A Lone Nut
Walt
even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
he wanted FAME.
He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
around the world.
This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention..... and they crow long
and loud after they have committed some outrage.
This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
Warren Commission said he was??
Walt
tomnln
(all those people are dangerous ti the American way)
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1177033083....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
people.
> that he didn't
> even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> he wanted FAME.
> He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> around the world.
I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
campus?
> This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
> and they crow long
> and loud after they have committed some outrage.
They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
also.
> This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> Warren Commission said he was??
Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
This event does make me wonder what would happen if say, a thousand
fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
more to their liking. See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
of this.
> Walt
cdddraftsman
a person as deeply embedded as one Walt would admit to his shill
playing games and similarity's with LHO's , his alter ego gone astry .
.............................tl
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
>
> What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
> people.
>
> > that he didn't
> > even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> > he wanted FAME.
> > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> > around the world.
>
> I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
> couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
> defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
> campus?
>
> > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
>
Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
I agree Lee seemed confident in the early hours of his arrest....I
believe he thought he would be released by The FBI so he wasn't
worried. It wasn't until saturday AFTER they showed him the FAKE
back yard photo (133C) that he began to realize that Hosty had double
crossed him.
Oz was loving all that attention he getting. Oh really?? Where or
when did he ever say that. The cops were beatin the snot outta him
( his autopsy photos show numerous bruises and abrasions on his head)
and you think he was "loving it"??
and they crow long
and loud after they have committed some outrage.
They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
themselves, as did this guy.
Yes but they left recordings and writings that they knew would be read
after they had made themselves famous.
Oz was willing to die for his actions also. He was??? What world
are you living in??
This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
Warren Commission said he was??
Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
although there are some similarities.
Bingo!!..... That's the point I was making... The Warren
Commission said Oswald was just a "Lone Nut" who killed for no
reason. In Cho we have a classic example of the type of person the
W.C. said Oswald was. As you just said.... "This is apples and
oranges". That is there is no comparison. Or in other words....
Oswald was NOT a Lone Nut.
Walt
Bud
<snicker? Classic Walt. He can`t support it, it doesn`t make sense,
so this is what he believes.
> Oz was loving all that attention he getting. Oh really?? Where or
> when did he ever say that.
If he did say it, that would be a good reason not to believe it.
> The cops were beatin the snot outta him
> ( his autopsy photos show numerous bruises and abrasions on his head)
> and you think he was "loving it"??
If you had even a basic understanding of the facts of this case,
you`d know how Oz came to have those bruises.
> and they crow long
> and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> themselves, as did this guy.
> Yes but they left recordings and writings that they knew would be read
> after they had made themselves famous.
You mean different people, with different personalities did things
differently? Many people, including his wife, commented on how Oz
liked secrets, felt superior that he knew things that others didn`t.
He also was a fan of the Rosenbergs, who went to the grave never
admitting their guilt. The Columbine shooters and Cho shoot people at
random, their statement was notoriety by body count, Oz selected
political targets. Actions speak louder than words, and the killing of
political figures was a statement in itself (I suspect he was on his
way to take another crack at Walker when Tippit stopped him. Tippit
became an obstacle to that objective, so Oz removed the obstacle).
> Oz was willing to die for his actions also. He was??? What world
> are you living in??
The real one. You should try it sometime, it`s not so bad.
> This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> Warren Commission said he was??
>
> Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> although there are some similarities.
>
> Bingo!!..... That's the point I was making... The Warren
> Commission said Oswald was just a "Lone Nut" who killed for no
> reason. In Cho we have a classic example of the type of person the
> W.C. said Oswald was.
Says who?
> As you just said.... "This is apples and
> oranges". That is there is no comparison. Or in other words....
> Oswald was NOT a Lone Nut.
Oz wasn`t shooting people at random, knucklehead. Columbine and
Virginia Tech are much more comparable to Charles Whitman, firing from
that clock tower in Texas. His victims were random, and he is notable
because of a high body count. I think Oz would have preferred not to
have had to shoot Tippit, he wasn`t out for a body count (more
interested in quality, not quantity). I think Oz is more comparable to
Hinckley, they both had a skewed sense of reality, and shot Presidents
to further personal, irrational goals.
curtjester1
I think he was mentally competent enough to be a part of a conspiracy
especially with his background as a spy and who he hung around
with...mob people and cia assets. The Hokie killer was just too much
into dementia to have anyone be attracted to his personality.
CJ
curtjester1
> Walt wrote:
> > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
>
> What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
> people.
>
> > that he didn't
> > even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> > he wanted FAME.
> > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> > around the world.
>
> I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
> couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
> defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
> campus?
>
> > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
>
> Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
> confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
> Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
>
> > and they crow long
> > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> also.
>
You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
> > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> > Warren Commission said he was??
>
> Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
>
It's a whole fruit basket.
> This event does make me wonder what would happen if say, a thousand
> fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
> of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
> said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
> couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
> pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
> witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
> campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
> the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
> could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
> one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
> at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
> said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
> right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
> bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
> of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
> exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
> produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
> disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
> of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
> more to their liking. See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> of this.
>
And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
try to do.
CJ
Bud
curtjester1 wrote:
> On 20 Apr, 03:43, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
> >
> > What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
> > people.
> >
> > > that he didn't
> > > even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> > > he wanted FAME.
> > > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> > > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> > > around the world.
> >
> > I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
> > couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
> > defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
> > campus?
> >
> > > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> > > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
> >
> > Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
> > confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
> > Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
> >
> Guilt unfortunately would not preclude conspiracy.
Of course I can`t prove to the kooks that there wasn`t a shooter
behind every blade of grass. By accepting Oz`s obvious culpability
would be a baby step in the right direction.
> > > and they crow long
> > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
> >
> > They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> > also.
> >
> You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, this is
from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when he was
surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in Philly
in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
> > > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> > > Warren Commission said he was??
> >
> > Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> > although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> > killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> > did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
> >
> It's a whole fruit basket.
That is one explaination.
> > This event does make me wonder what would happen if say, a thousand
> > fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
> > of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
> > said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
> > couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
> > pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
> > witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
> > campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
> > the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
> > could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
> > one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
> > at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
> > said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
> > right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
> > bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
> > of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
> > exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
> > produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
> > disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
> > of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
> > more to their liking. See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> > of this.
> >
> And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
> try to do.
I wasn`t lumping them. I was pointing out what an effort like the
one Oz received would likely produce in Cho`s case.
Walt
You really need to get yer head outta yer ass and read the affidavits
and police reports of many of the cops who were there in the theater.
Oswald never reached for his gun many of the cops, and civilian
witnesses said the gun was in his belt NOT in his hand. If he had
been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have it
ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him. He never
did that because he was not a coldblooded killer. If he had killed JFK
and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think he
did at tenth and Patton. He didn't have a clue what they were going
to accuse him of.
Walt
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Numerous witnesses said the gun was in Oz`s hand.
> If he had
> been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have it
> ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him.
There is evidence that is what he tried to do.
> He never
> did that because he was not a coldblooded killer.
You sound like Oz`s mother. "My boy wouldn`t do such a thing".
Guess what, he did.
> If he had killed JFK
> and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
> by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think he
> did at tenth and Patton.
Since he wouldn`t need a gun to see a movie, he must be Tippit`s
killer.
> He didn't have a clue what they were going
> to accuse him of.
So, he thought he`d punch the cop who confronted him, just to be
on the safe side.
Ben Holmes
says...
This is a perfect opportunity for the trolls to prove that such *could* happen.
Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
same nature as the JFK case.
>> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
>> of this.
There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
why pretend?
Ben Holmes
No, you were *asserting* "what an effort like the one Oz received would likely
produce in Cho's case". You are certainly unwilling to *prove* what you assert,
nor do I think you could even come close.
Walt
Hey Dud here's some of the testimony of the officers that were in the
theater arresting Oswald.
Mr. Hill.
He was fighting and turning and making an attempt to free himself of
the hold that the officers had on him. As to actually hitting anybody
or to actually seeing the suspect with a gun in his hand, I did not.
Mr. Walker.
McDonald approached him, and he said, I don't know exactly, I assumed
he said, "Stand up!" And Oswald stood up.
Mr. Belin.
Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. Walker.
No.
Mr. Belin.
Was Oswald facing you as he stood up?
Mr. Walker.
No; he faced McDonald.
Mr. Belin.
All right.
Mr. Walker.
He put his hand up, not exactly as you would raise your hands to be
searched, but more or less showing off his muscles, what I call it,
kind of hunching his shoulders at the same time, and McDonald put his
hand down to Oswald's pocket, it looked like to me, and McDonald's
head was tilted slightly to the right, looking down in the right
hand.
Mr. Belin.
Looking in whose?
Mr. Walker.
McDonald's right hand as he was searching, and he felt of his pocket,
and Oswald then hit him, ,it appeared, with his left hand first, and
then with his right hand. They was scuffling .there, and Officer
Hutson and I ran toward the back of Oswald and Hutson threw his arm
around his neck, and I grabbed his left arm, and we threw him back
over the seat.
At this time I didn't see any gun that was involved. I don't know
whether we pulled Oswald away .from McDonald for a split second or
what, but he was thrown back against the seat, and then the next thing
I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in his belt there, and
McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand.
The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
Mr. Hawkins.
I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember,
Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
doug.w...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ditto's on Bud's comments.
I thought it somewhat ironic comparing some of the actions of Oz &
Cho. Cho removed the serial numbers from his pistol yet was found to
have the purchase receipt for that pistol on his person. Oz purchased
his pistol & rifle using an alias yet when arrested had fake
identification connecting him with that same alias. Pathetic
individuals trapped in a world of paronoia & fantasy.
doug.w...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Both Oz & Cho were court ordered to undergo psych. theropy following
disruptive antisocial behavior. Both Oz & Cho failed to recieve the
court ordered psych help.. Oz & Cho both had suicidal tendacies &
felt they had been continually wronged by others.
Terp fan
together between the two murder scenes. They must have been in on it.
As Bud notes, you can take any event and arrange the facts to make any
case you want. Lawyers do it all the time. Every horrific event is full of
inconsistencies and misreporting, second-guessing and speculation. Those
things by themselves do not prove a conspiracy. The inability of
conspiracy buffs in the JFK assassination to grasp this simple and
pervasive fact of life amazes me.
gg
Bud
I see you didn`t try to make the case that many dedicated
individuals intent on proving Cho`s innocence could not raise
questions, and cast doubt on his guilt. Why is that?
> Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
> same nature as the JFK case.
I can approach these issues from any direction I desire. In this
instance, I prefer to make points about the nature of the kook
approach, instead of your preferred method of bogging down the
discussion by demanding answers to the questions you choose, and
judging whether you like the answers given or not.
