A message to Gil Jesus
Tom Di Eva
many of their messages. But haven't responded to their baited theories and
answers.
WHAT IF I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS THE ONLY SHOOTER BUT I DON'T
BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY EITHER?
Watch their reaction to that statement. Their fixed thinking can't let them
"think outside of the box" which is the WCR 26 volumes of toilet paper.
YoHarvey
Keep fighting mental health Mr. Di Eva. You CT's need to get shots
for this ailment.
Sam Brown
"Tom Di Eva" <tom...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kv8_i.4109$Vp3.2547@trnddc05...
Don't flatter yourself Tom. Unless you can come up with a name and location
for the shooter, this is just more background noise.
>
>
aeffects
> "Tom Di Eva" <tomd...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:kv8_i.4109$Vp3.2547@trnddc05...
it was four elephants from down-undah -- how's that for background
noise, hon?
>
Gil Jesus
Bud
Tom Di Eva wrote:
> Please observe the rigid thinking of the WCR supporters. I've been reading
> many of their messages. But haven't responded to their baited theories and
> answers.
>
> WHAT IF I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS THE ONLY SHOOTER BUT I DON'T
> BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY EITHER?
I`m an LN, and put that possibility to the CT on several occasions.
They don`t like that concept very much, because Oz was a lefty, and
they like a right wing conspiracy, and two unconnected shooters throws
their fixed thinking outside the box.
Walt
> Tom Di Eva wrote:
> > Please observe the rigid thinking of the WCR supporters. I've been reading
> > many of their messages. But haven't responded to their baited theories and
> > answers.
>
> > WHAT IF I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS THE ONLY SHOOTER BUT I DON'T
> > BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY EITHER?
>
> I`m an LN, and put that possibility to the CT on several occasions.
> They don`t like that concept very much, because Oz was a lefty, and
> they like a right wing conspiracy, and two unconnected shooters throws
> their fixed thinking outside the box.
>
I`m an LN, and put that possibility to the CT on several occasions.
They don`t like that concept very much, because Oz was a lefty, and
they like a right wing conspiracy, and two unconnected shooters
throws
their fixed thinking outside the box.
Fixed thinking???..... Aren't you one of the guys who have often said
that CT's can't get together and agree on anything?
Two unconnected shooters with the same goal,... firing from the same
area,.... at exactly the same time???? Can you calculate the odds??
The fact that you are willing to accept a highly unlikely scenario
based on astronomical odds reveals that you're commonsense tells you
that there was more than one shooter...... But the hatred for Oswald
is so deeply ingrained in you that aren't willing to open your mind to
the idea that he was simply a gullible patsy, who was used by some
powerful, cunning, and ruthless men.
Walt
>
>
> > Watch their reaction to that statement. Their fixed thinking can't let them
> > "think outside of the box" which is the WCR 26 volumes of toilet paper.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
cdddraftsman
>
>
> Two unconnected shooters with the same goal,... firing from the same
> area,.... at exactly the same time???? Can you calculate the odds
> powerful, cunning, and ruthless men.
>
> Walt
Tell us Walt , how would you calculate the odds against the fact that
99.9999% of the worlds population , 500 years ago and at that time in
history , would be wrong in their belief that the earth was flat ?
Then go back and re-calculate on why a loner would want to share the
glory with men he dispised as much jfk .
Too confuse the issue even more , what if that un-connected shooter ,
turned out to be the next of kin or friend of one of the people jfk
got
killed by his inept handling of PT-109 ?
Your hairbrained calculations by weegee board science is as fouled up
as your assnine beliefs about this assassination .
Thats the good news :-) Wanna hear the bad news drifty :-( ?
tl
Gil Jesus
Oz was a lefty, huh ?
Robert Oswald's testimony before the Warren Commission ( Vol I pg 294)
Mr. JENNER. From your long acquaintance with him, and your intimate
knowledge of his physical characteristics in that respect, do you have
an opinion as to whether he was instinctively right-handed or
instinctively a left-handed person?
Mr. OSWALD. I would say he was instinctively a right-handed person.
