Where have all the LNs gone? ;-)

[BHouseM...@aol.com]

There are several distinct possibilities:

(1) Legitimately involved with their own families getting the kids off to
school, etc., etc.

(2) Watching reruns of The Dick Van Dyke Show produced in the good ole
days of the early 1960s before Kennedy was assassinated and all hell broke
loose politically in the US. (Those were the days.)

(3) Attending the latest Warren Commissionoid Convention... "We have met
the enemy and the enemy is us."

(4) On their annual Company paid vacation secretly funded by the FBI or
CIA... voting on who gets the coveted Edwin Landsdale award for political
subversion beyond the call of duty whether foreign or domestic.

(3) Attending the latest Ad Hominem Seminar looking for the lowest
personal attacks possible in leu of anything truly credible that Lee
Harvey Oswald shot anyone other than Santa Claus or Peter Pan in Dallas.

(4) Scouring the world looking for another bullet somehow, somewhere that
looks anything like CE399... but so far running out of gas money...

(5) Licking their wounds because their arguments continue to be repeatedly
rejected by 80 percent of American citizens who understand the
implications of this case better than they do.

(6) On the internet telling each other how sane and wonderful they are and
that everyone else in the universe is crazy who happens to question the
seven wounds in Kennedy and Connally, made by a bullet so magical that it
could only have done its dirty work if blessed by the Virgin Mary. (It
wasn't.)

(7) Trying to find a diplomatic way to face themselves in the mirror of
reality and finally admit to themselves and others there was a conspiracy
to assassinate President Kennedy at Dealey Plaza.

(8) All of the above.

-BHM.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You're reaching. Badly." {Re. Oswald having possibly switched from the scope to the rifle's iron sights after the first shot.} <<<

You're just plain kooky to say this. Several other people who have
looked into the case think the same thing re. LHO possibly using both
the scope and the iron sights during the assassination.

>>> "If Oswald BORE shot the president using the IRON sight, great balls of fire, the target would be 4 TIMES farther away and make the shot from "behind" even more difficult than it already was." <<<

Which wasn't difficult at all, of course....especially for a person
trained to shoot in the Marines. 88 yards maximum at Shot #3, shooting
at a virtually-stationary target moving away from him at 11 MPH. Duh!

>>> "...FOUR times farther away! This distance also goes for the supposed head shot to Kennedy that Oswald pulled off with his Hail Mary blast from the rear. He did this ALL with the IRON sight?" <<<

I don't know it for a fact, no. I surmised he possibly used the
sights. Nobody can know for sure. Duh!

And, unfortunately, the murderer wasn't kind enough to tell Will Fritz
(or anyone else) whether he cut down JFK by looking through the
telescope or by using the sights. That was damned unpolite of him not
to give that information, wasn't it Mr. Bullsh!tHouse?

>>> "Not to mention that Oswald would have had to RE-AIM on the last two IRON sight shots because of the rifle's RECOIL and without using the scope and, again, at four times the distance." <<<

Yeah, he wouldn't have had ANY recoil if he'd used the scope for all 3
shots, and he wouldn't have had to "re-aim" at all, right?

Kooky.

>>> "And one would suppose that if Oswald truly had any serious premeditated intentions of murdering the president..." <<<

Which he didn't. That fact is quite obvious via his last-minute
preparation efforts (Thursday night visit to Irving) and his half-
assed to non-existent escape plan (walking, bus, taxi, then walking
some more).

>>> "...We are being asked to believe that Oswald went up to the bloody 6th floor of the School Depository in a smoldering 'killing' mood because he 'hated' Kennedy so much..." <<<

He didn't hate Kennedy...and nobody I know of has ever made such a
claim. Learn the case...and learn about Oswald.

As Vince Bugliosi rightly said re. Oswald's possible motive:

"When Oswald was aiming at JFK, he was very likely aiming at the
United States of America, which he definitely hated." (Paraphrased VB
comments.)

>>> "...and yet he {Saint Oswald The Great} brings a cheap mail-order Italian rifle and a scope so misaligned that it couldn't shoot a chicken out of a chicken pot, and in the heat of the act itself, Oswald is successful in BORE shooting the president. I've heard it all now. Such an argument elicits more pity than anger that anyone could propose such a thing. .... All anyone has to do to determine that Oswald shot no one in Dallas is to read some of these completely sad-sack arguments and then turn them around 180 degrees to clearly know what happened." <<<

Now it's official -- You're a Mega-Kook. Congrats. (The unbelievably-
stupid comment "Oswald shot no one" is what sent you over the top.)