> >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> >> of this.
>
>
> There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
> why pretend?
Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
these issues. Coward.
Bud
Yah, I was asserting it by pointing it out.
> You are certainly unwilling to *prove* what you assert,
Fuck you and your "prove something I don`t want to believe to my
satisfaction" demands.
> nor do I think you could even come close.
Well, you do love to set yourself up as the judge, and claim the
lurkers are the jury that nods in agreement over your decisions. Is it
your contention that a thousand fanatics intent on proving Cho`s
innocense could not pour through the evidence of this event and make
hay over a thousand issues? Look at the 9-11 movement, how they attack
the official government report, raise questions on hundreds of things.
My claim is that this is the natural result of effort, and that such a
production is not indicative of having the truth on your side. Look at
what the effort put forth by OJ`s lawyers did in producing enough
muddle for OJ to escape through the fog. OJ had the money to buy the
experts to make the smoke, kooks have been doing it pro bono on Oz`s
behalf.
Bud
<snicker> Only a kook would offer testimony of Oz hitting the cop
with a left and a right, and reaching for the bun in his waistband as
evidence that Oz wasn`t a threat to the police who confronted him.
> The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
Yah, it was, before Oz reached down and pulled it out.
> Mr. Hawkins.
> I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
> they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
> both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
> gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
> their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
When a cop says "a gun was pulled", don`t you think he means the
suspect they were confronting pulled it. He wouldn`t say this if one
of his fellow officers pulled a gun.
> Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember,
> Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
> took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
>
> You really need to get yer head outta yer ass and read the affidavits
> and police reports of many of the cops who were there in the theater.
Reporter Victor Robertson...
"He [Oz] rose in his seat and lifted his arm with his pistol just
about simultaneously with the time they were all over him."
Similar to the accounts you produced, Oz hit McDonald, Oz reached
for the gun, Oz was instantly dogpiled.
Officer McDonald...
"He was drawing the gun as I put my hand [down to Oz`s waist].
Johnny Brewer...
"McDonald was back up [after being struck by Oz]. He just knocked
him down for a second and he was back up. As I jumped off the stage
and was walking towards that, and I see this gun come up, and... in
Oswald`s hand, a gun come up in the air."
> Oswald never reached for his gun many of the cops, and civilian
> witnesses said the gun was in his belt NOT in his hand.
Several witnesses say it was. But, the act of reaching for it would
be plenty of justification for shooting him. They should not have let
that opportunity slip away.
> If he had
> been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have
> it
> ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him.
Obviously not, because he was a cop killer, and he didn`t do as you
say he would have. Killing Tippit worked to get past Tippit. He may
have thought that his chances of getting though this were better if he
tried to blend in. But Brewer pointed him out.
> He never
> did that because he was not a coldblooded killer.
He killed several people in a cold blooded manner, so I think that
qualifies him as cold blooded.
> If he had killed
> JFK
> and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
> by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think
> he
> did at tenth and Patton.
In Walt`s world, if the criminal doesn`t act in all ways as he
expects he should, this mean the suspect is innocent. Kooky.
> He didn't have a clue what they were going
> to accuse him of.
Figured he punch the cop and reach for his concealed gun just to be
on the safe side, huh?
David Von Pein
Bingo, Bud.
But even the pro bono "lawyers" the world over, who are hellbent on
allowing Oswald (like Orenthal James Simpson) to escape through that
CTer-created fog, cannot escape the inescapable PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that
screams "Oswald Did It". (Plus the almost-equally-invincible
circumstantial evidence that tells the world that LHO killed 2 men in
'63.)
Even with all that pro bono effort on Oswald's behalf, the best the
CTers can do is to question the validity of the physical evidence
(which all leads to the beloved patsy and everybody knows it).
The CTers don't like the way CE399 was handled...so that evidence is
thrown out and deemed unfit for use by the CTers (despite the fact
that NO proof can be established to show that 399 is any kind of a
"plant" in this case).
And if 399 is a legit bullet in the case, which of course it is, then
even CTers know that that very fact means something they never want to
admit to themselves -- i.e., it means that that piece-of-shit MC
rifle, #C2766, owned by Oswald since early 1963, definitely DID do
what many CTers think was virtually impossible for it to do -- it
fired a bullet that HIT ONE OR MORE VICTIMS IN THE PRESIDENT'S LIMO ON
11/22/63 FROM THE 6TH FLOOR OF THE BOOK DEPOSITORY.*
* = Note Walt's latest diatribe re. C2766, wherein Walt essentially
tells of his belief that Rifle C2766 couldn't hit the broad side of a
barn....this belief being rooted in Walter's mind DESPITE the fact
that C2766 physical ballistics evidence was found in the HOSPITAL
where the two victims were transported, in the LIMOUSINE, inside JOHN
CONNALLY'S WRIST, and inside JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD.
And I still want to know who is MORE LIKELY to have used Oswald's own
rifle at any point in time than Lee Harvey Oswald himself?
Is it MORE likely for a band of patsy-framing plotters to have stolen
Oz's rifle and used it to frame him? Or for those same plotters to
have duped the dumber-than-dumb Oswald into bringing his rifle to work
for somebody ELSE to use on November 22?
Or is it more likely that Oswald HIMSELF used it on Friday, 11/22?
I ask....which of the above is the MOST-LIKELY scenario?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42faee01d94a58d5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/30f318ea48653a72
And I'm still waiting for that first non-Oswald bullet or fragment to
turn up that will prove the multi-gun conspiracy that virtually all
CTers advocate. 43 years of looking, and nary a conspiracy-proving
fragment to be found. Amazing.
Therefore, the CT crowd is forced to go down the "Evidence Must All Be
Faked Or Planted" route. They have no choice but to travel down that
route....because if they don't, then only ONE GUN (Oswald's C2766) is
the lone JFK murder weapon....period.
It's time to re-post this astute observation by ballistics expert and
author Larry M. Sturdivan once again.....
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246
of "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan
Walt
There's no argument that lee hit McDonald, he acknowledged that he
did.
There are a couple of reasons that could explain Lee hitting Mc
Donald.
He certainly didn't think he could effect an escape by punching Mc
Donald, so that wouldn't have been the reason. He punched him when
McDonald had his hand on Lee's crotch. Of course we'll never know
the reason for Lee hitting McDonald but that's not the point.... The
point is you made the claim that Lee pulled a gun and yelled "THIS IS
IT". As you can see from the testimony It never happened.
> > The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
>
> Yah, it was, before Oz reached down and pulled it out.
Idiot....The gun was pulled out of Oswald's belt by McDonald or Jerry
Hill....
Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun,"
>
> > Mr. Hawkins.
> > I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
> > they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
> > both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
> > gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
> > their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
>
> When a cop says "a gun was pulled", don`t you think he means the
> suspect they were confronting pulled it. He wouldn`t say this if one
> of his fellow officers pulled a gun.
You're a liar, and a drowning man grasping at straws......
>
> > Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember,
> > Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
> > took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
>
> > You really need to get yer head outta yer ass and read the affidavits
> > and police reports of many of the cops who were there in the theater.
>
> Reporter Victor Robertson...
>
> "He [Oz] rose in his seat and lifted his arm with his pistol just
> about simultaneously with the time they were all over him."
Did Victor testify under oath?? The cops who were there testified ...
>
> Similar to the accounts you produced, Oz hit McDonald, Oz reached
> for the gun, Oz was instantly dogpiled.
>
> Officer McDonald...
>
> "He was drawing the gun as I put my hand [down to Oz`s waist].
>
> Johnny Brewer...
>
> "McDonald was back up [after being struck by Oz]. He just knocked
> him down for a second and he was back up. As I jumped off the stage
> and was walking towards that, and I see this gun come up, and... in
> Oswald`s hand, a gun come up in the air."
Brewer could not have known WHO actually had the pistol in the melee.
He said he saw the gun in the the hand of a bare arm and a short
sleeved shirt.
Lee was wearing a long sleeved shirt. Dud, you shouldn't attempt to
wipe the egg off your face after you've been caught in a lie, by
smearing more egg on yer face.
Walt
>
> > Oswald never reached for his gun many of the cops, and civilian
> > witnesses said the gun was in his belt NOT in his hand.
>
> Several witnesses say it was. But, the act of reaching for it would
> be plenty of justification for shooting him. They should not have let
> that opportunity slip away.
>
> > If he had
> > been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have
> > it
> > ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him.
>
> Obviously not, because he was a cop killer, and he didn`t do as you
> say he would have. Killing Tippit worked to get past Tippit. He may
> have thought that his chances of getting though this were better if he
> tried to blend in. But Brewer pointed him out.
>
> > He never
> > did that because he was not a coldblooded killer.
>
> He killed several people in a cold blooded manner, so I think that
> qualifies him as cold blooded.
Wow... Yer really gittin desperate... Now yer sayin he killed SEVERAL
people in cold blood.... WHO are these SEVERAL people??
>
> > If he had killed
> > JFK
> > and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
> > by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think
> > he
> > did at tenth and Patton.
>
> In Walt`s world, if the criminal doesn`t act in all ways as he
> expects he should, this mean the suspect is innocent. Kooky.
>
> > He didn't have a clue what they were going
> > to accuse him of.
>
> Figured he punch the cop and reach for his concealed gun just to be
> on the safe side, huh?
I believe if someone grabbed my balls I'd probably punch the bastard.
Walt
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
As per the norm, Walt-Kook mangles every single bit of evidence and
witness testimony he can get his paws on. Absolutely incredible. .....
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal
reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I
struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that
was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the
pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
======================
GERALD HILL. Came down the north stairway, and the commotion would
have been to my right or just south of the center of the theatre near
the back. Went over, and as I ran to them I saw some officers
struggling with a white male. I reached out and grabbed the left arm
of the suspect, and just before I got to him I heard somebody yell,
"Look out, he's got a gun." I was on the same row with the suspect.
The man on the row immediately behind him was an officer named Hutson.
McDonald was on the other side of the suspect from me in the same
aisle. Two officers, C. T. Walker and Ray Hawkins, were in the row in
front of us holding the suspect from the front and forcing him
backwards and down into the seat.
Bud
Good thing, if Oz denied it, you would have no choice but to deny
it also. Your beloved patsy wouldn`t lie, would he?
> There are a couple of reasons that could explain Lee hitting Mc
> Donald.
One good one. Oz was a double murderer.
> He certainly didn't think he could effect an escape by punching Mc
> Donald, so that wouldn't have been the reason.
Right, he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, so he punched
McDonald in order to buy him the time to reach for his pistol.