Mr. JENNER. In all the years you were with him, you had opportunity to
see him react instantaneously without having time to think about using
his right hand or left hand?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER: Did you observe him on many occasions?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes. I have never known him to use his left hand in any
manner when an occasion would require that he use either hand--
instinctively went to his right hand.
OZ shown firing on the Marine Corps rifle range. He is OBVIOUSLY right-
eye dominant:
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzQ6OwHR5S7fv4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg
Nice try Dudley
YoHarvey
>
> Nice try Dudley
Roflmao...how DUMB can Chico Jesus/Robcap get?? Every single day, he
again exhbits the brain power of jello. "Lefty" meant political
persuasion you piece of spinach, NOT whether he was lefty or righty.
roflmao. As I've stated, Jesus/Robcap is a VEGETABLE and proves it
EVERY SINGLE DAY.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice try Bigotboy....bet ya feel like a real mental midget now don't
ya? ROFLMAO "Lefty!"
I heard you got fired from your security guard job at Walmart...some
little old lady beat the crap out of you and stole your purse!!! Tell
me bigotboy, is there anything you've ever accomplished in your life
that you didn't screw up? Think outside the Bun Chico....Taco Bell is
calling your name LOL
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 13 Nov, 04:35, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Tom Di Eva wrote:
> > > Please observe the rigid thinking of the WCR supporters. I've been reading
> > > many of their messages. But haven't responded to their baited theories and
> > > answers.
> >
> > > WHAT IF I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS THE ONLY SHOOTER BUT I DON'T
> > > BELIEVE IN A CONSPIRACY EITHER?
> >
> > I`m an LN, and put that possibility to the CT on several occasions.
> > They don`t like that concept very much, because Oz was a lefty, and
> > they like a right wing conspiracy, and two unconnected shooters throws
> > their fixed thinking outside the box.
> >
>
> I`m an LN, and put that possibility to the CT on several occasions.
> They don`t like that concept very much, because Oz was a lefty, and
> they like a right wing conspiracy, and two unconnected shooters
> throws
> their fixed thinking outside the box.
>
> Fixed thinking???..... Aren't you one of the guys who have often said
> that CT's can't get together and agree on anything?
I don`t think I said that. I may have said you are all retarded.
> Two unconnected shooters with the same goal,... firing from the same
> area,.... at exactly the same time???? Can you calculate the odds??
It isn`t a matter of odds. We know why Oz chose to shoot from where
he did. Another person who decided Kennedy should die might not have
access to a building like Oz did, thus necessitating an open yet
secluded area to shoot from. How many of those do you suppose were
along the motorcade route? So, it wouldn`t be that far fetched for 2
shooters to choose the same are, if one worked along the route, and
one didn`t have any options along the route except the knoll. Many a
kook has remarked at what a perfect shooting opportunity the knoll
presents.
> The fact that you are willing to accept a highly unlikely scenario
> based on astronomical odds reveals that you're commonsense tells you
> that there was more than one shooter......
I didn`t say that I accepted it. I said the kooks hate the idea,
because they prefer a conspiracy of powerful shadowy forces, not run-
of-the-mill Kennedy haters.
> But the hatred for Oswald
> is so deeply ingrained in you that aren't willing to open your mind to
> the idea that he was simply a gullible patsy,
It is possibly one of the stupidiest, most unsupportable ideas ever
uttered by morons (and it was up against some stiff competition from
the "we never landed on the moon" kooks).
> who was used by some
> powerful, cunning, and ruthless men.
Naw, just a refuge from the island of misfit toys and a cheap
rifle.
David Von Pein
My 2 cents on this.....
I agree that the theory of "2 LN Shooters" firing in tandem in DP on
11/22 is a pretty far-fetched idea....but I will add this:
I think that the idea of 2 LN shooters (unconnected to each other) is
probably MORE likely to have occurred (had there actually been some
proof of multiple shooters in DP, which, of course, there isn't) than
the Oliver Stone "3-Shooter, 1-Patsy" plot that was thrown up on the
big screen in 1991.
