence.

>
>
> > > And all the other items we've talked to death, and
> > > they don't show any more than the bullets that connect to no harm to
> > > anyone. But Your WC lawyers told you Oswald was the guy, so you go with
> > > it to the end.
> > >
> >
> > I will concede that conspiracy hobbyists are creative enough to invent any
> > excuse they need to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt. That
> > doesn't make the evidence go away. It just gives them the excuses they
> > need to claim Oswald was framed.
>
>
> First, I don't make "claims', and second, I don't dismiss evidence,

Wrong on both counts.

> I use it one way or another. Sometimes it shows conspiracy or tampering
> with evidence or whatever, but I don't simply dismiss it.
>

None of the evidence shows conspiracy which is why you dismiss all of it.

[claviger]

Yes I forgot that. How silly of me to forget something so obvious. How do
you prove a negative again?

> We know he left the TDBD early though.

Early is a relative term. Earlier than what? We do know he left the
building without permission and failed to notify his supervisor after
reaching his boarding house that he was OK and would be reporting back to
work on Monday.

> > > > > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > > > > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > > > > > > make it a bigger operation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> > > > > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
> > > > >
> > > > If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.
> > >
> > > Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for someone.
> > > No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to talk to
> > > someone was Oswald.
> >
> > If he was looking for LHO why not park on his street? If he was only
> > looking for someone, who would that be and how would he know he had the
> > right guy? Sounds more like a regular police officer responding to the
> > APB description which wasn't all that accurate.
>
> We don't know if Tippit was looking for Oswald. There WAS a cop car
> that stopped on Oswald's street, but I don't know who was driving.
> Tippit's movements were not recorded at the dispatch point. So he was
> moving on his own without any supervisor's direction, or any APB.

In 1967, Jackson told Dallas newsman Eddie Barker that the police response
to the Kennedy assassination was draining Oak Cliff of available officers
so he ordered R.C. Nelson and J.D. Tippit from their assigned districts
into the central Oak Cliff area.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/12/tippit-murder-why-conspiracy-theorists.html

> > It's possible Tippit did not connect LHO to that APB. One theory is LHO
> > changed directions when he saw the police car coming down the street,
> > which will always get a cop's attention. It could be Tippit thought he
> > was merely a local punk looking for an easy burglary situation.
>
> W don't know if Oswald changed directions, and we don't know why Tippit
> stopped him to talk. But since Tippit's main goal was to look for
> someone, it's possible he stopped Oswald in furtherance of that goal.
>
> > Had Tippit any suspicion LHO was the sniper he should have called in for
> > backup. As it was LHO caught this neighborhood cop completely off guard.
> > People had a tendency to underestimate LHO. He proved that was a deadly
> > mistake twice in one day.
>
> We don't know that Tippit was looking for a shooter. He was on his
> own. And Oswald was not someone that used weapons. We know that.

We know that LHO owned two weapons. We know he used one to murder a
police officer. We know he pulled his pistol inside the Texas Theater.
We know his rifle was found on the 6th floor of the building he left
without permission shortly after the shoots were fired from a window on
the same floor. We know he took a shot at General Walker because he
confessed to his wife. We know he practiced at "Lobfield" because he told
his wife and we know several witness at a public shooting range saw him
there and reported to the FBI.

> > > WRONG! As usual you fail to use your head for thinking. Whether a
> > > person specializes or not, they can still multi-task for a special project
> > > like murdering JFK!
> > >
> > > Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
> > > anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
> > > evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
> > > suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
> > > anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
> > > was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
> > > because he was being set up. There was NO bullets from the MC rifle that
> > > hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
> > > had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
> > > previously.
> > >
> > > The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
> > > like you running around irresponsibly saying there is tons of evidence,
> > > when there really isn't much at all.
> >
> > There is basic forensic evidence and a ton of circumstantial evidence.
>
> There's no basic evidence that Oswald was the shooter. Ownership of
> the rifle doesn't mean that the owner did any shooting.

How did his rifle get to the 6th floor of the TSBD building? If he did no
shooting why did he leave his job, go home to grab a pistol, shoot a DPD
officer who did not his gun drawn, and then try to shoot a police officer
inside a movie theater?

> We know he didn't even do any practicing.

We know his wife said he did.

Then where are the bullets that did hit and hurt persons inside the
Limousine? Did the sniper use bullets that evaporate into thin air?

> You need to stop playing with abbreviations to look knowledgeable.
> What's CABL? Any thing to do with TV?

I can't believe you asked this rookie question.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/printer/headlines/20071119.html

CABL or CBLA is no longer used by the FBI but at the time was used to
determine if the bullet fragments were similar or completely different.
In this case the fragments were similar. It can still be used by
prosecution or defense to do the same thing. The problem is CABL is not
definitive because of variation in batch, box, or even a single bullet.

> The bullet that was found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland was determined
> to be a test bullet that as used to replace the original CE399 bullet that
> had a pointy nose, and not a round one like the MC bullets.

You act like none of us are familiar with this issue so you can spoon feed
us what you want to believe. Tell us how the "test bullet" got to
Parkland ER, who put it there, and why TGC (The Gigantic Conspiracy)
anticipated a need for a whole intact bullet to frame LHO.

How did TGC know what the wounds would be like ahead of time? The ER
staff did not even know there was a through-and-through wound in the torso
or head. That was only determined later at the autopsy. Seems like a
foolish thing to do if bullets are found inside the body and there end up
being more bullets than wounds.

So you believe TGC was so stupid to bring the wrong kind of bullet with a
pointed nose? I'm not sure modern pointed bullets were being produced for
the Carcano in 1963 because of all the ammo made by WCC that was dumped on
the market and sold cheap for cheap milsurp rifles. It wasn't till later
when the Carcano rifle became a collectors item that there was demand for
modern ammo had to replace the original ammo that was hard to find.

> > If you believe this was a pre-fired bullet to frame LHO please explain why
> > TGC anticipated the need for a whole bullet compatible with a
> > through-and-through wound. CTs don't believe the SBT so why would the TGC
> > anticipate this kind of perforating wound in the first place? Is this why
> > they chose the so called "Mannlicher-Carcano" rifle knowing of its
> > notorious reputation of high penetration of human targets so they could
> > plant a bullet?
>
> Still playing with abbreviations? What's TGC? Otherwise the sentence
> means nothing to me. It's not a matter of not believing the SBT.

> You fail to understand that it had been proven to have NOT existed from the
> beginning.

I do fail to understand that. Please elaborate.

> I don't see how anyone could anticipate any SPECIFIC kind of wound.

Me either.

> I seriously doubt that anyone in any conspiracy "chose" the MC rifle.

Why not? Did you ever stop to think it might be an obvious clue, a
calling card from a certain group to let everyone know "We did that."?
Who could that be?

The other theory, it was CIA ammo so they could supply LHO with all the
ammo he needed to get up to speed on this weapon and still have a
plausible situation of a loner buying a cheap rifle to shoot the
President. Maybe TGC was so brilliant they had his scope preset to make
it easier to hit a moving target going to right.

Do you find it curious the Sportsdrome opened one month before the
assassination so LHO could easily practice there? Not only that but
witnesses would see him shooting in public. TGC thought this was a
perfect set up, not counting on the FBI to drop the ball on this slam
dunk.

> Oswald wasn't getting anywhere trying to get in with some folks there
> in Dallas, so it was suggested to him to get a rifle and look like he was
> serious.

To impress whom?

> He went out and bought the cheapest rifle he could find. There was NO
> consideration of the penetrating power of that cheapo, junk rifle.

I doubt LHO knew that either.

> The evidence is strong that the bullet on the WRONG gurney was planted.
> They had to get a bullet in place that could later be used as proof that
> Oswald had fired a bullet at JFK.

Why was it so important to have an extra bullet in ER? How did they know
there would be a reason for that bullet ahead of time?

> It didn't work though., The bullet that was left on the gurney was the wrong > shape, and later when it was replaced by an Oswald bullet, the replacement
> was caught by 4 men that had handled the original bullet.

Shows what a dumb idea it was to begin with. Somebody got chewed out for
that screw up right? Now TGC sounds more like the Keystone Cops than the
SPECTRE image promoted by CTs.

Again we know all the issues surrounding this story. It's not nearly as
clear cut as you want it to be.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:39:47 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

> > >=20

> > > A refreshing bit of honesty from you.
> > >
> > Are you suggesting that I'm usually dishonest? Or lying as its

> > called?=
> =20
> >=20
> I don't think we are allowed to suggest something like that.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > > > How=20

> > > > would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the conspiracy?