> He punched him when
> McDonald had his hand on Lee's crotch.
You can`t support that. And it doesn`t change anything even if that
was true.
> Of course we'll never know
> the reason for Lee hitting McDonald but that's not the point....
You will never know the most basic elements of this case, because
you are clueless.
> The
> point is you made the claim that Lee pulled a gun and yelled "THIS IS
> IT". As you can see from the testimony It never happened.
I said it was from memory. McDonald said he said "Well, I guess
this is it."
> > > The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
> >
> > Yah, it was, before Oz reached down and pulled it out.
>
> Idiot....The gun was pulled out of Oswald's belt by McDonald or Jerry
> Hill....
Numerous witness said the gun was in Oz`s hand. they were there,
not you.
> Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun,"
Yah, out of Oz`s hand.
> > > Mr. Hawkins.
> > > I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
> > > they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
> > > both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
> > > gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
> > > their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
> >
> > When a cop says "a gun was pulled", don`t you think he means the
> > suspect they were confronting pulled it. He wouldn`t say this if one
> > of his fellow officers pulled a gun.
>
> You're a liar, and a drowning man grasping at straws......
Really? Numerous witnesses corroborate that Oz did pull the gun.
Why did you advise me to look into the testimony surrounding this
event, when you are so woefully ignorant of them yourself?
> > > Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember,
> > > Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
> > > took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
>
> >
> > > You really need to get yer head outta yer ass and read the affidavits
> > > and police reports of many of the cops who were there in the theater.
> >
> > Reporter Victor Robertson...
> >
> > "He [Oz] rose in his seat and lifted his arm with his pistol just
> > about simultaneously with the time they were all over him."
>
> Did Victor testify under oath?? The cops who were there testified ...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertson.htm
> > Similar to the accounts you produced, Oz hit McDonald, Oz reached
> > for the gun, Oz was instantly dogpiled.
> >
> > Officer McDonald...
> >
> > "He was drawing the gun as I put my hand [down to Oz`s waist].
> >
> > Johnny Brewer...
> >
> > "McDonald was back up [after being struck by Oz]. He just knocked
> > him down for a second and he was back up. As I jumped off the stage
> > and was walking towards that, and I see this gun come up, and... in
> > Oswald`s hand, a gun come up in the air."
>
> Brewer could not have known WHO actually had the pistol in the melee.
If it was impossible for witnesses to determine who had the gun,
why did you advise me to look at the testimony? How do you know the
gun *wasn`t* in Oz`s hand in that melee?
> He said he saw the gun in the the hand of a bare arm and a short
> sleeved shirt.
No, he didn`t. that was Aplin who said that.
> Lee was wearing a long sleeved shirt.
Yah, I know, CE 150. And Lord knows a sleeve coundn`t be pulled
down during a struggle.
> Dud, you shouldn't attempt to
> wipe the egg off your face after you've been caught in a lie, by
> smearing more egg on yer face.
It wasn`t Brewer who said the person with the gun had on a short
sleeved shirt, it was George Jefferson Aplin, who said...
"I guess it was Oswald, because... for one reason, that he had on a
short sleeved shirt, and I seen a man`s arm that was connected to the
gun."
> Walt
> >
> > > Oswald never reached for his gun many of the cops, and civilian
> > > witnesses said the gun was in his belt NOT in his hand.
> >
> > Several witnesses say it was. But, the act of reaching for it would
> > be plenty of justification for shooting him. They should not have let
> > that opportunity slip away.
> >
> > > If he had
> > > been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have
> > > it
> > > ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him.
> >
> > Obviously not, because he was a cop killer, and he didn`t do as you
> > say he would have. Killing Tippit worked to get past Tippit. He may
> > have thought that his chances of getting though this were better if he
> > tried to blend in. But Brewer pointed him out.
> >
> > > He never
> > > did that because he was not a coldblooded killer.
> >
> > He killed several people in a cold blooded manner, so I think that
> > qualifies him as cold blooded.
>
> Wow... Yer really gittin desperate... Now yer sayin he killed SEVERAL
> people in cold blood.... WHO are these SEVERAL people??
Still stuck on the basics of the case, or are you reduced to parsing
words to score points?
> > > If he had killed
> > > JFK
> > > and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
> > > by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think
> > > he
> > > did at tenth and Patton.
> >
> > In Walt`s world, if the criminal doesn`t act in all ways as he
> > expects he should, this mean the suspect is innocent. Kooky.
> >
> > > He didn't have a clue what they were going
> > > to accuse him of.
> >
> > Figured he punch the cop and reach for his concealed gun just to be
> > on the safe side, huh?
>
> I believe if someone grabbed my balls I'd probably punch the bastard.
Guess what, the cops are allowed to search suspects.
Walt
The point being.... You lying bastards always try to get away with
claiming that Oswald pulled out his pistol and started waving it
around while yelling "THIS IS IT".... Yer a bunch of damned liars who
can't face the truth....Just Like the Warren Commission that you
apologize for, you have to embroider the facts. I don't know why you
bastards feel you need to lie to convict Oswald.....If he was guilty
the the bare essential facts should be enough to convict him, and we
both know that the basic facts do NOT support the W.C. decree. Do
you think that piling on lie on another really will help your case??
Walt
Bud
Nice work, David, seems that hammering Walt with the facts has
caused him to crack. Who next, Gil Jesus? I wish Ben would take me off
his killfile list. I`m sure I could push the right buttons to expose
him as a sputtering fool like Walt here. He knew it too, which is why
he did the preemptive defensive blacklisting. I`m tired of tangling
with these lightweights, I`m a big game hunter, and Ben`s head would
look good on my wall.
> Walt
Walt
Oh Right!! .... I rip into one of you lyin assholes, and expose you
for the liars you are by postin the actual testimony that reveals that
Oswald never pulled a gun not did he yell "THIS IS IT". Mc Donald's
the only one who claims to have heard Oswald Yell "THIS IS IT" I guess
you'll want to make it look like Lee yelled it in a whisper.....Huh,
Dud?
Anybody reading these posts can see that you lied .....
Walt
Bud
There is actual testimony from at least three witnesses that Oz did
pull his gun.
> not did he yell "THIS IS IT".
"Well, it`s all over now."
> Mc Donald's
> the only one who claims to have heard Oswald Yell "THIS IS IT" I guess
> you'll want to make it look like Lee yelled it in a whisper.....Huh,
> Dud?
McDonald didn`t say Oz yelled. Why do you always misrepresent the
evidence?
> Anybody reading these posts can see that you lied .....
Your credibility is shot, Walt. All you do is make claims you can`t
support. And you are one of the few CT still willing to post their
ridiculous beliefs. Conspiracy is dead in the water.
Walt
HEY DUD...WAKE UP!!! ...yer dreamin.... I'm still yer worst
nightmare.
Walt
Walt
Hey Dud since you have a reading comprehension problem,I'll post
Walker's statement once more.....
"and then the next thing I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in
his belt there, and
McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand. "
Can you understand that Dud....Mc Donald was holding Oswald's
hand ....Do you tink Oswald could have been stronger than the 250
pound Mc Donald and pulled his hand out of McDonald's police
submission grip??
Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
Now I'll put it all together for you Dud, and I'll type real slow, so
you can understand.
McDonald squeezed Oswald's balls and Oswald's reflexes caused him to
strike McDonald. In the ensuing scuffle McDonald grabbed Oswald's hand
while Jerry Hill pulled the pistol from Oswald's belt.
Can you understand that now Dud??
McDonald's right hand as he was searching, and he felt of his pocket,
and Oswald then hit him, ,it appeared, with his left hand first, and
then with his right hand. They was scuffling .there, and Officer
Hutson and I ran toward the back of Oswald and Hutson threw his arm
around his neck, and I grabbed his left arm, and we threw him back
over the seat.
At this time I didn't see any gun that was involved. I don't know
whether we pulled Oswald away .from McDonald for a split second or
what, but he was thrown back against the seat, and then the next
thing
I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in his belt there, and
McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand.
The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
> > Mr. Hawkins.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Walt evidently thinks that Oswald had his hand on his gun just in
order to push it further down inside his pants.
Oz couldn't possibly have had his hand on his gun for the purpose of
pulling it OUT of his pants and possibly shooting some cops with it,
could he? Oz, after all, wouldn't harm a fly.
Walt The Kook continues to bat 1.000....he gets everything wrong and
skews/mangles all evidence & testimony beyond all common-sense
recognition.
An incredible record Walt. Even Pete Rose (the all-time hits king)
only batted .303 lifetime.
Walt
Ha,ha,ha,ha....LMAO.... Yer makin my day, dumbass
If you weren't worried about the facts I post you wouldn't bother to
try to refute them, with ad hominem attacks. Yer not the sharpest
knife in the drawer are you?
Walt
Bud
> > evidence that Oz wasn`t a threat to the police who confronted him.
> >
> The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
>
> Yah, it was, before Oz reached down and pulled it out.
>
> Hey Dud since you have a reading comprehension problem,I'll post
> Walker's statement once more.....
Try posting Aplin`s observations of the struggle, and whether Oz
pulled the gun. Or Brewer`s. Or McDonald`s.
> "and then the next thing I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in
> his belt there, and
> McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand. "
>
> Can you understand that Dud....Mc Donald was holding Oswald's
> hand ....
Was the gun in or out of Oz`s waistband at the time, Walt? It
doesn`t say in this account, but it does in the accounts of other
witnesses.
>Do you tink Oswald could have been stronger than the 250
> pound Mc Donald and pulled his hand out of McDonald's police
> submission grip??
Stupidity had a hammer-lock on your brain.
> Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
> took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
Was Hill in short sleeves?
> Now I'll put it all together for you Dud, and I'll type real slow, so
> you can understand.
>
> McDonald squeezed Oswald's balls
Quote any witness to Mcdonald hand being that low. McDonald said
"waist", I saw where another witness said "hip".
>and Oswald's reflexes caused him to
> strike McDonald.
Twice?
> In the ensuing scuffle McDonald grabbed Oswald's hand
> while Jerry Hill pulled the pistol from Oswald's belt.
>
> Can you understand that now Dud??
You are ignoring the numerous witnesses who said Oz pulled the gun.
why is that, Walt?
Walt
What credible witness stated that Oswald pulled a gun?
The point behind this entire started when you said Oswald pulled his
pistol and said"this is it".
You were lying.....Oswald never pulled his pistol nor did anybody
McDonald hear Oswald say anything.
With all of those cops around Oswald they would not have hesitated to
report that Oswald had pulled a gun if he had done that. They all
wanted to make him to appear to be guilty of shooting Tippit, and
pulling a gun on those cops would definitely have been something they
would have reported. And apparently Oswald whispered to McDonald
"pssst ...officer, this is it", because none of the other officers
heard it.