It usually takes a conspiracy-loving nutcase longer to gain official
"Mega-Kook" status. You've achieved it in record time. Nice job indeed.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Sorry, but the only thing missing at this other "trial" was OSWALD himself, wasn't it? And some of you people never factor that in now that Oswald is dead, do you?" <<<

"BHouse" gets kookier with every passing post. It's hilarious to watch
his rapid decline into madness.

Fact is: Oswald would never have taken the witness stand if he had
lived to stand trial. No way, no how.

Here's why (via a previously-posted DVP essay)......

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

Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in
Dallas on November 22, 1963. The evidence that shows Oswald to be
guilty of that murder is massive in quantity and scope.

Many people seem to think that Oswald would have walked away a free
man, in a court of law, if he had not been killed himself by Jack
Ruby's bullet on November 24, 1963.

And some conspiracy theorists also think that if Oswald himself had
taken the witness stand at his trial, he would have somehow exonerated
himself and (per certain CTers) would have revealed himself to be just
what those CTers think Oswald was -- an innocent "patsy", who was set
up and framed for the murder of President Kennedy.

But, in my opinion, it's very unlikely that Lee Oswald would have
taken the witness stand at his own trial (had he lived long enough to
do so). He would have been a fool, in fact, to take that witness stand
and say a single word to the jury who would be ultimately deciding his
fate.

A prosecutor like Vincent T. Bugliosi would probably have been able to
convict Oswald (in the jury's mind) within the first few minutes of
Vincent's cross-examination of LHO.

Let's listen to some of the questions that Mr. Bugliosi would probably
have asked Oswald during LHO's first minutes on that witness stand in
court (and we'll also listen in to Lee's likely answers as well)......

~~~~~~

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 139,
which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766.
Police officers who testified at this trial have verified the fact
that this exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace,
the Texas School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President
Kennedy was shot and killed from right in front of that building on
November the 22nd, 1963. A palmprint of yours was located on this
exact weapon. .... I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, have you ever seen this
rifle before?"

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/servlet/PageImage?mode=getPage&fileName=hmat-wcvols-16_0001_0536&mag=null&monochrome=false&extension=.jpg&rotatation=default&actualWidth=8294&orientation=portrait

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I didn't order any rifle through the mail."

BUGLIOSI -- "Have you ever owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr.
Oswald....a privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the
Marine Corps in late 1959?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have never owned a rifle in my life."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
This man in the photo, who looks like you, is holding a rifle, has a
handgun in a holster around his waist, and is also holding up two
Russian newspapers, dated March 11th and March 24th of 1963. .... I
ask you now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this photograph?"

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/servlet/PageImage?mode=getPage&fileName=hmat-wcvols-16_0001_0534&mag=null&monochrome=false&extension=.jpg&rotatation=default&actualWidth=8294&orientation=portrait

OSWALD -- "No, sir. That picture must be a fake or something. I never
posed for any picture like that in my life."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a young man by the name of Buell
Wesley Frazier?"

OSWALD -- "Yes, I worked with him at the book store....the Depository,
I mean."

BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
Friday, November the 22nd, 1963?"

OSWALD -- "Yes....I believe I did ride to work with him that morning."

BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. And did you bring any type of paper package with
you to work on that particular morning?"

OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch. That's all."

BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
November 22nd, is that correct?"

OSWALD -- "Yes, sir. I had my lunch with me."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"

OSWALD -- "No, I had nothing else with me that day."

BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
this jury that he observed you carrying a much-larger paper bag on the
morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
Wesley Frazier anything like that on the morning of November 22nd?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir! Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a thing
like that. I never told him anything like that."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
you carrying a bulky-type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
paper lunch sack?"

OSWALD -- "Well...er...I...uh...I really can't speak for what another
witness might or might not have said. I can only tell you that she's
wrong if she said I had a big bag with me that day. I just carried my
lunch to work, like I usually do on work days."

BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this
time."

~~~~~~

The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the Book
Depository on 11/22/63.

Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
my life"?

The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.

In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
times over, of course).

Here's a real quote from Vince Bugliosi this time (from the 1986 TV
Mock Trial of LHO), in which VB says pretty much the same thing I just
said above regarding Oswald's non-stop stream of lies that he told in
order to distance himself further and further from the two murders
(JFK's and J.D. Tippit's) he was charged with in '63......