> > > > Ju=
> st=20
> > > > pretend...:)
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > The question is based on the false premise that there was a

> > > conspiracy.=
> =20

> > > Bugliosi had the best answer for it. If Oswald were part of a

> > > conspirac=
> y,=20

> > > there would have been a getaway car waiting for him which would drive

> > > h=
> im=20
> > > to his death.
> > >
> >=20
> >=20

> > LOL! You mean like a green rambler pulling up in front of the TSBD?

> >=20

> Which only Roger Craig claims to have seen and which Oswald never got
> into.

> >=20
> > =20

> > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that

> > > > an=
> y=20

> > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop

> > > > tryi=
> ng to=20

> > > > make it a bigger operation.

> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to

> > > shoot=
> =20

> > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > >

> >=20
> >=20

> > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though.

> > =

> It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.

> >=20

> If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald,

> yo= u better have his supervisor on board.=20
> >=20
> > =20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > > > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part to work

> > > > > > > > out=
> , but many=20

> > > > > > > > things were aided by many of them being in the government

> > > > > > > > ser=
> vice,
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy after

> > > > > > > all=
> .=20
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > You said that, not me.

> > > > >=20

> > > > > No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine. You

> > > > > wrote=
> "many=20

> > > > > of them being in the government service".
> > > > >

> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In the

> > > > past =
> I've=20

> > > > said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back. That

> > > > remains =
> the=20
> > > > same.
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > So in your mind "many" means 20 or less which is still only a subset

> > > of=
> =20
> > > the total conspirators since you said "many of them being in the=20

> > > government service". You aren't even counting the ones who were not

> > > in=
> =20
> > > government service.
> > >
> >=20
> >=20

> > I'm not including a few shooters from the Mafia as 'consultants'.

> > Othe=

> rwise I'm stating the number I think can pull it off. And ALL others

> were=

> in Government service...none on the outside so forget it.

> >=20

> It doesn't matter if they were in government service or not. If they

> partic= ipated in the cover up, they were part of the conspiracy wheter
> you want to=
> count them or not.=20
> >=20
> > =20
> > > >=20
> > > > =20
> > > > > > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a=20

> > > > > > plan like this without making it a monster.

> > > > >=20
> > > > > Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a piece you
> > > > > nee=
> d to=20
> > > > > add more conspirators.
> > > > >
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something someone

> > > > did,=
> you=20

> > > > jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing it,

> > > > it's =
> you. =20

> > > > Try using your head now and then.

> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover up

> > > while=
> =20

> > > saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't wash. To

> > > make =
> all=20

> > > that evidence against Oswald go away, you need a small army of

> > > people=
> =20
> > > participating in the cover up and that makes your conspiracy very=20
> > > large.
> > >
> >=20
> >=20

> > It washes very nicely. If you have a problem with it, it's your

> > proble=

> m. I've schooled you on it all many times. The FBI agents were NOT in

> on = the conspiracy for the most part. Only a few were. Give it up.
> >=20

> A "few" from the FBI. A "few" from the SS. A "few" from the DPD. A "few"

> fr= om the miilitary. With all the covering up you are alleging, that is
> a lot = of fews.=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > =20
> > > > > > But it didn't have to be. =20

> > > > > > But that's why they never recruited you.

> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20

> > > > > That and I was in 7th grade at the time. I would have had to play

> > > > > h=
> ooky.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > =20
> > > > > > > > and=20

> > > > > > > > some being in management positions. The faking of photos,

> > > > > > > > fi=
> lm, and=20

> > > > > > > > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many

> > > > > > > > witnesses=
> helped too.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through rather than

> > > > > > > j=
> ust admit=20

> > > > > > > that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any mental

> > > > > > > gyn=
> mastics to=20

> > > > > > > reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from point A

> > > > > > > to=
> point B.
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is still

> > > > > > > > going =
> on.
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > Don't blame us for your dismal failures.

> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > There really are few hoops to go through to plan something

> > > > > > lik=
> e this. =20
> > > > > > think it through.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20

> > > > > I have which is why I know this Rube Goldberg scheme required a

> > > > > hel=
> l of a=20

> > > > > lot more than just the few people you keep insisting were all

> > > > > that =
> was=20

> > > > > needed to pull it off. Everytime you have to explain away a piece

> > > > > o=
> f=20

> > > > > evidence, you have to add at least one conspirator to the mix.

> > > > > And =
> you=20

> > > > > have to explain away 53 pieces of evidence.

> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > BULL! Wrong again! The addition is your doing, not mine.

> > > > Everyth=
> ing=20

> > > > I've said depends on the numbers that I've quoted in the past.

> > > > You'r=
> e=20

> > > > just using the typical whine of the LNs, that it was a big

> > > > conspiracy=
> .
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > Every explanation you give for dismissing evidence requires that

> > > the=20 person who collected or analyzed that evidence had to be
> > > involved in=20 falsifying it. Everyone of those people you accuse
> > > becomes part of your=
> =20

> > > conspiracy so try as you might, you can't make all that evidence go

> > > awa=
> y=20

> > > with just a small number of people participating.

> >=20
> >=20

> > WRONG! And haven't you ever heard of multi-tasking?

> >=20

>
> Each person in the FBI specialized in analyzing different forms of
> evidence. You have fingerprint experts. You had ballistic experts. You
> had fiber experts and so on. In addition the WC went outside the FBI to
> get second opinions on key pieces of evidence. At every turn, that
> evidence pointed to Oswald alone as the shooter. To claim all that
> evidence was falsified, you knew a small army of people doiing the
> falsifying.
>

> > Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it might

> > mea=
> n=20

> > something different to me than you. After all, you're still big on

> > the=
> =20
> > old, tired WC myths.
> >=20

>
> You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an indication that
> Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't mean
> anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest as an
> indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it means
> anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder weapon
> which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who fired
> the murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where this
> is going.

===========================================================================
===== IF YOU TOOE TIME TO READ THE OFFICIAL RECORDS , YOU WOULD REALLY SEE
WHERE THIS IS GOING ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:51:10 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > =======================================================================
> > ==== === CORBETT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE SWINGLE BLLET WAS
> > BORN ! ! ! !
> > =======================================================================
> > ====
>
> Corbett doesn't need to know exactly when the SBT was born.

WOW ! MAYBE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT WAS INVENTED ON APRIL 15, 1963 OUT OF
"NECESSITY" ! ! ! SEE>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/SPECTER'S%20BULLSHIT.HTM

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
===== THE RIFLE FOUND IN THE TSBD WAS NOT EVEN FIRED ON FRIDAY 11/22/63 ! !
! ! SEE THE TETIMONY OF FBI AGENT ROBERT FRAZIER WHO EXAMINED IT ON
SATURDAY MORNING SEE>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/more__testimony_of_robert_a.htm PAGE 395 ! ! !
=========================================================================

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 2:20:03 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 10:02:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-4, mainframetech

> > > > > wrote=

> :
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:39:47 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > A refreshing bit of honesty from you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you suggesting that I'm usually dishonest? Or lying as

> > > > > > its=
> called?=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > I don't think we are allowed to suggest something like that.=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > I suggest you keep it in mind.

> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > How=20

> > > > > > > > would you silence Oswald if you were in charge of the

> > > > > > > > conspir=
> acy? Just=20
> > > > > > > > pretend...:)
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > The question is based on the false premise that there was a

> > > > > > > con=
> spiracy.=20

> > > > > > > Bugliosi had the best answer for it. If Oswald were part of a

> > > > > > > c=
> onspiracy,=20

> > > > > > > there would have been a getaway car waiting for him which

> > > > > > > would=
> drive him=20

> > > > > > > to his death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > LOL! You mean like a green rambler pulling up in front of

> > > > > > the=
> TSBD?
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > Which only Roger Craig claims to have seen and which Oswald never

> > > > > g=
> ot into.
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > WRONG! A number of witnesses saw the Rambler pull up, and some

> > > > of =
> them=20

> > > > also saw an Oswald lookalike run down to it and get in. The

> > > > witnesse=
> s=20

> > > > were Roger Craig, Marvin C. Robinson, Richard Carr, Helen Forrest,

> > > > Ro=
> y=20

> > > > Cooper, and James Pennington. That's 6 witnesses. Don't you keep

> > > > up =
> with=20
> > > > the case? From:=20
> > > > http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/roger-craig-vs-lon
> > > > e-=
> gunman=20
> > > > -zealots.html
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > Oh, the Oswald look alike got in the Rambler. That makes sense. Maybe

> > > t=
> hey=20

> > > killed their patsy's lookalike.
> > >

> >=20
> >=20
> > ::: sigh :::
> >=20

> > You stuck your oar in and made your usual mistake! I said

> > lookalike=
> =20

> > because there was also evidence that an Oswald like person had taken a

> > bu=
> s=20
> > and a cab in leaving the TSBD. I mention the Nash Rambler because 6=20

> > witnesses saw it and saw an Oswald looking person get into it.

> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > > > > > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy,

> > > > > > > > or=
> that any=20

> > > > > > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So

> > > > > > > > s=
> top trying to=20

> > > > > > > > make it a bigger operation.

> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed

> > > > > > > to=
> shoot=20

> > > > > > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > > > > > >

> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it

> > > > > > t=

> hough. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.

> > > > > >=20

> > > > > If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot

> > > > > Os=

> wald, you better have his supervisor on board.

> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for

> > > > som=
> eone. =20

> > > > No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to

> > > > talk =
> to=20
> > > > someone was Oswald.
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > Tippit was on patrol in Oak Cliff which is what his assignment was at

> > > t=
> he=20
> > > time.
> > >
> >=20
> >=20

> > Check it out. Tippit was reporting in now and then as if he was

> > where=
> =20

> > he was supposed to be, but he was running around looking for someone.

> > He=
> =20

> > stopped at a record store to make a phone call. He didn't use his

> > radio=
> =20

> > so it wasn't official business. He stopped a civilian driving and

> > checke=
> d=20

> > him out then rushed off when it wasn't who he was looking for.

> > Tippit=20 wasn't acting like he was on his normal patrol.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > The part after the murder was the hardest part

> > > > > > > > > > > > to =
> work out, but many=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > things were aided by many of them being in the

> > > > > > > > > > > > govern=
> ment service,
> > > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > > "Many of them". I guess it wasn't a little conspiracy

> > > > > > > > > > > a=
> fter all.=20
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > You said that, not me.

> > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > No, you said it. Check your statement that preceded mine.

> > > > > > > > > Y=
> ou wrote "many=20

> > > > > > > > > of them being in the government service".
> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > My phrase didn't state the number of people involved. In

> > > > > > > > t=
> he past I've=20

> > > > > > > > said about 10 on the front end, and 10-20 at the back.

> > > > > > > > That =
> remains the=20
> > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > So in your mind "many" means 20 or less which is still only a

> > > > > > > s=
> ubset of=20

> > > > > > > the total conspirators since you said "many of them being in

> > > > > > > th=
> e=20

> > > > > > > government service". You aren't even counting the ones who

> > > > > > > were=
> not in=20
> > > > > > > government service.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > I'm not including a few shooters from the Mafia as

> > > > > > 'consultants=

> '. Otherwise I'm stating the number I think can pull it off. And ALL

> oth= ers were in Government service...none on the outside so forget it.
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > It doesn't matter if they were in government service or not. If

> > > > > the=

> y participated in the cover up, they were part of the conspiracy whether

> yo= u want to count them or not.=20
> > > >=20

> > > > You can make the plotters as many as you want, no one can

> > > > convince =
> you=20
> > > > of anything sensible.
> > >=20

> > > How would you know? You've never presented anything sensible.

> > >=20
> > > > But don't make out that I had said anything like=20

> > > > what you would like to hear. I've given you my numbers.

> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > Yes you've given me numbers and they don't square with your

> > > bullshit=20 story. You say the conspiracy consisted of 20 people tops
> > > and yet you h=
> ave=20

> > > 53 pieces of evidence to explain away and some of those 53 pieces

> > > were=
> =20

> > > analyzed by more than one person and that evidence all pointed to

> > > Oswal=
> d.=20

> > > You need a lot more than 20 people to falsify that much evidence.
> > >

> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > NOPE, WRONG! I don't have 53 pieces of evidence to explain,

> > Bugliosi=
> =20

> > has. I have to explain the few people that did the murder. The

> > agents=
> =20

> > that helped support the 'lone gunman' wacky theory were just

> > following=20 Hoover, and were not in on any conspiracy.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > > > > > > > > > You're just unable to contemplate how to do a=20

> > > > > > > > > > plan like this without making it a monster.

> > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > Apparently neither do you because everytime you add a

> > > > > > > > > piece=
> you need to=20

> > > > > > > > > add more conspirators.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > WRONG! Every time I say anything related to something

> > > > > > > > some=
> one did, you=20

> > > > > > > > jump in and claim that it's more people. It ain't me doing

> > > > > > > > i=
> t, it's you. =20

> > > > > > > > Try using your head now and then.

> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > You keep trying to accuse people of participating in a cover

> > > > > > > up=
> while=20

> > > > > > > saying they weren't part of the conspiracy. That doesn't

> > > > > > > wash. =
> To make all=20

> > > > > > > that evidence against Oswald go away, you need a small army

> > > > > > > of =
> people=20

> > > > > > > participating in the cover up and that makes your conspiracy

> > > > > > > ve=
> ry=20
> > > > > > > large.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > It washes very nicely. If you have a problem with it, it's

> > > > > > you=

> r problem. I've schooled you on it all many times. The FBI agents were

> NO= T in on the conspiracy for the most part. Only a few were. Give it
> up.
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > A "few" from the FBI. A "few" from the SS. A "few" from the DPD.

> > > > > A =

> "few" from the miilitary. With all the covering up you are alleging, that

> i= s a lot of fews.=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > WRONG! I never said military,=20
> > >=20

> > > OK. So you are exhonorating Humes, Boswell, Finck, and their

> > > superiors.=
> =20

> > > Nice to know you no longer think they falsified their autopsy report.

> > >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > Give it up. It appears that you can't understand anything you've

> > had=
> =20

> > explained to you. The prosectors were NOT in on any conspiracy.

> > They=20 were ordered to sign of on the AR that Humes wrote.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > > > and the DPD is only a guess as to there=20

> > > > being one guy to kill Oswald. And as it worked out, a mafia guy

> > > > did =
> it=20
> > > > after all.
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > Did what? Kill Oswald? So if you are letting the DPD off the hook,

> > > that=
> =20

> > > means you don't think they deliberately set up Oswald to be murdered.

> > > I=
> t=20

> > > means you accept the validity of the palm print Lt. Day lifted from

> > > the=
> =20

> > > barrel of the Carcano. It means that all the other evidence they

> > > gather=
> ed=20

> > > at the crime scene was legitimate. And if you are going to claim they

> > > o=
> nly=20

> > > had one guy who was supposed to kill Oswald, that means either a cop

> > > wh=
> o=20

> > > was supposed to kill him in the TSBD or Tippit. You can have one but

> > > no=
> t=20

> > > both if only one guy was supposed to kill him.

> > >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > As usual, you jump into the fire from the frying pan you were in. I

> > di=
> d=20

> > NOT say the DPD was in in any conspiracy. A cop MAY have been

> > enlisted,=
> =20
> > or may not have been. I don't know what method they had for killing=20

> > Oswald, but it had to be done somehow. Since the MC rifle was

> > Oswald's, =
> I=20

> > would expect his prints to be on it. I only believe that they had

> > hopes=
> =20

> > of killing Oswald in the TSBD because they were very frustrated when

> > he=
> =20

> > got away, as far as Tippit's mad flight to find someone shows.

> >=20

>
> So was it the real Oswald or a lookalike who got arrested at the Texas
> Theater. With the Tippit murder weapon in his hand. And a transfer from
> Cecil McWatters bus in his pocket.
>

> >=20
> >=20
> > > > > > > > > > But it didn't have to be. =20

> > > > > > > > > > But that's why they never recruited you.

> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > That and I was in 7th grade at the time. I would have had

> > > > > > > > > t=
> o play hooky.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > =20
> > > > > > > > > > > > and=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > some being in management positions. The faking of

> > > > > > > > > > > > ph=
> otos, film, and=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > X-rays helped, and changing the testimonies of many

> > > > > > > > > > > > w=
> itnesses helped too.
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > > It's amazing the hoops you guys will jump through

> > > > > > > > > > > rathe=
> r than just admit=20

> > > > > > > > > > > that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. No need for any

> > > > > > > > > > > me=
> ntal gynmastics to=20

> > > > > > > > > > > reach that conclusion. Just follow the evidence from

> > > > > > > > > > > po=
> int A to point B.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > > > With the help of the LN kooks the cover up is

> > > > > > > > > > > > stil=
> l going on.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > > Don't blame us for your dismal failures.

> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > > There really are few hoops to go through to plan

> > > > > > > > > > somet=
> hing like this. =20

> > > > > > > > > > think it through.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > > I have which is why I know this Rube Goldberg scheme

> > > > > > > > > requir=
> ed a hell of a=20

> > > > > > > > > lot more than just the few people you keep insisting were

> > > > > > > > > a=
> ll that was=20

> > > > > > > > > needed to pull it off. Everytime you have to explain away

> > > > > > > > > a=
> piece of=20

> > > > > > > > > evidence, you have to add at least one conspirator to the

> > > > > > > > > m=
> ix. And you=20

> > > > > > > > > have to explain away 53 pieces of evidence.

> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > > BULL! Wrong again! The addition is your doing, not

> > > > > > > > mine. =
> Everything=20

> > > > > > > > I've said depends on the numbers that I've quoted in the

> > > > > > > > past=
> . You're=20

> > > > > > > > just using the typical whine of the LNs, that it was a big

> > > > > > > > co=
> nspiracy.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20

> > > > > > > Every explanation you give for dismissing evidence requires

> > > > > > > tha=
> t the=20

> > > > > > > person who collected or analyzed that evidence had to be

> > > > > > > involv=
> ed in=20

> > > > > > > falsifying it. Everyone of those people you accuse becomes

> > > > > > > part=
> of your=20

> > > > > > > conspiracy so try as you might, you can't make all that

> > > > > > > evidenc=
> e go away=20

> > > > > > > with just a small number of people participating.

> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20

> > > > > > WRONG! And haven't you ever heard of multi-tasking?

> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20

> > > > > Each person in the FBI specialized in analyzing different forms

> > > > > of=
> =20

> > > > > evidence. You have fingerprint experts. You had ballistic

> > > > > experts. =
> You had=20

> > > > > fiber experts and so on. In addition the WC went outside the FBI

> > > > > to=
> get=20

> > > > > second opinions on key pieces of evidence. At every turn, that

> > > > > evid=
> ence=20

> > > > > pointed to Oswald alone as the shooter. To claim all that

> > > > > evidence =
> was=20

> > > > > falsified, you knew a small army of people doiing the falsifying.

> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > WRONG! As usual you fail to use your head for thinking.

> > > > Whether =
> a=20

> > > > person specializes or not, they can still multi-task for a special

> > > > pr=
> oject=20
> > > > like murdering JFK!
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > Name one FBI expert who analyzed different forms of evidence and

> > > then=
> =20

> > > testified to that before the WC. Nobody did that. If you are going

> > > to=
> =20

> > > claim that evidence was falsified, you need at least on person for

> > > each=
> of=20

> > > those pieces of evidence. And since in a number of cases more than

> > > one=
> =20

> > > person was asked to render a judgement on a particular piece of

> > > evidenc=
> e,=20

> > > you need more than one person participating for each of those pieces.

> > >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > Don't be ridiculous. Specializing doesn't mean someone can't be

> > part=
> =20

> > of a murder conspiracy, and multi-task.
>
> Specializing means the fingerprint expert is not going to be working on
> the ballistics evidence and vice versa. Every piece of evidence was
> analyzed by a seperate individual or group in the FBI so if you are going
> to allege all the evidence was falsified, you need a different person
> doing the falsifying for each different type of evidence.
>

> > No one said anything about=20

> > testifying within their specialty. There was not too much evidence

> > that=
> =20

> > needed a specialist.
>
> Do you seriously think the people who analyze different forms of evidence
> for the FBI don't specialize in that particular area? Do you think they
> are general practicioners?
>

> > The bullet custodian was in a position to do the=20

> > most for the evidence. Most other stuff was general like witnesses

> > and=20 what they had to say. That could be done by anyone. Give
> > examples of=20 evidence that had to be tampered with and I'll let you
> > know if a=20 specialist was needed.

>
> Fingerprint evidence.
> Ballistic evidence.
> Fiber evidence.
> Photographic evidence.
> Medical evidence.
> Handwriting evidence.
>
> That should be a good for starters.
>

> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > > > Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not

> > > > "claimi=
> ng"=20

> > > > anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the

> > > > ca=
> se of=20

> > > > evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence

> > > > th=
> at=20

> > > > suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was

> > > > his=
> , but=20

> > > > anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but

> > > > th=
> ere=20

> > > > was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of

> > > > something, =
> but=20

> > > > because he was being set up. There were NO bullets from the MC

> > > > rifle=
> that=20

> > > > hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker

> > > > sho=
> oting=20

> > > > had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've

> > > > shown=20 previously.
> > >=20

> > > You are claiming that the evidence that indicates Oswald was guilty

> > > was=
> =20

> > > falsified by the investigators. You have 53 pieces of evidence to

> > > expla=
> in=20

> > > away. Many of those 53 pieces had multiple people handling and

> > > analyzin=
> g=20

> > > it. To claim that all that evidence was fraudulent, you need to have

> > > a=
> =20

> > > small army of people doing the falsifying.

> > >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > BULL! I don't have 53 pieces of anything. Bugliosi may have.

> > Name=
> =20
> > the evidence that had to be tampered with and I'll let you know if a=20

> > specialist is necessary, or who might be able to handle it.

> >=20
>
> I just did.
>
> >=20
> >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is

> > > > peopl=
> e=20

> > > > like you running around irresponsibly saying there was tons of

> > > > eviden=
> ce,=20

> > > > when there really isn't much at all.

> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > There is ample evidence of his guilt. And a good conspiracy hobbyist

> > > wi=
> ll=20

> > > invent any silly excuse he can to dismiss it all.

> > >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > "Ample evidence" is your opinion, and opinion doesn't make for

> > good=20 evidence at a trial.
> >=20

>
> Thank you for proving what I just said.
>

> >=20
> >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > > > Oh, A note for you. I don't dismiss evidence, but some of it

> > > > > > m=
> ight mean=20

> > > > > > something different to me than you. After all, you're still

> > > > > > big =
> on the=20

> > > > > > old, tired WC myths.
> > > > > >=20

> > > > >=20

> > > > > You mean like when I look at the recovered bullets as an

> > > > > indication=
> that=20

> > > > > Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon and you think it doesn't

> > > > > mean=
> =20

> > > > > anything. Or I look at Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest

> > > > > a=
> s an=20

> > > > > indication he was in the sniper's nest and you don't think it

> > > > > means=
> =20

> > > > > anything. Or I look at the fibers on the butt plate of the murder

> > > > > w=
> eapon=20

> > > > > which matched Oswald's shirt as an indication he was the one who

> > > > > fi=
> red the=20

> > > > > murder weapon and you don't think it means anything. I see where

> > > > > th=
> is is=20
> > > > > going.
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > Talk about foolish! Finding a couple bullets that match the MC

> > > > ri=
> fle=20

> > > > is a long way from finding bullets in a body, or proof that those

> > > > bul=
> lets=20
> > > > hit or hurt anyone.=20
> > >=20

> > > Since there were no bullets in the body, I guess that means nobody

> > > did =
> it.=20

> > > Where did you get the crazy idea that bullets need to be found in the

> > > b=
> ody=20

> > > to be probative? When I was on a jury in a murder trial, we were

> > > given =
> two=20

> > > bullets that had been recovered OUTSIDE the victim's body. Both

> > > were=20 admitted into evidence without objection by the defense and
> > > without any=
> =20

> > > proof offered by the prosecution that they were the bullets that

> > > had=20 killed the victim.
> > >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > Don't bother to do the dramatic exaggerations. It's phony device.

> > =20 There are a number of ways that bullets can leave a body, if they
> > were=20 there in the first place. Your trial has no bearing here. The
> > situation=
> =20
> > is different.=20

>
> The common denominator is that the deceased was killed by two bullets
> that went completely through their bodies and it is not necessary to
> prove that those bullets passed through the bodies for the bullets to be
> probative. This is just another of your red herring excuses for
> dismissing damning evidence of Oswald's guilt.
>

> > We've been over all that. One way has been suggested by=20

> > your LN buddies. A bullet fell out of a body. Custer saw a bullet

> > fall=
> =20

> > out of the back of JFK, so if a bullet could fall out to land on a

> > gurney=
> ,=20

> > why can't one fall out onto a table during the autopsy?
>
> The bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh had been severly slowed by
> passing through two torsos and striking Connally's wrist. What do you
> suppose could have slowed the bullet that Custer allegedly saw fall out
> of JFK's back?
>

> > Another way is=20
> > for certain people to actually search the body and retrieve bullets=20

> > surgically, as was the case with Humes and Boswell.

> >=20

>
> Oh, this is where you get to make up stuff for which you have no
> evidence.
>

> =20
> >=20
> >=20
> > > > And all the other items we've talked to death, and=20

> > > > they don't show any more than the bullets that connect to no harm

> > > > to=
> =20

> > > > anyone. But Your WC lawyers told you Oswald was the guy, so you go

> > > > w=
> ith=20
> > > > it to the end.
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > I will concede that conspiracy hobbyists are creative enough to

> > > invent =
> any=20

> > > excuse they need to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt.