>
> > McDonald's right hand as he was searching, and he felt of his pocket,
> > and Oswald then hit him, ,it appeared, with his left hand first, and
> > then with his right hand. They was scuffling .there, and Officer
> > Hutson and I ran toward the back of Oswald and Hutson threw his arm
> > around his neck, and I grabbed his left arm, and we threw him back
> > over the seat.
> > At this time I didn't see any gun that was involved. I don't know
> > whether we pulled Oswald away .from McDonald for a split second or
> > what, but he was thrown back against the seat, and then the next
> > thing
> > I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in his belt there, and
> > McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand.
>
> > The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
>
> > > > Mr. Hawkins.
> > > > I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
> > > > they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
> > > > both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
> > > > gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
> > > > their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
>
> > > When a cop says "a gun was pulled", don`t you think he means the
> > > suspect they were confronting pulled it. He wouldn`t say this if one
> > > of his fellow officers pulled a gun.
We both know that a cop saying "a gun was pulled" is a evasive way of
saying "Oswald pulled a gun" He knew damned well that oswald never
pulled a gun, so therefore he couldn't be on record as saying"Oswald
pulled a gun"...so he IMPLIES that Oswald pulled the gun by
saying...."a gun was pulled". The fact that you believe it proves
that gullible idiots will believe anything.
Walt
David Von Pein
does anyway.
What the hell difference does it make if Oswald "pulled" his gun or
not?
If he didn't "pull it", is he suddenly innocent of killing JFK and
Officer Tippit? Does all of that evidence that proves Oz guilty of 2
killings suddenly vanish if LHO keeps that gun in his pants?
It's a moot point, you scrotumhead! Johnny Brewer pointed out the
suspect (Oswald) in the theater....and the cops took it from there.
Oswald certainly hit McDonald in the face FIRST. That act (alone) is
the act of a guilty person. Does an innocent person go around hitting
cops in the face just because an officer him to stand up from his
theater seat?
Bud
I gave three names, there may be more. What makes them not
credible, the fact that they say something you don`t want to believe?
> The point behind this entire started when you said Oswald pulled his
> pistol and said"this is it".
>
> You were lying.....Oswald never pulled his pistol
Numerous witnesses said he did. They were there, not you.
> nor did anybody
> McDonald hear Oswald say anything.
McDonald did. He was closest.
> With all of those cops around Oswald they would not have hesitated to
> report that Oswald had pulled a gun if he had done that.
Some did. Some might not have had a good view. At least two came
from behind Oz.
> They all
> wanted to make him to appear to be guilty of shooting Tippit, and
> pulling a gun on those cops would definitely have been something they
> would have reported.
It was reported. By a patron to the moviehouse, by a reporter who
followed the cops in, and by a shoe salesman who pointed out the
suspicious man he saw. These aren`t even cops, just ordinary citizens.
> And apparently Oswald whispered to McDonald
> "pssst ...officer, this is it", because none of the other officers
> heard it.
They were converging from different rows. McDonald was right in
front of Oz. And it wasn`t "this is it", it was "Well, it`s all over
now." It probably wasn`t even meant for McDonald to hear, just Oz
appraising the situation to himself. Clearly, it was the end of the
road for him, and he decided on a suicidal course of action.
Walt
> Just when you thought Walt couldn't go deeper into insanity.....he
> does anyway.
>
> What the hell difference does it make if Oswald "pulled" his gun or
> not?
The point being ....You lying bastarrds always embroider Oswald's
arrest, by saying Oswald pulled his gun and yelled "this is it", but
when the testimonies of the cops who were there are examined it's
clear that nothing of the kind happened. I know it makes a good
believable lie for those of you who have been raised to believe that
Oswald was a "boggie man" in the image of Snidely Whiplash, but the
testimonies show that you've been lead to believe in a fairy tale.
Walt
curtjester1
upon numerous who heard gunshots, smelled gunpowder, and saw gunsmoke
from behind the stockade fence on the GK, but that gets into 'Oz's
unculpability'.
> > > > and they crow long
> > > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> > > They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> > > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> > > also.
>
> > You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> > part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
>
> What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
> portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
> evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, this is
> from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when he was
> surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in Philly
> in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
>
Whoever came at him, came at him "gun drawn". Ever think it could
have been a reflex action if any of the speculation about his revolver
were true? It's hardly compelling either when that particular
revolver was said to have a defective firing pin, and that was
supposed to be working just fine just prior. And one would think,
that if he had fired all those rounds at the Tippit scene that the
revolver would have been reeking of smell, huh?
> > > > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> > > > Warren Commission said he was??
>
> > > Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> > > although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> > > killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> > > did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
>
> > It's a whole fruit basket.
>
> That is one explaination.
>
>
Lucy, you got's a whole lot of splainin to do....
>
>
>
> > > This event does make me wonder what would happen if say, a thousand
> > > fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
> > > of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
> > > said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
> > > couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
> > > pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
> > > witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
> > > campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
> > > the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
> > > could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
> > > one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
> > > at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
> > > said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
> > > right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
> > > bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
> > > of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
> > > exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
> > > produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
> > > disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
> > > of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
> > > more to their liking. See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> > > of this.
>
> > And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
> > try to do.
>
> I wasn`t lumping them. I was pointing out what an effort like the
> one Oz received would likely produce in Cho`s case.
>
Lucy, you got's more splainin to do.
>
>
> > CJ
>
> > > > Walt- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> In article <1177101287.125383.259...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, curtjester1
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 20 Apr, 03:43, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> Walt wrote:
> >> > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
>
> >> What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
> >> people.
>
> >> > that he didn't
> >> > even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> >> > he wanted FAME.
> >> > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> >> > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> >> > around the world.
>
> >> I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
> >> couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
> >> defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
> >> campus?
>
> >> > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> >> > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
>
> >> Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
> >> confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
> >> Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
>
> >Guilt unfortunately would not preclude conspiracy.
>
> >> > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> >> They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> >> themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> >> also.
>
> >You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> >part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
>
> >> > Warren Commission said he was??
>
> >> Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> >> although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> >> killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> >> did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
>
> >It's a whole fruit basket.
>
> >> fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
> >> of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
> >> said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
> >> couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
> >> pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
> >> witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
> >> campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
> >> the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
> >> could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
> >> one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
> >> at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
> >> said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
> >> right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
> >> bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
> >> of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
> >> exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
> >> produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
> >> disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
> >> of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
> >> more to their liking.
>
anything guilty become possibly clouded. I bet that bushy hair, and
blocked hairline is just witnesses that tend to be conspiratorial in
their observations instead of a more stable LN. I doubt Bud watches
too much of Forensic Crime shows on TV either.
> This is a perfect opportunity for the trolls to prove that such *could* happen.
> Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
> same nature as the JFK case.
>
> >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> >> of this.
>
> There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
> why pretend?
>
>
Funny how they have to stock all their marbles on a LN to support a
LN.
CJ
>
> >And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
> >try to do.
>
curtjester1
> Don't forget that the campus police gave Cho two hours to get his act
> together between the two murder scenes. They must have been in on it.
>
And how did they happen to get Oz's wrong address at 605 Elsbeth and
have his name at the top of the list? And how did his name get called
at the arrest at the Texas Theater?
> As Bud notes, you can take any event and arrange the facts to make any
> case you want. Lawyers do it all the time. Every horrific event is full of
> inconsistencies and misreporting, second-guessing and speculation. Those
> things by themselves do not prove a conspiracy. The inability of
> conspiracy buffs in the JFK assassination to grasp this simple and
> pervasive fact of life amazes me.
And Shakespeare said "kill all the lawyers". (and meant it). Since
the inconsistencies and misdirections of the WC were so numerous, may
one be possibly thankful that regular people took it upon themselves
to find more witnesses and examine evidence more closely where the WC
miserably failed?
CJ
>
> gg
curtjester1
> > Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
> > same nature as the JFK case.
>
> I can approach these issues from any direction I desire. In this
> instance, I prefer to make points about the nature of the kook
> approach, instead of your preferred method of bogging down the
> discussion by demanding answers to the questions you choose, and
> judging whether you like the answers given or not.
>
And that desire is looking at any evidence that is simple enough to
find Oz guilty. Anything else must be sorted into your desires of
'not quite good enough'.
> > >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> > >> of this.
>
> > There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
> > why pretend?
>
> Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
> these issues. Coward.
>
LOL, Bud decides to talk to a ghost. Wasn't Markham there with hands
over eyes, 150 feet from the murder scene, and said to be talking to
the fallen Tippit? Something about short and bushy hair too. She's a
real beaut. Never mind that Oz would have had to travel past her to
get to Tippit if he was coming directly from the roominghouse. Never
mind that 1:07 in any of Markham's language put's Oz incapable of
being at the crime scene in time. Actually she is a LN's worst
witness since she is supported by Bowley and Craig.
CJ
>
>
> > >And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
> > >try to do.
>
> > >CJ
>
David Von Pein
We should thank the conspiracy clowns for muddying-up the case to
massive proportions??
We should thank the CTers for complicating the wholly-uncomplicated,
reasonable, and evidence-based WC conclusions??
Yeah...we really should be THANKFUL for all that, huh?
Geez.
With all of those "regular people" running around looking under every
rock and umbrella for any "conspiracy" they can dream up, is it any
wonder that it took Vince Bugliosi 21 years to "reclaim history" in
the JFK case?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
Bud
Some babies are doomed to crawl. In what meaningful way have you
established that the shots they heard came form that place, and that
place only, that what they smelled was gunpowder, or that the smoke
seen was gunsmoke?
> > > > > and they crow long
> > > > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
> >
> > > > They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> > > > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> > > > also.
> >
> > > You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> > > part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
> >
> > What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
> > portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
> > evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, this is
> > from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when he was
> > surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in Philly
> > in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
> >
> Whoever came at him, came at him "gun drawn".
I don`t think McDonald had his gun out.
> Ever think it could
> have been a reflex action if any of the speculation about his revolver
> were true?
Reflex action to hit a cop? I hope my reflexes never get that good.
the house lights were turned up, and McDonald was searching other
patrons of the theater as he worked his way towards Oz. Oz couldn`t
have been startled when his turn came to be searched.
> It's hardly compelling either when that particular
> revolver was said to have a defective firing pin,
Numerous witnesses reported clicking, as if Oz`s gun was misfiring.
> and that was
> supposed to be working just fine just prior. And one would think,
> that if he had fired all those rounds at the Tippit scene that the
> revolver would have been reeking of smell, huh?