"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us he
was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he had
said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us?
Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
consciousness of guilt. If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it
necessary to deny purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store
in Chicago? Why did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he
find it necessary to do that if he's innocent?" -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI;
1986

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d2c24506aa7154bf

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

Therefore, since it's fairly obvious that Oswald would never have
dared go near a witness stand if he had actually gone to trial for the
murders of JFK and/or Officer Tippit (or at least it's very likely
that he never would have taken the stand; just like another guilty
double-killer, O.J. Simpson), whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was
alive or dead during the 1986 mock trial is a moot point altogether.

(Anybody want to bet that Mr. BHouse believes in O.J.'s innocence too?
I'll bet he does.)

[David Von Pein]

A MEGA-KOOK BLATHERED (No kidding! He REALLY said this! I kid you not!
I couldn't MAKE UP classic stuff like this!):

>>> "The only thing more embarrassing than your original post on 'Oswald's mastery of the iron sight' is that you have the balls to show your face around here any longer." <<<

LOL time.

Another -- ROFL!!

Man, you sure got a monster-sized set of gonads yourself there,
BHouse, I must give you credit for that.

The above BHouse idiocy directed at me is coming from a person who
said this just minutes earlier......

"Oswald shot no one."

Hat trick:

LOL!

[David Von Pein]

Re. LHO's bullets:

Oswald obviously purchased SOME bullets to use in his rifle at some
point after he gained possession of it in late March 1963 (it was
bought so that Oswald could shoot and kill General Walker, btw;
there's little doubt of that, due to the timing of the Walker shooting
on 04/10/63, just days after Oz takes possession of C2766).

So when CTers bring up the "WHERE DID HE GET THE BULLETS?" thing, I
can't help but laugh, because the argument is just....silly.

By the same token, there's nobody in Dallas, or Fort Worth, or Irving,
or Walla Walla, or Bumfu*k, Egypt, who recalls selling Oswald any
bullets for his S&W revolver either.

But I KNOW for a fact he shot J.D. Tippit with that gun....and it was
loaded with bullets. So he got the bullets somewhere, at some point in
time after gaining possession of that weapon too (also in March 1963).

The bullet argument is a moot one. But CTers love that chaff so much,
they ignore the fields of wheat washing over them. Amazing.

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

Re. the "88 yards" distance:

Akwilks needs to learn some of the basics (that I thought everybody
knew who has looked into the case as much as Akwilks obviously has in
many areas).

All you need do is turn to pages 100 to 108 of the WR itself to find
this distance data.

The last (third) shot was fired at a distance of 265.3 feet from the
SN window (which is 88.43 yards). .....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055a.htm

The SBT shot that hit JFK & JBC was estimated by the WC/FBI to be
190.8 feet from the window (63.60 yards). But that estimate is the
farthest "SBT" estimate per the WC, based on a Z225 shot (which comes
at the furthest end of the WC's "Z210-225" range of SBT frames when
they say the SBT shot occurred; I think it occurred at Z224, and
there's plenty of reasons why; if you want to know why, I can steer
you to those reasons). .....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052b.htm

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Once you are one of the club anything goes- just like Washington-Dr.
Baden is working for the defense of Phil Specter and so is Vincent Di
Mao who basically got the TNT Documentary The KGB Files shot down when
he became a belligerant ass and argued with Robert Groden and the
producers that a shot could not have comefrom the Grassy Knoll, so the
program ended up being shelved and the Documentary when released on home
video ultimately pissed off both conspiracy and lone nut people( pretty
hard to do). Bottom line: Why are Di Mao and Baden defending a crazed
drunken bastard murdering millionaire?

[clarkw...@hotmail.com]

Not fair! I believe that David Von Pien has eliminated time traveling
space aliens as suspects. As near as I can tell, he's working on
eliminating a plot by Antarctic penguins with republican nomination
ambitions as his next debunking. Who knows? Maybe he'll attack a
conspiracy by tree moss next. If so, I think that will eliminate any
CT theories for me.

Pretty sure.

::Clark::

[rwa...@despammed.com]

> ::Clark::- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is there a point to this thread?

[cdddraftsman]

The thing I don't understand is why any conspiracy's at all . I'm
perfectly happy at a lone nut solution . Every assassination in the
past that got close or was successful had at best one person
involved .

Could it be your unwillingness to accept the fact that JFK could be
killed by such a low life like LHO and all by his lonesome , that's
interfering with your acceptance of what is now considered the most
likely history people will read about in the future ?

Time to take stock of what you have and when you have so little to
pronounce conspiracy with , it's time to drop the act of pretending to
believe ...........tl

Those who live with there past mistakes and refuse to correct them are
doomed to repeat the same mistakes of thinking over and over and over
again .