> > > Tha=
> t=20

> > > doesn't make the evidence go away. It just gives them the excuses

> > > they=
> =20

> > > need to claim Oswald was framed.

> >=20
> >=20

> > First, I don't make "claims', and second, I don't dismiss evidence,
>
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> > I use it one way or another. Sometimes it shows conspiracy or

> > tampering=
> =20

> > with evidence or whatever, but I don't simply dismiss it.

> >=20

>
> None of the evidence shows conspiracy which is why you dismiss all of it.

[John McAdams]

On 24 May 2015 18:24:55 -0400, tom...@cox.net wrote:

>===========================================================================
>===== THE RIFLE FOUND IN THE TSBD WAS NOT EVEN FIRED ON FRIDAY 11/22/63 ! !
>! ! SEE THE TETIMONY OF FBI AGENT ROBERT FRAZIER WHO EXAMINED IT ON
>SATURDAY MORNING SEE>>
>http://www.whokilledjfk.net/more__testimony_of_robert_a.htm PAGE 395 ! ! !
>=========================================================================
>

You need to quit saying things that aren't true.

The testimony you cited shows no such thing.

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

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 10:03:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 2:24:48 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 3:42:59 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 12:04:26 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. The President of the United States was assassinated and no
> > > > > one in law enforcement wanted to catch who did it. All they
> > > > > wanted to do was frame little old LHO. That includes the DPD.
> > > > > They didn't have any interest in catching the person who killed
> > > > > one of the officers. They just wanted to pin it on someone who
> > > > > didn't do it.
> > > > >

> > > > > Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to live.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >

> > > > WRONG! At least try to make sense some of the time. Most of
> > > > law enforcement would like to catch a criminal, and they would also
> > > > like to get the pressure off themselves, as has been the case for
> > > > police forces for many years. Once Oswald was named and caught,
> > > > they were only too glad to go with the FBI's choice of tying up
> > > > loose ends.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess they didn't give a shit if the guy who murdered their fellow
> > > officer got away with it.
> >
> >
> > In their minds, he was caught and then killed. They got the killer
> > (Ruby) and they were done. All tied up in a neat package. As to them
> > not caring, it's amazing how little the police and the prosecutors care
> > sometimes. look into the statistics for the "Innocence Project".
> > They've caught and convicted many totally innocent people, just to get
> > the crime solved.
> >
>
> It you don't think a police department is going to do everything in their
> power to nail somebody who murdered one of their officers, you don't know
> cops very well. And they are going to want get the right guy, not just
> get the case off the books.

===========================================================================
===== CORBETT NEVER HEARD OD "SERPICO" EITHER ! ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

[mainframetech]

The proof was supplied by timings taken of the DPD cop (Baker) who went
into the TSBD and saw Oswald in the lunchroom. There was not enough time
for Oswald to get from the 6th floor window through the pallets on the 6th
floor to the elevator, find it wasn't there, go to the steps and race down
the steps while women that worked there were spotted at various points and
times along the stairs and would have seen him running down.

Along with that more direct proof, there was also the proof that Oswald
did no practice with his rifle or he would have fixed the problems with
it, so he didn't plan to shoot at anyone.



> > We know he left the TSBD early though.

>
> Early is a relative term. Earlier than what? We do know he left the
> building without permission and failed to notify his supervisor after
> reaching his boarding house that he was OK and would be reporting back to
> work on Monday.
>

You got it!!! Right you are!!

> > > > > > > > The supervisor didn't have to know there was a conspiracy, or that any
> > > > > > > > cop had been assigned (or volunteered) to shoot Oswald. So stop trying to
> > > > > > > > make it a bigger operation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Suppose the supervisor had assigned the cop who was supposed to shoot
> > > > > > > Oswald somewhere nowhere near DP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wouldn't know if a supervisor did that or not. I doubt it though. It's not necessary to have a supervisor involved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > If you want to make sure your assigned cop is available to shoot Oswald, you better have his supervisor on board.
> > > >
> > > > Don't be ridiculous! Tippit was all over the place looking for someone.
> > > > No evidence of a supervisor. And the first place he stopped to talk to
> > > > someone was Oswald.
> > >
> > > If he was looking for LHO why not park on his street? If he was only
> > > looking for someone, who would that be and how would he know he had the
> > > right guy? Sounds more like a regular police officer responding to the
> > > APB description which wasn't all that accurate.
> >
> > We don't know if Tippit was looking for Oswald. There WAS a cop car
> > that stopped on Oswald's street, but I don't know who was driving.
> > Tippit's movements were not recorded at the dispatch point. So he was
> > moving on his own without any supervisor's direction, or any APB.
>
> In 1967, Jackson told Dallas newsman Eddie Barker that the police response
> to the Kennedy assassination was draining Oak Cliff of available officers
> so he ordered R.C. Nelson and J.D. Tippit from their assigned districts
> into the central Oak Cliff area.
>
> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/12/tippit-murder-why-conspiracy-theorists.html
>

Talk about nonsense! I saw this statement in that article:

"Mr. Thomas claims as fact "that Tippit was not on his routine patrol as
the Warren Commission claimed" (a falsehood right off the bat since the
Warren Report never wrote such a thing in any of their discussions of the
Tippit case."

I could have laughed myself silly! The WCR never mentioned it, so he
takes that as gospel that Tippit was doing exactly what he was told as to
being where he should be! What it no one told the WC about Tippit's
movements, or what if the WC ignored anything said about Tippit's
movements? Baloney.

THEN we get proof that Tippit was where he was supposed to be:

At 12:55 p.m., Jackson contacted Tippit to make sure he had remained in
Oak Cliff:

"Jackson: 78.
Tippit: 78.
Jackson: You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?
Tippit: Lancaster and Eighth.
Jackson: You will be at large for any emergency that comes in.
Tippit: 10-4."

Now how does that prove that Tippit is where he's supposed to be? When
asked he only has only to name an address in that area, even if he was in
California, and he is believed! Ridiculous! Later the author says:

"There were no Glo-Co service stations located near Lancaster and Eighth
in 1963. [60] In fact, there were no service stations at all in the area
of Lancaster and Eighth (where Tippit radioed from)."

So he compounds his stupidity by using the previous mistake as proof
that Tippit was where he said he was!!!

I finally had to stop reading. It's total baloney. 5 People SAW
Tippit at the gas station, and they all knew him from before, and the same
for the Top 10 Record Shop where he stopped to make a phone call, instead
of using the dispatcher for police business. As well the citizen Tippit
stopped stated that he did it. All the movements of Tippit are recorded
here with witnesses. Check it out and stop putting up bull that depends
on the stupid WCR!

>
> > > It's possible Tippit did not connect LHO to that APB. One theory is LHO
> > > changed directions when he saw the police car coming down the street,
> > > which will always get a cop's attention. It could be Tippit thought he
> > > was merely a local punk looking for an easy burglary situation.
> >
> > W don't know if Oswald changed directions, and we don't know why Tippit
> > stopped him to talk. But since Tippit's main goal was to look for
> > someone, it's possible he stopped Oswald in furtherance of that goal.
> >
> > > Had Tippit any suspicion LHO was the sniper he should have called in for
> > > backup. As it was LHO caught this neighborhood cop completely off guard.
> > > People had a tendency to underestimate LHO. He proved that was a deadly
> > > mistake twice in one day.
> >
> > We don't know that Tippit was looking for a shooter. He was on his
> > own. And Oswald was not someone that used weapons. We know that.
>
> We know that LHO owned two weapons. We know he used one to murder a
> police officer. We know he pulled his pistol inside the Texas Theater.
> We know his rifle was found on the 6th floor of the building he left
> without permission shortly after the shoots were fired from a window on
> the same floor. We know he took a shot at General Walker because he
> confessed to his wife. We know he practiced at "Lobfield" because he told
> his wife and we know several witness at a public shooting range saw him
> there and reported to the FBI.
>

Nope, we don't know for sure that Oswald killed Tippit. There are
conflicting stories about that. We don't know whether Marina was coerced
into saying that Oswald told her about Walker, because the whole Walker
story was baloney and a setup. That's been shown.

WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW that Oswald did NOT practice wit his rifle at any
place, or he would have had his rifle fixed, since it had all those
faults. The few witnesses at the rifle range were ignored by the FBI and
the WC. The story was bull anyway. They probably wanted some free
advertising.