In what meaningful way have you determined it wasn`t?
> > > > > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> > > > > Warren Commission said he was??
> >
> > > > Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> > > > although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> > > > killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> > > > did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
> >
> > > It's a whole fruit basket.
> >
> > That is one explaination.
> >
> >
> Lucy, you got's a whole lot of splainin to do....
It`s been explained, Ethal.
I`m thinking that no amount of explaining will do you any good.
Ben Holmes
>
>On 22 Apr, 20:56, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Just when you thought Walt couldn't go deeper into insanity.....he
>> does anyway.
>>
>> What the hell difference does it make if Oswald "pulled" his gun or
>> not?
>
>The point being ....You lying bastarrds always embroider Oswald's
>arrest, by saying Oswald pulled his gun and yelled "this is it", but
>when the testimonies of the cops who were there are examined it's
>clear that nothing of the kind happened. I know it makes a good
>believable lie for those of you who have been raised to believe that
>Oswald was a "boggie man" in the image of Snidely Whiplash, but the
>testimonies show that you've been lead to believe in a fairy tale.
>
>Walt
Sort of an amusing question, really... you can translate it as "What do you care
what the evidence says... we know Oswald is the Lone Assassin!"
Of course this forms one of the basic differences between LNT'ers and CT'ers...
the CT'ers being willing to pay attention to the ACTUAL evidence, and not what
someone *says* the evidence is.
Bud
curtjester1 wrote:
> On 21 Apr, 01:06, gwri...@mindspring.com (Terp fan) wrote:
> > Don't forget that the campus police gave Cho two hours to get his act
> > together between the two murder scenes. They must have been in on it.
> >
> So since it took some time to catch Oz, it should be comparable?
>
> And how did they happen to get Oz's wrong address at 605 Elsbeth and
> have his name at the top of the list?
What does that have to do with whether Oz killed Kennedy?
> And how did his name get called
> at the arrest at the Texas Theater?
What does that have to do with whether he killed Tippit?
> > As Bud notes, you can take any event and arrange the facts to make any
> > case you want. Lawyers do it all the time. Every horrific event is full of
> > inconsistencies and misreporting, second-guessing and speculation. Those
> > things by themselves do not prove a conspiracy. The inability of
> > conspiracy buffs in the JFK assassination to grasp this simple and
> > pervasive fact of life amazes me.
>
> And Shakespeare said "kill all the lawyers". (and meant it). Since
> the inconsistencies and misdirections of the WC were so numerous, may
> one be possibly thankful that regular people
<snicker>
>took it upon themselves
> to find more witnesses and examine evidence more closely where the WC
> miserably failed?
Yah, thats what happened. the WC should have returned the drivel
Walt and dw have been posting. It goes nowhere, but is a lot more
interesting to read than that bland "Oswald did it" stuff. "Where the
fuck are the nijas" cry the kooks raised on TV.
> CJ
> >
> > gg
Bud
That ship has long since sailed.
> > > Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
> > > same nature as the JFK case.
> >
> > I can approach these issues from any direction I desire. In this
> > instance, I prefer to make points about the nature of the kook
> > approach, instead of your preferred method of bogging down the
> > discussion by demanding answers to the questions you choose, and
> > judging whether you like the answers given or not.
> >
> And that desire is looking at any evidence that is simple enough to
> find Oz guilty.
Yah, when looking through Oz`s possesions, they should have torn up
the photo of Oz holding the murder weapon, disregarded his lies about
owning it, ect. Just approach the case in the kook manner, if it
points to Oz`s guilt, chuck it out.
> Anything else must be sorted into your desires of
> 'not quite good enough'.
If what is in evidence that points to Oz`s guilt is good enough,
then how can you convict any others with puffs of smoke, and the smell
of gunpower?
> > > >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> > > >> of this.
> >
> > > There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
> > > why pretend?
> >
> > Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
> > these issues. Coward.
> >
> LOL, Bud decides to talk to a ghost.
Ben is dead? YES!
> Wasn't Markham there with hands
> over eyes,
Someone unaware of what she said might think so.
>150 feet from the murder scene,
But the path of Oz`s flight took him closer to her.
> and said to be talking to
> the fallen Tippit? Something about short and bushy hair too. She's a
> real beaut.
This from the person who finds Jean Hill credible.
> Never mind that Oz would have had to travel past her to
> get to Tippit if he was coming directly from the roominghouse. Never
> mind that 1:07 in any of Markham's language put's Oz incapable of
> being at the crime scene in time. Actually she is a LN's worst
> witness since she is supported by Bowley and Craig.
She took a long hard look at Oz and identifled him as the man she
saw shoot Tippit. Other people IDied oz as the man in the vicintity
with a gun. Thats called corroboration.
Ben Holmes
says...
Because as I've stated, it's an *assertion* of yours, and one that you can't
support.
You see, Bud - This is a perfect illustration of why you've been killfiled - I
make a perfectly valid point, and you simply ignore it and move on.
But there's no sense in moving on - since you are doing the same thing here as
you do in the JFK case... you SPECULATE!
The evidence doesn't matter to you, other than insofar as it can help you
support your faith.
>And yet you make no offer to define guilt.
>
>> > Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems
>> > of the same nature as the JFK case.
>>
>> I can approach these issues from any direction I desire.
That's okay... I merely point out to lurkers that once again, you're merely
making assertions with no evidence whatsoever.
In truth, Cho's case demonstrates quite well what the mindset of a *real* Lone
Nut is - and it has *nothing* in common with Oswald.
>> In this
>> instance, I prefer to make points about the nature of the kook
>> approach, instead of your preferred method of bogging down the
>> discussion by demanding answers to the questions you choose, and
>> judging whether you like the answers given or not.
Making assertions and ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the actual
evidence. You remain killfiled... Who knows, someday you may grow up...
>And that desire is looking at any evidence that is simple enough to
>find Oz guilty. Anything else must be sorted into your desires of
>'not quite good enough'.
True... LNT'ers judge the evidence based on whether it supports their faith...
they *DON'T* judge their faith based on the evidence.
>> > >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
>> > >> of this.
>>
>> > There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she
>> > said. So why pretend?
>>
>> Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
>> these issues. Coward.
The issue, oh killfiled troll; is that you can't believe what Markham stated.
Noticeably, you avoided that topic.
Again, merely another illustration of why you will remain killfiled.
>LOL, Bud decides to talk to a ghost. Wasn't Markham there with hands
>over eyes, 150 feet from the murder scene, and said to be talking to
>the fallen Tippit? Something about short and bushy hair too. She's a
>real beaut. Never mind that Oz would have had to travel past her to
>get to Tippit if he was coming directly from the roominghouse. Never
>mind that 1:07 in any of Markham's language put's Oz incapable of
>being at the crime scene in time. Actually she is a LN's worst
>witness since she is supported by Bowley and Craig.
As I stated, no LNT'er would *dare* believe what she asserted. This is why Bud
runs from defending her assertions.
Bud
It is supported by it`s inate obviousness. If you need support that
with enough effort, hay can be made over anything, look to the moon
hoaxers and the 9-11 truth movement. The work of the dedicated,
motivated and should-be-medicated crowd. No different than the common
assassination kook found here.
> You see, Bud - This is a perfect illustration of why you've been killfiled -
I thought it was to spare you from reading what I write. yet, you
still read and reply to what I write.
> I
> make a perfectly valid point, and you simply ignore it and move on.
If you want to hold a discussion with me, unkillfile me, whack-job.
Is it your contention the witness and medical testimony was available
in the VT shooting spree, it would contain no descrepancies and
contradictions, but be a seamless account of the event? On what planet
do you kooks think this happens on?
> But there's no sense in moving on - since you are doing the same thing here as
> you do in the JFK case... you SPECULATE!
This is like Jeffery Dahmer accusing me of being a finicky eater.
> The evidence doesn't matter to you, other than insofar as it can help you
> support your faith.
You are beyond kooky. Who is it that throws out scads of physical
evidence, x-rays, photos, z-film, along with a good deal of
inconvenient witness testimony?
> >And yet you make no offer to define guilt.
> >
> >> > Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems
> >> > of the same nature as the JFK case.
> >>
> >> I can approach these issues from any direction I desire.
>
>
> That's okay... I merely point out to lurkers that once again, you're merely
> making assertions with no evidence whatsoever.
Fine, the lurkers are on to you anyway. When you ran and his from
me, you lost all standing amongst the lurkers. I am now their
favorite.
> In truth, Cho's case demonstrates quite well what the mindset of a *real* Lone
> Nut is - and it has *nothing* in common with Oswald.
You are as bad as Walt, casting the catch-all lone nut net, as if
all psychos are created equal. Personality still plays a part, Oz
wasn`t fueled by anger like Cho, he saw violence only as a justifiable
means to achieve his irrational goals.
> >> In this
> >> instance, I prefer to make points about the nature of the kook
> >> approach, instead of your preferred method of bogging down the
> >> discussion by demanding answers to the questions you choose, and
> >> judging whether you like the answers given or not.
>
>
> Making assertions and ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the actual
> evidence.
The evidence isn`t the problem. Highlighting and exposing your poor
thought processes is a much more productive approach to stifle
conspiracy babbling, as it addresses the actual problem, which is
kooks.
> You remain killfiled... Who knows, someday you may grow up...
Don`t count on it, Banky.
> >And that desire is looking at any evidence that is simple enough to
> >find Oz guilty. Anything else must be sorted into your desires of
> >'not quite good enough'.
>
>
> True... LNT'ers judge the evidence based on whether it supports their faith...
> they *DON'T* judge their faith based on the evidence.
This is what Walt said not too long ago...
"At the time I thought Brennan`s testimony was devastating to Oswald
being a patsy, so I wanted him to be a liar."
You were saying?
> >> > >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> >> > >> of this.
> >>
> >> > There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she
> >> > said. So why pretend?
> >>
> >> Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
> >> these issues. Coward.
>
>
> The issue, oh killfiled troll; is that you can't believe what Markham stated.
> Noticeably, you avoided that topic.
As you failed to address the root cause of me being killfiled by
you, your cowardice.
> Again, merely another illustration of why you will remain killfiled.
Yah, it is, but not the way you intended.
> >LOL, Bud decides to talk to a ghost. Wasn't Markham there with hands
> >over eyes, 150 feet from the murder scene, and said to be talking to
> >the fallen Tippit? Something about short and bushy hair too. She's a
> >real beaut. Never mind that Oz would have had to travel past her to
> >get to Tippit if he was coming directly from the roominghouse. Never
> >mind that 1:07 in any of Markham's language put's Oz incapable of
> >being at the crime scene in time. Actually she is a LN's worst
> >witness since she is supported by Bowley and Craig.