Virtually NOTHING beats Stone's and Garrison's multi-gunmen, solo-
patsy scenario for sheer absurdity and DELIBERATE PRE-PLANNED
STUPIDITY on the part of the assassination plotters who, per Stone/
Garrison, actually DID pre-plan such a crackpot plot.
And, incredibly too, is the fact that Stone certainly wasn't the first
CTer to endorse that EXACT type of 3-shooter, 1-patsy theory....Mark
Lane (and others) endorsed just such a plot in the 1973 movie
"Executive Action" as well (which I hadn't remembered at all until re-
watching that film recently and seeing the Oliver Stone plot unfold on
the screen once more, 18 years before Stone regurgitated the nonsense
for his own movie).
Maybe I'm mis-reading or mis-labeling Bud's intentions and his
thoughts....but I've always assumed that the times when Bud has
suggested that a "2 LN Shooters" plot made some degree of sense, he
was actually playing a bit of a game with the CT-Kooks....i.e., he was
throwing up in the CTers' faces a lone-nut plot that was equally as
ludicrous as the widely-accepted-as-FACT "Multi-Gun/One-Patsy" plot
which is believed by many CT-Kooks of the world....with Bud thereby,
in effect, demonstrating the "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IF I BELIEVE IN IT
ENOUGH" school of thought.
If I misinterpreted you, Bud, I apologize. But I always felt there was
a little sly "game-playing" going on from your POV whenever the topic
of the highly-unlikely shooting scenario of "Two LN Shooters" has
arisen here.
David Von Pein
I've always been a little suspicious of King Moonracer and Yukon
Cornelius. Either one of those scoundrels could have been in on the
plot to kill the President, without question.
And the "Abominable Snow Monster Of The North" certainly hasn't been
scratched off of the ever-growing list of possible assassins either.
"He's mean! He's nasty! And he hates everything to do with Christmas!!
(And Kennedy!)"
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "Two unconnected shooters with the same goal, firing from the same area, at exactly the same time?? Can you calculate the odds?" <<<
>
> My 2 cents on this.....
>
> I agree that the theory of "2 LN Shooters" firing in tandem in DP on
> 11/22 is a pretty far-fetched idea....but I will add this:
>
> I think that the idea of 2 LN shooters (unconnected to each other) is
> probably MORE likely to have occurred (had there actually been some
> proof of multiple shooters in DP, which, of course, there isn't) than
> the Oliver Stone "3-Shooter, 1-Patsy" plot that was thrown up on the
> big screen in 1991.
And you call us Super-Mega-Kooks? You a whackjob of the highest
order, a blackbelt of whackjobs! The odds of any one person
intersecting with a president are astronomical, and you are saying you
can beleive two is more possible than a conspiracy? Bellevue is on
the phone for you.
>
> Virtually NOTHING beats Stone's and Garrison's multi-gunmen, solo-
> patsy scenario for sheer absurdity and DELIBERATE PRE-PLANNED
> STUPIDITY on the part of the assassination plotters who, per Stone/
> Garrison, actually DID pre-plan such a crackpot plot.
Sorry to burst your bubble but most CT researchers have multiple
gunmen involved and not just Stone and Garrison. It is the only thing
that makes sense. You are obviously ignoring the HSCA's finding of
conspiracy as well.
>
> And, incredibly too, is the fact that Stone certainly wasn't the first
> CTer to endorse that EXACT type of 3-shooter, 1-patsy theory....Mark
> Lane (and others) endorsed just such a plot in the 1973 movie
> "Executive Action" as well (which I hadn't remembered at all until re-
> watching that film recently and seeing the Oliver Stone plot unfold on
> the screen once more, 18 years before Stone regurgitated the nonsense
> for his own movie).
Because it makes sense. Nonesense? Believing a man who was a
horrible shot at stationary targets using a bad weapon and 19 year old
ammo is more realistic in your book I guess, right?