> > > > WRONG! As usual you fail to use your head for thinking. Whether a
> > > > person specializes or not, they can still multi-task for a special project
> > > > like murdering JFK!
> > > >
> > > > Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
> > > > anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
> > > > evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
> > > > suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
> > > > anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
> > > > was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
> > > > because he was being set up. There was NO bullets from the MC rifle that
> > > > hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
> > > > had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
> > > > previously.
> > > >
> > > > The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
> > > > like you running around irresponsibly saying there is tons of evidence,
> > > > when there really isn't much at all.
> > >
> > > There is basic forensic evidence and a ton of circumstantial evidence.
> >
> > There's no basic evidence that Oswald was the shooter. Ownership of
> > the rifle doesn't mean that the owner did any shooting.
>
> How did his rifle get to the 6th floor of the TSBD building? If he did no
> shooting why did he leave his job, go home to grab a pistol, shoot a DPD
> officer who did not his gun drawn, and then try to shoot a police officer
> inside a movie theater?
>

If you had listened earlier, you would have seen where I said that I
believe that Oswald was given a reason to take the rifle out of the
blanket in the garage and bring it in to work. The reason might have been
to sell it, or to trade it, or show it, or any normal reason. He
certainly didn't think of there being any problem, since he didn't take
his pistol with him, which he did when he thought there was going to be
trouble.

I have to add that the FBI checked Oswald's revolver and found that he
DID NOT fire it or even attempt to figure it at any officer in the
theater. There was a mark on one of the bullets but it wasn't from the
firing pin.

> > We know he didn't even do any practicing.
>
> We know his wife said he did.
>

We know that his wife was compromised by the FBI, and I've shown the
proof.

Well, I'm glad you asked. One bullet was the one that hit JFK in the
forehead/temple area, which had to be a lead bullet. It dispersed through
to head. Custer the X-ray technician saw the proof in one of his side
head X-rays. Just where the bullet entered the forehead, the trail of
small metal fragments begins and proceeds toward the rear. As it goes it
enlarges in a cone shape toward the blow-out hole at the BOH of JFK that
was seen by 65 witnesses. Another bullet hit JFK in the upper back, and
the bullet was a 'weak' one and didn't penetrate more about an inch. It
was seen to fall out of the back of JFK by Custer, and he saw Finck grab
it with forceps and it 'disappeared' after that.

Another bullet went into the throat of JFK, and either came out the rear
from a wound that wasn't reported (for a good reason), or was dug out by
Humes and Boswell during their clandestine 'surgery' of the body. they
made it clear rto the X-ray technicians that they were looking for bullets
or fragments. And I believe the idea was that if they found them, they
would do away with them, so that there was NO identification of some other
gun than Oswald's.

We also had a bullet (at least one) that hit Connally from the back.
It was found during his surgery, and a nurse brought it out of the OR and
gave it to a law enforcement person. That bullet was never seen again.

> > You need to stop playing with abbreviations to look knowledgeable.
> > What's CABL? Any thing to do with TV?
>
> I can't believe you asked this rookie question.
>
> http://www.nationalacademies.org/printer/headlines/20071119.html
>
> CABL or CBLA is no longer used by the FBI but at the time was used to
> determine if the bullet fragments were similar or completely different.
> In this case the fragments were similar. It can still be used by
> prosecution or defense to do the same thing. The problem is CABL is not
> definitive because of variation in batch, box, or even a single bullet.
>

I agree that the technique was flawed. There was also a method to do
the very same thing, but it was called NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis).
It was flawed also and was found not to be reliable.

> > The bullet that was found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland was determined
> > to be a test bullet that as used to replace the original CE399 bullet that
> > had a pointy nose, and not a round one like the MC bullets.
>
> You act like none of us are familiar with this issue so you can spoon feed
> us what you want to believe. Tell us how the "test bullet" got to
> Parkland ER, who put it there, and why TGC (The Gigantic Conspiracy)
> anticipated a need for a whole intact bullet to frame LHO.
>

AHA! TGC is another of your made up abbreviations that you didn't tell
your readers. 'The Gigantic Conspiracy'. I have news...it wasn't that
big, and didn't have to be.

Don't hand me a lot of bull about my not explaining what the story is
behind the replacement of the CE399 bullet. I've told it over and over,
and if you weren't listening, then you have the problem, not me. Here it
is briefly:

A bullet was snuck into Parkland hospital and left on a gurney in the
hall. It was the WRONG gurney, so it was stupid mistake. That hall was
open to most people, so there's no proof of who did it, though Jack Ruby
said hello to a reporter there (Seth Kantor). Later, Ruby said that he
had never been there, and the WC believed him over Kantor!!

The bullet that was left on the WRONG gurney (used by a little boy),
was found by a hospital employee and turned over to another employee.
They mentioned it to some SS agents and they took the bullet. It was
handed over to the FBI bullet custodian. there was NO proof that the
bullet found on the WRONG gurney had anything to do with the JFK murder.
Someone assumed that it came from Connally's gurney and had fallen out of
one of his wounds. The bullet was a typical pointed nose bullet.

Next day, the bullet custodian and some others from the FBI tested
Oswald's MC rifle by firing up to 60 bullets into various materials.
Wadding and solid items were used.

I believe that the custodian saved many bullets from those tests, and
used one of them that was fired into wadding or water and replaced the
CE399 pointy bullet with a round nosed MC type bullet from Oswald's MC
rifle. Now the custodian had a bullet that someone thought was from the
murder of JFK, and it was from Oswald's rifle. The custodian had to copy
a few initials from the original CFE399 bullet over to the fake CE399, but
he left some out and later it was found out.

later the bullet was checked against the MC rifle and it was found that
it matched, so now they had a bullet from the gurney that was from the MC
rifle. The original bullet was 'disappeared' by now.

It all would have been a beautiful plan except that later someone
thought there was some fooling going on with the CE399 bullet, so they
decided to show it to the people that had handled it the day of the
murder. They showed it to 4 men, 2 of whom were SS agents. All 4 men
refused to identify the bullet! The 2 SS agents, who should have put
their initialed on bullet evidence, refused to identify the bullet. The
other 2 men also refused, but one of them (Wright) said that he knew it
wasn't the right bullet because it was the wrong shape. He knew that the
original bullet was pointy nosed and not round nosed like the bullet they
showed him.

The plan would have been OK except for the witnesses that saw that it
wasn't the same bullet. The same problem gave away the Walker bullet
replacement. Walker himself had seen the bullet that was fired at him, so
when they tried to show of the fake bullet, he recognized immediately that
it wasn't the right bullet, and he wrote them and complained.

OK, Claviger, are you now going to remember the story of the
replacements? I don't ant to do it all over again, and I know you tend to
not listen or forget easily. Maybe you should save it for later.

> How did TGC know what the wounds would be like ahead of time? The ER
> staff did not even know there was a through-and-through wound in the torso
> or head. That was only determined later at the autopsy. Seems like a
> foolish thing to do if bullets are found inside the body and there end up
> being more bullets than wounds.
>

The little conspiracy didn't know what specific wounds there would be.
But their plan didn't need for them to know. Why do you think they had to
know?

> So you believe TGC was so stupid to bring the wrong kind of bullet with a
> pointed nose? I'm not sure modern pointed bullets were being produced for
> the Carcano in 1963 because of all the ammo made by WCC that was dumped on
> the market and sold cheap for cheap milsurp rifles. It wasn't till later
> when the Carcano rifle became a collectors item that there was demand for
> modern ammo had to replace the original ammo that was hard to find.
>

::: sigh ::: Think it through. The wrong bullet from the WRONG gurney
was only in the hands of the custodian for one day before it was replaced
with an Oswald bullet. With all the furor and chaos going on, no one
would worry about the evidence as long as it was being saved. The
custodian (if asked) could say he wanted to collect all bullets and test
them all together. Or any number of reasons to put it off for one day.

>
> > > If you believe this was a pre-fired bullet to frame LHO please explain why
> > > TGC anticipated the need for a whole bullet compatible with a
> > > through-and-through wound. CTs don't believe the SBT so why would the TGC

The little conspiracy didn't have to care about most problems, since
the bullet custodian was in their pocket. The bullet that was left on the
WRONG gurney at Parkland could be any bullet. It didn't have to go
through a person or any such complication. A plain old bullet from
someone's clip would do. It was going to be replaced in a day with an
Oswald bullet.

> > > anticipate this kind of perforating wound in the first place? Is this why
> > > they chose the so called "Mannlicher-Carcano" rifle knowing of its
> > > notorious reputation of high penetration of human targets so they could
> > > plant a bullet?
> >
> > Still playing with abbreviations? What's TGC? Otherwise the sentence
> > means nothing to me. It's not a matter of not believing the SBT.
>
> > You fail to understand that it had been proven to have NOT existed from the
> > beginning.
>
> I do fail to understand that. Please elaborate.
>

I have explained why the SBT is dead many, many times. Are you now
going to tell me that you've made comments on it and yet can't remember
the whole thing that I've described? Or are you just wasting my time?
I'll give you the list of 3 reasons why it's dead, but only briefly. Go
look at the archives:

1. The prosectors after their investigation of the wound in the upper
back, looked hard for the bullet and the path for it, and failed at both
efforts. They finally got to the point where they said "There's NO EXIT"
for the bullet from the body of JFK. Humes offered that it probably
worked itself out during heart massage at Parkland. By saying that, he
admitted that he knew the bullet hadn't penetrated more than an inch into
the body of JFK and therefore could work out.