>
>
>
> As I stated, no LNT'er would *dare* believe what she asserted. This is why Bud
> runs from defending her assertions.
Typical of your cowardly way of pretending to make a point, when in
fact you`ve said nothing. I judge information by what is likely or
rational to believe regardless of whose mouth it comes out of.
Walt
McDonald was searching other patrons of the theater as he worked his
way towards Oz.
Why do you lie? No such thing happened.. McDonald said someone told
him the man they wanted was seated in such and such a seat. He never
searched anybody as he walked up the aisle. When he got to Oswald, he
called out "HERE HE IS"! Which begs the question...How did he, and the
other cops KNOW who they were looking for??
You lying bastarrds always embroider Oswald's arrest, by saying Oswald
pulled his gun and yelled "this is it", but
when the testimonies of the cops who were there are examined it's
clear that nothing of the kind happened. I know it makes a good
believable lie for those of you who have been raised to believe that
Oswald was a "boggie man" in the image of Snidely Whiplash, but the
testimonies show that you've been lead to believe in a fairy tale.
Walt
>
Todd W. Vaughan
You're lying, Walt.
Here's what McDonald testified to:
Mr. BALL - You could see the man. Did the civilian point out to you
the man in one of the rear seats?
Mr. McDONALD - He didn't point out personally. He was pointing out the
suspect to another officer with him on the right of the stage, just
right of the movie screen.
Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, after seeing him, I noticed the other people in
the theater--there was approximately 10 or 15 other people seated
throughout the theater. There were two men sitting in the center,
about 10 rows from the front.
I walked up the left center aisle into the row behind these two men,
and Officer C. T. Walker was behind me. When I got to these two men, I
told them to get on their feet. They got up. I searched them for a
weapon.
I looked over my shoulder and the suspect that had been pointed out to
me. He remained seated without moving, just looking at me.
Mr. BALL - Why did you frisk these two men in the center of the
theater?
Mr. McDONALD - I wanted to make sure that I didn't pass anything or
miss anybody. I wanted to make sure I didn't overlook anybody or
anything.
Mr. BALL - And you still kept your eye on the suspect?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. He was to my back. I was looking over my
shoulder at him.
Mr. BALL - Was he sitting nearest the right or the left aisle as you
came in?
Mr. McDONALD - The right center aisle. He was in the second seat.
Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
Mr. McDONALD - After I was satisfied that these two men were not armed
or had a weapon on them, I walked out of this row, up to the right
center aisle toward the suspect. And as I walked up there, just at a
normal gait, I didn't look directly at him, but I kept my eye on him
and any other persons. And to my left was another man and I believe a
woman was with him. But he was further back than the suspect.
And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped
abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose
immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder
high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about
breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now."
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand
went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the
bridge of the nose.
Walt
Ok I apologize....I was in error about McDonald going through the
motions of searching those two men a few rows in front of Oswald, but
by his own admission he never took his eyes off Oswald. Obviously
they were looking for Oswald when they entered the theater. When they
were asked how they knew who they were looking they said they were
going by the description that was broadcast. But that description
probably fit half the men in the theater at the time.
Walt
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
You should apologize...you're distorting the record in the case with
your uninformed claims.
> but
> by his own admission he never took his eyes off Oswald.
And why should he have? Brewer had already pointed him out as the man
he had Postal call about.
Time to apologize again.
> Obviously
> they were looking for Oswald when they entered the theater.
No, they were looking for the suspect in the Tippit shooting and the
man Brewer had Postal call them in regard to.
Time to apologize again.
> When they
> were asked how they knew who they were looking they said they were
> going by the description that was broadcast. But that description
> probably fit half the men in the theater at the time.
Nope. Brewer pointed the man out to them.
Time to apologize again.
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>On Apr 23, 9:49 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr, 18:41, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 7:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 23 Apr, 15:07, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > curtjester1 wrote:
>> > > > > On 20 Apr, 17:04, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > curtjester1 wrote:
>> > > > > > > On 20 Apr, 03:43, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
>>
>lled 33
>> > > > > > > > people.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > that he didn't
>erts.........
>> > > > > > > > > he wanted FAME.
>> > > > > > > > > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding=
> home video
>> > > > > > > > > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen=
> on TV sets
>> > > > > > > > > around the world.
>>
>esus
>> > > > > > > > couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for=
> "the
>> > > > > > > > defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college k=
>ids on
>> > > > > > > > campus?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Ment=
>al health
>> > > > > > > > > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
>>
>e of smug
>> > > > > > > > confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerfu=
>l forces.
>> > > > > > > > Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
>>
>> > > > > > > Guilt unfortunately would not preclude conspiracy.
>>
>ter
>> > > > > > behind every blade of grass. By accepting Oz`s obvious culpabil=
>ity
>> > > > > > would be a baby step in the right direction.
>>
>us
>> > > > > upon numerous who heard gunshots, smelled gunpowder, and saw guns=
>moke
>> > > > > from behind the stockade fence on the GK, but that gets into 'Oz's
>> > > > > unculpability'.
>>
>> > > > Some babies are doomed to crawl. In what meaningful way have you
>> > > > established that the shots they heard came form that place, and that
>> > > > place only, that what they smelled was gunpowder, or that the smoke
>> > > > seen was gunsmoke?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > and they crow long
>> > > > > > > > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>>
>lled
>> > > > > > > > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his =
>actions
>> > > > > > > > also.
>>
>> > > > > > > You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he wa=
>s indeed
>> > > > > > > part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
>>
>> > > > > > What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
>> > > > > > portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
> is
>> > > > > > from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when h=
>e was
>> > > > > > surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in=
> Philly
>> > > > > > in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
>>
>> > > > > Whoever came at him, came at him "gun drawn".
>>
>> > > > I don`t think McDonald had his gun out.
>>
>> > > > > Ever think it could
Coming from someone who has simply run away each time I prove FBI intimidation
of eyewitnesses in this case - you seem like just a tad bit of a hypocrite.
Care to apologize for your misrepresentation of the record on FBI intimidation,
Toddy?
>> but
>> by his own admission he never took his eyes off Oswald. =20
>> > > > Reflex action to hit a cop? I hope my reflexes never get that goo=
>d=2E
>> > > > the house lights were turned up, and McDonald was searching other
>> > > > patrons of the theater as he worked his way towards Oz. Oz couldn`t
>> > > > have been startled when his turn came to be searched.
>>
>> > > > > It's hardly compelling either when that particular
>> > > > > revolver was said to have a defective firing pin,
>>
>> > > > Numerous witnesses reported clicking, as if Oz`s gun was misfiri=
>ng.
>>
>> > > > > and that was
>> > > > > supposed to be working just fine just prior. And one would think,
>> > > > > that if he had fired all those rounds at the Tippit scene that the
>> > > > > revolver would have been reeking of smell, huh?
>>
>> > > > In what meaningful way have you determined it wasn`t?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut=
> that the
>> > > > > > > > > Warren Commission said he was??
>>
>> > > > > > > > Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and ora=
>nges,
>> > > > > > > > although there are some similarities. There was a pause bet=
>ween Oz`s
>> > > > > > > > killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different we=
>apons, so
>> > > > > > > > did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
>>
>> > > > > > > It's a whole fruit basket.
>>
>> > > > > > That is one explaination.
>>
>> > > > > Lucy, you got's a whole lot of splainin to do....
>>
>> > > > It`s been explained, Ethal.
>>
>> > > > > > > > This event does make me wonder what would happen if say,=
> a thousand
>> > > > > > > > fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on th=
>e evidence
>> > > > > > > > of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This =
>witness
>> > > > > > > > said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black=
> one, it
>> > > > > > > > couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter =
>was 190
>> > > > > > > > pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else"=
>. or "One
>> > > > > > > > witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east s=
>ide of
>> > > > > > > > campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting s=
>omeone on
>> > > > > > > > the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the=
> witnesses
>> > > > > > > > could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness sai=
>d he went
>> > > > > > > > one way, another said he walked a different route, there mu=
>st`ve been
>> > > > > > > > at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("F=
>ive witness
>> > > > > > > > said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy s=
>ays her
>> > > > > > > > right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence=
> ("Those
>> > > > > > > > bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, =
>the chain
>> > > > > > > > of custody is broken") looking to
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> >>> "May one be possibly thankful that regular people took it upon themselves to find more witnesses and examine evidence more closely where the WC miserably failed?" <<<
>
> We should thank the conspiracy clowns for muddying-up the case to
> massive proportions??
>
avoided because the WC didn't like 'the mud'. Shame shame.
> We should thank the CTers for complicating the wholly-uncomplicated,
> reasonable, and evidence-based WC conclusions??
>
Yeah like rifle found by the fourth floor stairwell, FBI
fingerprinting a corpse on his when he had already been fingerprinted
3 times. Postal paperwork messed up.....yadda yadda yadda.
> Yeah...we really should be THANKFUL for all that, huh?
>
> Geez.
>
Yes, as one will see a conspiracy was there. FBI report of Oswald
being handed a gun as he left the TSBD by people that had lunch with
him shows that a 'LN' wasn't too Lone.
> With all of those "regular people" running around looking under every
> rock and umbrella for any "conspiracy" they can dream up, is it any
> wonder that it took Vince Bugliosi 21 years to "reclaim history" in
> the JFK case?
>
Vinnie will have his one sided mishmash floating in the Bermuda
Triangle on another Lost Flight.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
>
> http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
curtjester1
avoided after Holland was interviewed. Try other folks that were ON
the Knoll and were avoided.
http://hum.uchicago.edu/~jagoldsm/Papers/JFK/7_Event.pdf
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > and they crow long
> > > > > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> > > > > They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> > > > > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> > > > > also.
>
> > > > You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> > > > part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
>
> > > What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
> > > portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
> > > evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, this is
> > > from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when he was
> > > surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in Philly
> > > in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
>
> > Whoever came at him, came at him "gun drawn".
>
> I don`t think McDonald had his gun out.
>
Who cares, it's been said. Could have had it out, put it back. Who
wants to play god and know what they think Oz might have been feeling
at the time. Maybe he could have thought if he got the jump on the
officer he would have had leverage for them to back off.
> > Ever think it could
> > have been a reflex action if any of the speculation about his revolver
> > were true?
>
> Reflex action to hit a cop? I hope my reflexes never get that good.
> the house lights were turned up, and McDonald was searching other
> patrons of the theater as he worked his way towards Oz. Oz couldn`t
> have been startled when his turn came to be searched.
>
Maybe he didn't like cops, no reason to speculate rigidly that he
wanted to die.