>
> Maybe I'm mis-reading or mis-labeling Bud's intentions and his
> thoughts....but I've always assumed that the times when Bud has
> suggested that a "2 LN Shooters" plot made some degree of sense, he
> was actually playing a bit of a game with the CT-Kooks....i.e., he was
> throwing up in the CTers' faces a lone-nut plot that was equally as
> ludicrous as the widely-accepted-as-FACT "Multi-Gun/One-Patsy" plot
> which is believed by many CT-Kooks of the world....with Bud thereby,
> in effect, demonstrating the "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IF I BELIEVE IN IT
> ENOUGH" school of thought.
Bud needn't do that as your on LN scenario is crazy enough.
>
> If I misinterpreted you, Bud, I apologize. But I always felt there was
> a little sly "game-playing" going on from your POV whenever the topic
> of the highly-unlikely shooting scenario of "Two LN Shooters" has
> arisen here.
Your whole SBT scenario has some "sly game playing" going on.
David Von Pein
>>> "You a whackjob of the highest order..." <<<
You must be rubbing off on me then. Get away!! Ewwww!
>>> "The odds of any one person intersecting with a president are astronomical, and you are saying you can beleive [sic] two is more possible than a conspiracy?" <<<
When compared to the kind of insane MULTI-shooter, ONE-patsy
"conspiracy" that Miller, Lewis, Lane, Garrison, and Stone have put up
in lights on the big screen (via "EA" & "JFK" in 1973 and 1991,
respectively)...you betcha the "2 LN Shooters" option is more
believable. WAY more believable in fact.
Because only a band of complete brain-dead crackheads (with Healy
serving as Grand Poobah possibly??) would even BEGIN to pre-plan the
kind of silliness and impossible-to-pull-off rubbish that we find in
those two previously-mentioned motion pictures. (Which, come to think
of it, DOES make you eligible to join in such inane solo-patsy pre-
planning, along with the aforementioned Mr. Healy. Where were you in
Nov. '63? Let's see your papers.)
>>> "Bellevue is on the phone for you." <<<
And Nurse Ratched (with a net) is already on the front stoop of your
double-wide. (Better pretend you're not home.)
>>> "Most CT researchers have multiple gunmen involved, and not just Stone and Garrison." <<<
And what pct. of those "researchers" have purported a pre-planned
THREE-gunmen, ONE-patsy plot?
>>> "It is the only thing that makes sense." <<<
The THREE-gun, ONE-patsy pre-arranged plot, you mean?
>>> "You are obviously ignoring the HSCA's finding of conspiracy as well." <<<
~sigh~
I see, once more, that tired, old, defeated CT ground becomes fertile
ground once more when speaking to the moron population.
~larger sigh~
aeffects
> The only background noise Sammy's used to is queefs.
she's gone.... she has a career, any association to limp dick Lone
Nutter's is an embarassment, not to mention a career stopper.
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1194949627.6...@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Bud
No, you were right, David. The kooks hate the idea, so that lends a
certain validity to the concept. The whole idea of their game is to
point an arrow in the direction of their choosing, but they actually
can`t take the very first step, identify the shooter(s). Without an
identity, they have no way to determine motivation. They always press
for Oz`s motivations to be stated, when there is ample evidence of his
political fanaticism. They can`t make that connection with Oz, yet
claim to know the motivations of an anonymous shooter they know
nothing about. It`s a similar approach I take in the "Kennedy
committed assisted suicide" theory I`ve broached. If there was a
conspiracy, who is more in position to put into motion the necessary
plan and cover-up than the most powerful person on the planet? Kennedy
was in constant pain, had banged some of the most desirable women, was
looking at a probable loss in the upcoming election, he could even
have been the victim of blackmail for his infidelities, so why not go
out with a bang while on top? Could Oz have been put along the
motorcade route because they knew from his profile that he would take
a shot if the circumstances were right? The Kennedy/suicide theory
would also explain the Kennedy interference with the autopsy. This
theory answers more questions than any I`ve seen proposed by the
kooks, yet they won`t touch it, as it doesn`t take them where they
want so desperately to go. Another theory the kooks dislike for the
same reason is the idea that Oz was working on behalf of the Cubans.
There is a lot of support for this, much more than the idea that Oz
was an intellegence agent, but the kooks don`t like this concept
either, for the same reason. It doesn`t allow them to blame the people
they prefer to blame.