[Anthony Marsh]

The plural of conspiracy is conspiracies, not conspiracy's. You used the
possessive instead of the plural. The reason why there are conspiracies is
because we are humans. There are conspiracies all the time and the
government is always prosecuting conspiracies.

> perfectly happy at a lone nut solution . Every assassination in the
> past that got close or was successful had at best one person
> involved .
>

That is pure nonsense. The US government hanged 4 people for conspiracy in
the Lincoln assassination. About half of all assassinations involve more
than one person. A conspiracy does not require two assassins. One assassin
can be working for a cabal.

> Could it be your unwillingness to accept the fact that JFK could be
> killed by such a low life like LHO and all by his lonesome , that's

That comes straight from the CIA's playbook and various cover-up artists
have used that argument before.

> interfering with your acceptance of what is now considered the most
> likely history people will read about in the future ?
>

The official history in the future is that it was a conspiracy.

> Time to take stock of what you have and when you have so little to
> pronounce conspiracy with , it's time to drop the act of pretending to
> believe ...........tl
>

Nonsense. You just refuse to look at the evidence.

> Those who live with there past mistakes and refuse to correct them are
> doomed to repeat the same mistakes of thinking over and over and over
> again .
>
>

There? I think you mean "their."

We are doomed to repeat our past when we are not allowed to learn our real
history. The CIA depends on this to keep getting away with their lies. As
they say, "The old tricks are the best tricks."

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Not fair! I believe that David Von Pien [sic] has eliminated time

traveling space aliens as suspects. As near as I can tell, he's working
on eliminating a plot by Antarctic penguins with republican nomination
ambitions as his next debunking. Who knows? Maybe he'll attack a
conspiracy by tree moss next. If so, I think that will eliminate any CT
theories for me." <<<

Anybody have the slightest inkling what the above Clark rambling is
supposed to mean?

~shrug~

[cdddraftsman]

He's gone a bit top heavy on use wouldn't you say ? ............tl

[cdddraftsman]

On Sep 9, 5:55 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> > The thing I don't understand is why any conspiracy's at all . I'm
>
> The plural of conspiracy is conspiracies, not conspiracy's. You used the
> possessive instead of the plural. The reason why there are conspiracies is
> because we are humans. There are conspiracies all the time and the
> government is always prosecuting conspiracies.
>
>

> > > 99% against the public sector of society and not against supposed
> > > imaginary machinations that your all hung up about .

>
> > perfectly happy at a lone nut solution . Every assassination in the
> > past that got close or was successful had at best one person
> > involved .
>
> That is pure nonsense. The US government hanged 4 people for conspiracy in
> the Lincoln assassination. About half of all assassinations involve more
> than one person. A conspiracy does not require two assassins. One assassin
> can be working for a cabal.
>
>

> > > You counter with pure non-sense . Lincoln shot at close range by Booth
> > > alone . His supposed co-conspirators ? A laughable band of misfits and
> > > and mentally disturbed people .
> > > Same with Garfeild and McKinnley . JFK shot by LHO alone !
> > > No evidence of co-conspirators !

>
> > Could it be your unwillingness to accept the fact that JFK could be
> > killed by such a low life like LHO and all by his lonesome , that's
>
> That comes straight from the CIA's playbook and various cover-up artists
> have used that argument before.
>
>

> > > Why else would I bring it up , do you think I'm S T E W P I D or
> > > something ? :-)

>
> > interfering with your acceptance of what is now considered the most
> > likely history people will read about in the future ?
>
> The official history in the future is that it was a conspiracy.
>
>

> > > Would you mind repeating that ? No about 50,000 x more . You might
> > > get someone to take you seriously .

>
> > Time to take stock of what you have and when you have so little to
> > pronounce conspiracy with , it's time to drop the act of pretending to
> > believe ...........tl
>
> Nonsense. You just refuse to look at the evidence.
>
>

> > > What evidence I see all points to the ' Red Romeo ' of assassinology !

>
> > Those who live with there past mistakes and refuse to correct them are
> > doomed to repeat the same mistakes of thinking over and over and over
> > again .
>
> There? I think you mean "their."
>
> We are doomed to repeat our past when we are not allowed to learn our real
> history. The CIA depends on this to keep getting away with their lies. As

> they say, "The old tricks are the best tricks."-
>
>
> > > Translation " They all got away " Hahahahahaha ! Funny , real funny ! ...tl