> > It's hardly compelling either when that particular
> > revolver was said to have a defective firing pin,
>
> Numerous witnesses reported clicking, as if Oz`s gun was misfiring.
>
Then why was it deemed that the gun was unshootable afterwards?
> > and that was
> > supposed to be working just fine just prior. And one would think,
> > that if he had fired all those rounds at the Tippit scene that the
> > revolver would have been reeking of smell, huh?
>
> In what meaningful way have you determined it wasn`t?
>
It's a simple act, and basic in logic to do, and simply not commented
on. It would have been the most telling thing to do, and would have
put the rest the whole years of investigations into the Tippit
murder. Do you think they were just that stupid to omit that, and
keep quiet about it?
> > > > > > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> > > > > > Warren Commission said he was??
>
> > > > > Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> > > > > although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> > > > > killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> > > > > did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
>
> > > > It's a whole fruit basket.
>
> > > That is one explaination.
>
> > Lucy, you got's a whole lot of splainin to do....
>
> It`s been explained, Ethal.
>
Nosy neighbors that have a name misspelled aren't going to help you
here, Bud.
CJ
curtjester1
> curtjester1 wrote:
> > On 21 Apr, 01:06, gwri...@mindspring.com (Terp fan) wrote:
> > > Don't forget that the campus police gave Cho two hours to get his act
> > > together between the two murder scenes. They must have been in on it.
>
> > So since it took some time to catch Oz, it should be comparable?
>
> > And how did they happen to get Oz's wrong address at 605 Elsbeth and
> > have his name at the top of the list?
>
> What does that have to do with whether Oz killed Kennedy?
>
that local police work wasn't used to get the track on Oz.
> > And how did his name get called
> > at the arrest at the Texas Theater?
>
> What does that have to do with whether he killed Tippit?
>
They shouldn't have had that information yet. It shows something is
very screwy.
> > > As Bud notes, you can take any event and arrange the facts to make any
> > > case you want. Lawyers do it all the time. Every horrific event is full of
> > > inconsistencies and misreporting, second-guessing and speculation. Those
> > > things by themselves do not prove a conspiracy. The inability of
> > > conspiracy buffs in the JFK assassination to grasp this simple and
> > > pervasive fact of life amazes me.
>
> > And Shakespeare said "kill all the lawyers". (and meant it). Since
> > the inconsistencies and misdirections of the WC were so numerous, may
> > one be possibly thankful that regular people
>
> <snicker>
>
> >took it upon themselves
> > to find more witnesses and examine evidence more closely where the WC
> > miserably failed?
>
> Yah, thats what happened. the WC should have returned the drivel
> Walt and dw have been posting. It goes nowhere, but is a lot more
> interesting to read than that bland "Oswald did it" stuff. "Where the
> fuck are the nijas" cry the kooks raised on TV.
>
and the WC hid behind J. Edna and LBJ...and the public suffered.
CJ
>
>
> > CJ
>
> > > gg- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> > > > Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
> > > > same nature as the JFK case.
>
> > > I can approach these issues from any direction I desire. In this
> > > instance, I prefer to make points about the nature of the kook
> > > approach, instead of your preferred method of bogging down the
> > > discussion by demanding answers to the questions you choose, and
> > > judging whether you like the answers given or not.
>
> > And that desire is looking at any evidence that is simple enough to
> > find Oz guilty.
>
Guilty or Innocent as I said before does not preclude non-conspiracy.
> Yah, when looking through Oz`s possesions, they should have torn up
> the photo of Oz holding the murder weapon, disregarded his lies about
> owning it, ect. Just approach the case in the kook manner, if it
> points to Oz`s guilt, chuck it out.
>
Don't even listen to the guy when he said a head was pasted on. That
sure looks like a bona fide photo doesn't it?
> > Anything else must be sorted into your desires of
> > 'not quite good enough'.
>
> If what is in evidence that points to Oz`s guilt is good enough,
> then how can you convict any others with puffs of smoke, and the smell
> of gunpower?
>
You can't convict if you can't catch them. You don't need a
weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
> > > > >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> > > > >> of this.
>
> > > > There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
> > > > why pretend?
>
> > > Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
> > > these issues. Coward.
>
> > LOL, Bud decides to talk to a ghost.
>
> Ben is dead? YES!
>
He would stilll slam dunk you everytime even if he were.
> > Wasn't Markham there with hands
> > over eyes,
>
> Someone unaware of what she said might think so.
>
Unaware? Wasn't this testified to?
> >150 feet from the murder scene,
>
> But the path of Oz`s flight took him closer to her.
>
How close?
> > and said to be talking to
> > the fallen Tippit? Something about short and bushy hair too. She's a
> > real beaut.
>
> This from the person who finds Jean Hill credible.
>
Jean Hill gets corroboration from others. Markham basically destroys
the case for Oz, but is twisted around like Marina and Brennan and
Postal to 'get the story straight'.
> > Never mind that Oz would have had to travel past her to
> > get to Tippit if he was coming directly from the roominghouse. Never
> > mind that 1:07 in any of Markham's language put's Oz incapable of
> > being at the crime scene in time. Actually she is a LN's worst
> > witness since she is supported by Bowley and Craig.
>
> She took a long hard look at Oz and identifled him as the man she
> saw shoot Tippit. Other people IDied oz as the man in the vicintity
> with a gun. Thats called corroboration.
>
Hard look with her hands over her eyes. Keep dreaming. It's not
corroboration, it's contamination.
CJ
Ben Holmes
says...
Yep... tis true. Oswald could have been *totally* guilty, and it would have *no
effect whatsoever* on whether or not there had been a conspiracy. (Actually,
*two* conspiracies... the one to murder, and the one to coverup - one not
-necessarily- involved with the other)
>> Yah, when looking through Oz`s possesions, they should have torn up
>> the photo of Oz holding the murder weapon, disregarded his lies about
>> owning it, ect. Just approach the case in the kook manner, if it
>> points to Oz`s guilt, chuck it out.
>>
>Don't even listen to the guy when he said a head was pasted on. That
>sure looks like a bona fide photo doesn't it?
Bud won't admit that there are experts who agree with Oswald.
>> > Anything else must be sorted into your desires of
>> > 'not quite good enough'.
>>
>> If what is in evidence that points to Oz`s guilt is good enough,
>> then how can you convict any others with puffs of smoke, and the smell
>> of gunpower?
You start by doing a *real* investigation. And not lying about the evidence you
*do* find. The Dallas PD was *already* closing down the investigation by late
afternoon... no suspects other than Oswald were being followed up on.
>You can't convict if you can't catch them. You don't need a
>weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
>
>> > > > >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
>> > > > >> of this.
>>
>>> > > There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said.
>>So
>> > > > why pretend?
>>
>> > > Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
>> > > these issues. Coward.
>>
>> > LOL, Bud decides to talk to a ghost.
>>
>> Ben is dead? YES!
>>
>He would stilll slam dunk you everytime even if he were.
Bud isn't worth my time. He's a troll. We've already seen that he can't deal
honestly with the evidence.
>> > Wasn't Markham there with hands
>> > over eyes,
>>
>> Someone unaware of what she said might think so.
>>
>Unaware? Wasn't this testified to?
>
>> >150 feet from the murder scene,
>>
>> But the path of Oz`s flight took him closer to her.
>>
>How close?
>
>> > and said to be talking to
>> > the fallen Tippit? Something about short and bushy hair too. She's a
>> > real beaut.
>>
>> This from the person who finds Jean Hill credible.
>>
>Jean Hill gets corroboration from others. Markham basically destroys
>the case for Oz, but is twisted around like Marina and Brennan and
>Postal to 'get the story straight'.
I've already commented that LNT'ers *CAN'T* believe what Markham actually said.
They merely believe what the -WC decided- to believe she said.
But you'll never find a LNT'er who will admit what a disaster Markham really
was.
Walt
I have no problem apologizing and admitting an error when I make one.
I wish I was perfect like you...
Walt
David Von Pein
WTF?? Never happened. You're goofy.
>>> "FBI fingerprinting a corpse...when he had already been fingerprinted 3 times." <<<
Never happened. Yet another silly myth that refuses to die the death
it deserves. Any more?....
>>> "Postal paperwork messed up." <<<
~shrugs~
Next hunk of kookshit please.....
>>> "FBI report of Oswald being handed a gun as he left the TSBD by people that had lunch with him shows that a 'LN' wasn't too Lone." <<<
Yep...that's the kookiest kookshit yet! This deserves an even louder
"WTF"???!!!!!
Handed a gun as he left the TSBD????
Geez. Anything else you'd care to make up out of pure nothingness?
Bud
Prove? Not one of the cases you mention involve the FBI trying to
make a witness say something they don`t believe occurred. And several
of the witnesses you mention are questionable.
> you seem like just a tad bit of a hypocrite.
Apples and oranges. Walt is misrepresenting the evidence in this
case. Todd justr hasn`t responded to something you wrote.
> Care to apologize for your misrepresentation of the record on FBI intimidation,
> Toddy?
What the hell does "FBI intimidation" mean, anyway? Are they scary
guys?
Bud
curtjester1 wrote:
> On 23 Apr, 13:30, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> "May one be possibly thankful that regular people took it upon themselves to find more witnesses and examine evidence more closely where the WC miserably failed?" <<<
> >
> > We should thank the conspiracy clowns for muddying-up the case to
> > massive proportions??
> >
> Muddying Up? Literally dozens of witnesses in the shooting arena were
> avoided because the WC didn't like 'the mud'. Shame shame.
The kooks are still finding ways to improve on an investigation
that has been closed for decades. Of course if those dozens of
witnesses Curt referred to were interviewed, someone could come along
with a few dozen others. With tens of thousands of people looking into
this thing, perhaps someone should have contacted these people, and
asked them if they had any noreworthy information, no?
> > We should thank the CTers for complicating the wholly-uncomplicated,
> > reasonable, and evidence-based WC conclusions??
> >
> Yeah like rifle found by the fourth floor stairwell, FBI
> fingerprinting a corpse on his when he had already been fingerprinted
> 3 times. Postal paperwork messed up.....yadda yadda yadda.
>
> > Yeah...we really should be THANKFUL for all that, huh?
How should of these things have effected their findings? Oz still
shot JFK, regardless of postal snafus, or having his fingerprints
taken.
> > Geez.
> >
>
> Yes, as one will see a conspiracy was there. FBI report of Oswald
> being handed a gun as he left the TSBD by people that had lunch with
> him shows that a 'LN' wasn't too Lone.
<snicker> Only kooks believe stories like that.
> > With all of those "regular people" running around looking under every
> > rock and umbrella for any "conspiracy" they can dream up, is it any
> > wonder that it took Vince Bugliosi 21 years to "reclaim history" in
> > the JFK case?