2. The Autopsy Report stated that "The pleura was INTACT", and since the
bullet stopped at the pleura, it couldn't go past without tearing or
puncturing it, and therefore couldn't get to the throat wound and exit,
and therefore couldn't go on to hit Connally.

3. The X-ray Technician, Jerrol Custer, stated under oath that when he
raised up the body to get a good shot, he saw a bullet sized fragment fall
out of the BACK of JFK. He saw Finck grab it with forceps and he never
saw it again.

Now those 3 reasons prove that the SBT is dead. BUT, if you were to
disprove any 2 of those reasons, any one of them would kill the SBT. So
the SBT is dead. The bullet never left the body of JFK.

> > I don't see how anyone could anticipate any SPECIFIC kind of wound.
>
> Me either.
>
> > I seriously doubt that anyone in any conspiracy "chose" the MC rifle.
>
> Why not? Did you ever stop to think it might be an obvious clue, a
> calling card from a certain group to let everyone know "We did that."?
> Who could that be?
>

In going through the evidence, it appears from the overview to be a
conspiracy of mostly government people to me. I don't see the signs of
any other group involved.

> The other theory, it was CIA ammo so they could supply LHO with all the
> ammo he needed to get up to speed on this weapon and still have a
> plausible situation of a loner buying a cheap rifle to shoot the
> President. Maybe TGC was so brilliant they had his scope preset to make
> it easier to hit a moving target going to right.
>

I'm not interested in you pretending to play with me. I don't see other
conspiracies, or even a "gigantic" conspiracy like you would like to think
it was.

> Do you find it curious the Sportsdrome opened one month before the
> assassination so LHO could easily practice there? Not only that but
> witnesses would see him shooting in public. TGC thought this was a
> perfect set up, not counting on the FBI to drop the ball on this slam
> dunk.
>

I don't find anything about that, since not only did the FBI reject it,
but the WC too. And they both wanted every bit of evidence they could get
a hold of against Oswald, since there was so little there.
I looked at it once myself, and reported to you what I found, though
I've forgotten the details of why it was a stupid idea.

> > Oswald wasn't getting anywhere trying to get in with some folks there
> > in Dallas, so it was suggested to him to get a rifle and look like he was
> > serious.
>
> To impress whom?
>

Probably Cubans who were angry with JFK for not backing them up at the
Bay of Pigs. But I'm guessing. If he could get in with them, then he
could report to the FBI/others what they were doing. But they were
probably suspicious of him and he needed to look more serious about their
cause. By buying a rifle and taking his photo with it and his revolver,
he could look more rough and ready.

> > He went out and bought the cheapest rifle he could find. There was NO
> > consideration of the penetrating power of that cheapo, junk rifle.
>
> I doubt LHO knew that either.
>
>
> > The evidence is strong that the bullet on the WRONG gurney was planted.
> > They had to get a bullet in place that could later be used as proof that
> > Oswald had fired a bullet at JFK.
>
> Why was it so important to have an extra bullet in ER? How did they know
> there would be a reason for that bullet ahead of time?
>

What bullet in ER? The Connally bullet? The bullet found on the WRONG
gurney wasn't in ER. It was in the hall near the elevators.



> > It didn't work though. The bullet left on the gurney was the wrong

shape, and later when it was replaced by an Oswald bullet, the replacement
> > was caught by 4 men that had handled the original bullet.
>
> Shows what a dumb idea it was to begin with. Somebody got chewed out for
> that screw up right? Now TGC sounds more like the Keystone Cops than the
> SPECTRE image promoted by CTs.
>

How would I know who got chewed out? Are you losing it again? The idea
worked great. To this day you and your LNs still believe that the CE399
bullet was one that killed JFK. You never try to explain how that was
done though....:)

> Again we know all the issues surrounding this story. It's not nearly as
> clear cut as you want it to be.
>

Depends on how well you know your information...:)

[mainframetech]

Dunno which was which. I related the story of the lookalike, and I
used that word because of the information about the bus and cab. It is a
bit disturbing that the driver of the Nash was said to be swarthy and
short. As was the killer with a revolver at the killing of Tippit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

Clemmons saw a short, chunky, dark complectioned man reloading his
revolver while an Oswald 'lookalike' was waved to run away, and did.

I haven't said that all the evidence was falsified. That's a phrase
that came from you. But that's one of your gimmicks. Create a situation
then blame the other person for it, acting like they had said it. There
are very few specialists involved on the case where they had to be aware
of any conspiracy. Mainly the bullet custodian. The FBI lab didn't have
to be in on anything, which covers many of the specialists.

Better if you name the specialists so I can call you silly and explain
it all away.

> > No one said anything about
> > testifying within their specialty. There was not too much evidence that
> > needed a specialist.
>
> Do you seriously think the people who analyze different forms of evidence
> for the FBI don't specialize in that particular area? Do you think they
> are general practicioners?
>

WRONG! Where do you get this stuff? I consider the general agents
that participated in the questioning of the many witnesses, and searched
for the gun shop that might have sold ammo to Oswald, and those sort of
tasks as 'general practitioners". Name the specialists that might cause
the number s of a conspiracy to increase.

> > The bullet custodian was in a position to do the
> > most for the evidence. Most other stuff was general like witnesses and
> > what they had to say. That could be done by anyone. Give examples of
> > evidence that had to be tampered with and I'll let you know if a
> > specialist was needed.
>
> Fingerprint evidence.
> Ballistic evidence.
> Fiber evidence.
> Photographic evidence.
> Medical evidence.
> Handwriting evidence.
>
> That should be a good for starters.
>

Fingerprints were taken by the DPD, but if an expert got involved from
the FBI, they didn't have to be aware of any conspiracy.

Ballistic evidence? Well, I can think of the bullet custodian, and he
is definitely a suspect, but others? No need. That one guy could handle
it.

Fiber evidence would be picked up by the DPD or any agent that was
working and knew how to collect evidence, they didn't need to know about
any conspiracy. They simply passed their finds over to the lab.

Photo evidence. Photos were taken as usual, and the photographer didn't
have to be aware of any conspiracy.

Medical evidence was handled by the autopsy, which we have discussed
separately. The prosectors were NOT part of any conspiracy, though they
among themselves had a little conspiracy of lying and signing off under
orders in the Autopsy Report (AR). You might find it interesting that
although all 3 prosectors were made to sign off on the AR, they did NOT
sign off in the same fashion on either of the 2 exams of the 2 different
brains.

Handwriting evidence. There was some done, but it may have been a
matter of convincing the single person in charge of that to bend the rules
a bit and not tell them of the conspiracy. As well, there were a few
handwriting parts of the case that didn't work the way the conspirators
would have liked.

> > > > Now, some more schooling for you seems necessary. I'm not "claiming"
> > > > anything, I'm making statements usually based on evidence. In the case of
> > > > evidence "pointing to Oswald", that's a crock. There was evidence that
> > > > suggested Oswald, but not pointed directly at him. The rifle was his, but
> > > > anyone might have pointed it out the window, and he left work, but there
> > > > was good reason for that and not because he was guilty of something, but
> > > > because he was being set up. There were NO bullets from the MC rifle that
> > > > hit or hurt anyone, and no one could prove otherwise. The Walker shooting
> > > > had nothing to do with Oswald, as per the evidence, as I've shown
> > > > previously.
> > >
> > > You are claiming that the evidence that indicates Oswald was guilty was
> > > falsified by the investigators. You have 53 pieces of evidence to explain
> > > away. Many of those 53 pieces had multiple people handling and analyzing
> > > it. To claim that all that evidence was fraudulent, you need to have a
> > > small army of people doing the falsifying.
> > >
> >
> >
> > BULL! I don't have 53 pieces of anything. Bugliosi may have. Name
> > the evidence that had to be tampered with and I'll let you know if a
> > specialist is necessary, or who might be able to handle it.
> >
>
> I just did.
>

I answered that list. No problem.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > The thing that causes Oswald's name to come up most often is people
> > > > like you running around irresponsibly saying there was tons of evidence,
> > > > when there really isn't much at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is ample evidence of his guilt. And a good conspiracy hobbyist will
> > > invent any silly excuse he can to dismiss it all.
> > >
> >
> >
> > "Ample evidence" is your opinion, and opinion doesn't make for good
> > evidence at a trial.
> >
>
> Thank you for proving what I just said.
>

Nope, I dismissed you opinion. Not other stuff. Think it through
before you jump. That's why the LN kooks out there can't get anything
right. No thinking.

We know that to be false. The back wound bullet stopped in the body,
but worked itself out and fell to the autopsy table in sight of a witness.
Humes tacitly agreed that the bullet did not go in more than an inch by
saying it might have worked out at Parkland. But since the "pleura was
INTACT", no bullet could pass that point anyway, and so the bullet never
got out of the body of JFK.

Your attempt to discredit my statements for dismissing evidence has
failed again. I don't dismiss evidence, but in this case there was no
damning evidence of Oswald's guilt. And there was no common denominator,
since the JFK case had more than 3 bullets involved, and some bullets were
planted.

> > We've been over all that. One way has been suggested by
> > your LN buddies. A bullet fell out of a body. Custer saw a bullet fall
> > out of the back of JFK, so if a bullet could fall out to land on a gurney,
> > why can't one fall out onto a table during the autopsy?
>
> The bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh had been severly slowed by
> passing through two torsos and striking Connally's wrist. What do you
> suppose could have slowed the bullet that Custer allegedly saw fall out of
> JFK's back?
>

I've offered a large list of possible items that might slow a bullet
enough that it only would penetrate an inch. One of them was a story from
a fellow named Schaeffer that he enlarged the photo of the back seat of
the limo before they took it away and ripped out the interior, and he saw
a bullet hole in the seat back where JFK was sitting. If that's true,
it's a good possibility for slowing down a bullet. It went through parts
of the limo first and THEN into JFK. I don't say that is definitely it,
but it works, and so do many other scenarios. Remember, the problem isn't
that a bullet penetrated an inch or so, the problem is figuring out WHY it
only penetrated an inch or so.

> > Another way is
> > for certain people to actually search the body and retrieve bullets
> > surgically, as was the case with Humes and Boswell.
> >
>
> Oh, this is where you get to make up stuff for which you have no evidence.
>

I've supplied the testimony of the witnesses that saw them working on
the head of JFK during clandestine 'surgery' that they tried to cover up.
Humes was always bad at lying, and he got caught at it time and again.

>
> >
> >
> > > > And all the other items we've talked to death, and
> > > > they don't show any more than the bullets that connect to no harm to
> > > > anyone. But Your WC lawyers told you Oswald was the guy, so you go with
> > > > it to the end.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I will concede that conspiracy hobbyists are creative enough to invent any
> > > excuse they need to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt. That
> > > doesn't make the evidence go away. It just gives them the excuses they
> > > need to claim Oswald was framed.
> >
> >
> > First, I don't make "claims', and second, I don't dismiss evidence,
>
> Wrong on both counts.
>

WRONG! Don't interrupt or you'll miss the answer and jump and look
silly again. Se the rest of the answer below:

> > I use it one way or another. Sometimes it shows conspiracy or tampering
> > with evidence or whatever, but I don't simply dismiss it.
> >
>
> None of the evidence shows conspiracy which is why you dismiss all of it.

Think about what you just aid and the total illogic of it. I would have
to live in your mind! Whatever evidence shows, I don't dismiss it, as I
had said. I may use it differently than you, but I get use out of it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! You missed it! All your sitting around with your pizza in
comfort, and of course you missed that somebody did indeed find proof of
conspiracy "a long time ago". The witnesses to the frontal
forehead/temple bullet hole were all in place 50-odd years ago. The
prosectors had done their thing that proved that the SBT was baloney. It
was all over but the shouting, and with all the other WCR LNs, you missed
it and still are living in the 50 year old past, chomping your pizza.

> > Government is full of folks that would like to advance themselves, by
> > hook or crook.
>
> File this one under No Shit, Sherlock.
>
> > It also has folks that would be scared to step up and open
> > their mouths about the doings of others high above them.
>
> Ditto.
>
> > They would
> > rather sit quietly and wait for their opportunity to feather their own
> > nest. Look what has happened to many whistleblowers. Few have the guts
> > to do that job. I'm sure that a number of high ranking folks in the
> > government of 1963 figured out what happened and maybe even who was the
> > leader of the conspiracy. But they weren't about to open their mouths and
> > join the ranks of the dead.
> >
>
> And so you think in 2015 there are still people in government covering up
> your imaginary conspiracy. Conspiracyland must be a fascinating place to
> live.

The ongoing covering up of government by now has little to do with the
murder and a lot to do with the regular effort of governments all over the
world. They need to convince their people that anything they say is
gospel truth, and any orders they issue must be obeyed immediately.
Sometimes they used fear to accomplish the goal, and sometimes cajoling,
and sometimes ridicule of 'conspiracy theorists'. Whatever works on the
suckers in the populace, so that they will carry the message to the bulk
of people, who may go along with the crowd. Governments need the LNs to
carry their message for everyone to shut up and follow orders.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

On 5/24/2015 3:21 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:51:10 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>>> =======================================================================
>>> ==== === CORBETT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE SWINGLE BLLET WAS
>>> BORN ! ! ! !
>>> =======================================================================
>>> ====
>>
>> Corbett doesn't need to know exactly when the SBT was born.
> WOW ! MAYBE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT WAS INVENTED ON APRIL 15, 1963 OUT OF
> "NECESSITY" ! ! ! SEE>>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/SPECTER'S%20BULLSHIT.HTM
> ===========================================================================
> =====
>

Not "NECESSITY", Rossley.
Out of what actually happened.
Deal with it.

[Jason Burke]

On 5/24/2015 3:21 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:

Oh, gee, Rossley. THAT'S a coherent statement.

(TOOE!?!)

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:51:10 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > =======================================================================
> > > ==== === CORBETT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE SWINGLE BLLET WAS
> > > BORN ! ! ! !
> > > =======================================================================

The only necessity of the SBT was the necessity to find the truth. It
really doesn't matter that it wasn't the first thing people thought of.
The physical evidence (3 spent shells), the clear majority of witnesses
indicated that three shots had been fired seemed. and the fact JFK had
been hit twice and Connally once made it only natural that everyone's
first inclination would be that they had been hit by seperate bullets. The
injury to Tague indicated the posibility that one shot had missed and
somehow caused Tague's injury. When the recreation was done in DP and
indicated that at the time JFK was first hit Connally would have been
directly in line with a shot exiting JFK's throat, it wasn't hard to
figure out that they had been hit by the same bullet. It was as simple as
adding 2 + 2. The only part that is hard to understand is why so many
people refuse to accept it.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 6:24:56 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> ===========================================================================
> ===== THE RIFLE FOUND IN THE TSBD WAS NOT EVEN FIRED ON FRIDAY 11/22/63 ! !
> ! ! SEE THE TETIMONY OF FBI AGENT ROBERT FRAZIER WHO EXAMINED IT ON
> SATURDAY MORNING SEE>>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/more__testimony_of_robert_a.htm PAGE 395 ! ! !
> =========================================================================

Frazier never said that, Tom. Either you made that up or you completely
misunderstood his testimony.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why won't the CIA release the files?

[Jason Burke]

On 5/24/2015 3:26 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 May 2015 18:24:55 -0400, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
>> ===========================================================================
>> ===== THE RIFLE FOUND IN THE TSBD WAS NOT EVEN FIRED ON FRIDAY 11/22/63 ! !
>> ! ! SEE THE TETIMONY OF FBI AGENT ROBERT FRAZIER WHO EXAMINED IT ON
>> SATURDAY MORNING SEE>>
>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/more__testimony_of_robert_a.htm PAGE 395 ! ! !
>> =========================================================================
>>
>
> You need to quit saying things that aren't true.
>
> The testimony you cited shows no such thing.
>

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

When has that EVER stopped Rossley?

[Jason Burke]

Great movie, Rossley.
I suppose you think it was a documentary, eh?

[Anthony Marsh]

And that's a very good defense for the WC defenders here.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/23/2015 2:16 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 11:13:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 5/21/2015 4:37 PM, bigdog wrote:

>>> On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:51:10 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>>>> ===========================================================================

>>>> === CORBETT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE SWINGLE BLLET WAS BORN ! ! !
>>>> !
>>>> ===========================================================================
>>>

>>> Corbett doesn't need to know exactly when the SBT was born.
>>>
>>
>>

>> No one is asking you for the exact second. Or even the hour.
>> How about the day? Or the month? Or the year? Or the Century?
>
> I'm pretty sure it was in the 20th century.
>
>


Close enough for a WC defender.