> >
> Vinnie will have his one sided mishmash floating in the Bermuda
> Triangle on another Lost Flight.
He`ll probably say what the WC found, only he`ll write it better.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
> >
> > http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
Bud
They could tell gunsmoke from other types of smoke, or smell
gunspowder from there?
> Try other folks that were ON
> the Knoll and were avoided.
With dozens and dozens of conspiracy books written, no kook book
author interviewed these folks?
> http://hum.uchicago.edu/~jagoldsm/Papers/JFK/7_Event.pdf
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > and they crow long
> > > > > > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
> >
> > > > > > They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> > > > > > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> > > > > > also.
> >
> > > > > You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> > > > > part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
> >
> > > > What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
> > > > portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
> > > > evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, this is
> > > > from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when he was
> > > > surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in Philly
> > > > in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
> >
> > > Whoever came at him, came at him "gun drawn".
> >
> > I don`t think McDonald had his gun out.
> >
> Who cares, it's been said. Could have had it out, put it back. Who
> wants to play god and know what they think Oz might have been feeling
> at the time. Maybe he could have thought if he got the jump on the
> officer he would have had leverage for them to back off.
Who cares? It`s speaks to his guilt, knucklehead.
> > > Ever think it could
> > > have been a reflex action if any of the speculation about his revolver
> > > were true?
> >
> > Reflex action to hit a cop? I hope my reflexes never get that good.
> > the house lights were turned up, and McDonald was searching other
> > patrons of the theater as he worked his way towards Oz. Oz couldn`t
> > have been startled when his turn came to be searched.
> >
> Maybe he didn't like cops, no reason to speculate rigidly that he
> wanted to die.
Had a suspected cop killer pulled this in Philly, he would have
missed the rest of the movie, being dead and all.
> > > It's hardly compelling either when that particular
> > > revolver was said to have a defective firing pin,
> >
> > Numerous witnesses reported clicking, as if Oz`s gun was misfiring.
> >
> Then why was it deemed that the gun was unshootable afterwards?
What did the ballistic report say?
> > > and that was
> > > supposed to be working just fine just prior. And one would think,
> > > that if he had fired all those rounds at the Tippit scene that the
> > > revolver would have been reeking of smell, huh?
> >
> > In what meaningful way have you determined it wasn`t?
> >
> It's a simple act, and basic in logic to do, and simply not commented
> on. It would have been the most telling thing to do, and would have
> put the rest the whole years of investigations into the Tippit
> murder. Do you think they were just that stupid to omit that, and
> keep quiet about it?
No, because it`s not a real, scientific test. It`s like smelling a
person`s breath to see if he is driving drunk. It yields no
information that is uncontestable, so it is useless in court.
Bud
Still afloat after all these years, with no other ship in sight.
There are rumors of a ghost ship, The Conspiracy Theory, but it has
never been sighted.
> > > > > Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
> > > > > same nature as the JFK case.
> >
> > > > I can approach these issues from any direction I desire. In this
> > > > instance, I prefer to make points about the nature of the kook
> > > > approach, instead of your preferred method of bogging down the
> > > > discussion by demanding answers to the questions you choose, and
> > > > judging whether you like the answers given or not.
> >
> > > And that desire is looking at any evidence that is simple enough to
> > > find Oz guilty.
> >
> Guilty or Innocent as I said before does not preclude non-conspiracy.
And as I`ve said, acceptance of Oz`s obvious guilt is a step in the
right direction.
> > Yah, when looking through Oz`s possesions, they should have torn up
> > the photo of Oz holding the murder weapon, disregarded his lies about
> > owning it, ect. Just approach the case in the kook manner, if it
> > points to Oz`s guilt, chuck it out.
> >
> Don't even listen to the guy when he said a head was pasted on. That
> sure looks like a bona fide photo doesn't it?
Like I said, if it indicates Oz`s guilt, chuck it out. If you throw
out enough evidence, we will be on a par with the nothing you have for
other shooters.
> > > Anything else must be sorted into your desires of
> > > 'not quite good enough'.
> >
> > If what is in evidence that points to Oz`s guilt is good enough,
> > then how can you convict any others with puffs of smoke, and the smell
> > of gunpower?
> >
> You can't convict if you can't catch them.
And you can`t catch them if they don`t exist.
> You don't need a
> weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
I think you might need someone telling you which way the wind
blows. Your ability to determine it on your own is pitiful.
> > > > > >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> > > > > >> of this.
> >
> > > > > There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
> > > > > why pretend?
> >
> > > > Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
> > > > these issues. Coward.
> >
> > > LOL, Bud decides to talk to a ghost.
> >
> > Ben is dead? YES!
> >
> He would stilll slam dunk you everytime even if he were.
The coward has me killfiled. Why would someone who can slam dunk me
at will do such a thing?
> > > Wasn't Markham there with hands
> > > over eyes,
> >
> > Someone unaware of what she said might think so.
> >
> Unaware? Wasn't this testified to?
No, of course not.
> > >150 feet from the murder scene,
> >
> > But the path of Oz`s flight took him closer to her.
> >
> How close?
This page has a rough map...
http://www.cannet.com/~reesedw/DealyPage6.html
> > > and said to be talking to
> > > the fallen Tippit? Something about short and bushy hair too. She's a
> > > real beaut.
> >
> > This from the person who finds Jean Hill credible.
> >
> Jean Hill gets corroboration from others. Markham basically destroys
> the case for Oz, but is twisted around like Marina and Brennan and
> Postal to 'get the story straight'.
Markham is a witness to a murder she said she saw Oz commit.
> > > Never mind that Oz would have had to travel past her to
> > > get to Tippit if he was coming directly from the roominghouse. Never
> > > mind that 1:07 in any of Markham's language put's Oz incapable of
> > > being at the crime scene in time. Actually she is a LN's worst
> > > witness since she is supported by Bowley and Craig.
> >
> > She took a long hard look at Oz and identifled him as the man she
> > saw shoot Tippit. Other people IDied oz as the man in the vicintity
> > with a gun. Thats called corroboration.
> >
> Hard look with her hands over her eyes.
If she was going to lie about what she saw, why would she say she
had her eyes covered?
> Keep dreaming. It's not
> corroboration, it's contamination.
No, it corroboration when the other witnesses say they saw Oz with a
gun where Markham said she saw Oz with a gun.
curtjester1
> >>> "Rifle found by the fourth floor stairwell..." <<<
>
> WTF?? Never happened. You're goofy.
>
ride to the TSBD two days prior to the assassination with a four foot
package. Obviously you don't know or ignore the other rifles by other
employees that were in Truly's office during the week. And here is a
Ellsworth snippet. All one has to do is google instead of going thru
a Daffy Duck routine...
But what the officers found may very well have been a Mauser
considering what Frank Ellsworth saw in the Depository that day.
Ellsworth was an agent of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency
and was in his office not far from the Depository when he was told of
the shooting. He ran to the Depository and entered the building with
Captain Will Fritz. Ellsworth claims he found the sniper's nest on the
sixth floor, but the "gun was not found on the same floor as the
cartridges, but on a lower floor by a couple of city detectives... I
think the rifle was found on the fourth floor." [32] Ellsworth
participated in a second search of the Depository after 1:30 p.m. on
November 22, 1963. The gun that was found was an Italian Mannlicher-
Carcano hidden behind boxes near the "stairwell back in the northwest
corner ... I have the recollection that the position it was in, and
where it was found, led to conjecture that as Oswald came down the
stairs he probably pitched it over behind these books." [33] Ellsworth
has stood by his original assessment of where the Mannlicher-Carcano
was found in a 1993 interview with authors Ray and Mary LaFontaine.
> >>> "FBI fingerprinting a corpse...when he had already been fingerprinted 3 times." <<<
>
> Never happened. Yet another silly myth that refuses to die the death
> it deserves. Any more?....
>
Denying the fingerprinting or denying the funeral folks claiming what
the FBI did?
> >>> "Postal paperwork messed up." <<<
>
> ~shrugs~
>
> Next hunk of kookshit please.....
>
If you don't care for the Post Office blundering, maybe you can
research about the empty long package.
> >>> "FBI report of Oswald being handed a gun as he left the TSBD by people that had lunch with him shows that a 'LN' wasn't too Lone." <<<
>
> Yep...that's the kookiest kookshit yet! This deserves an even louder
> "WTF"???!!!!!
>
Try Mrs. Lopez and her fellow sewing people and the FBI report. When
you haven't heard of these investigational procedures it makes me
think you aren't very well versed at all.
> Handed a gun as he left the TSBD????
>
Across the street.
> Geez. Anything else you'd care to make up out of pure nothingness?
As Sargeant Friday said..."just the facts."
CJ
curtjester1
in the motorcade. Some of the railyard workers went behind the fence,
so they could smell it then.
> > Try other folks that were ON
> > the Knoll and were avoided.
>
> With dozens and dozens of conspiracy books written, no kook book
> author interviewed these folks?
>
They were and gave accounts supporting what I just said. It's the WC
and HSCA that didn't want to go further with these folks.
>
>
>
>
> >http://hum.uchicago.edu/~jagoldsm/Papers/JFK/7_Event.pdf
>
> > > > > > > > and they crow long
> > > > > > > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> > > > > > > They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> > > > > > > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> > > > > > > also.
>
> > > > > > You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> > > > > > part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
>
> > > > > What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
> > > > > portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
> > > > > evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, this is
> > > > > from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when he was
> > > > > surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in Philly
> > > > > in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
>
> > > > Whoever came at him, came at him "gun drawn".
>
> > > I don`t think McDonald had his gun out.
>
> > Who cares, it's been said. Could have had it out, put it back. Who
> > wants to play god and know what they think Oz might have been feeling
> > at the time. Maybe he could have thought if he got the jump on the
> > officer he would have had leverage for them to back off.
>
> Who cares? It`s speaks to his guilt, knucklehead.
>
Were talking about Lone and Nut, not guilt. And as I said before
'guilty' of exactly what?
> > > > Ever think it could
> > > > have been a reflex action if any of the speculation about his revolver
> > > > were true?
>
> > > Reflex action to hit a cop? I hope my reflexes never get that good.
> > > the house lights were turned up, and McDonald was searching other
> > > patrons of the theater as he worked his way towards Oz. Oz couldn`t
> > > have been startled when his turn came to be searched.
>
> > Maybe he didn't like cops, no reason to speculate rigidly that he
> > wanted to die.
>
> Had a suspected cop killer pulled this in Philly, he would have
> missed the rest of the movie, being dead and all.
>
People kill cops all the time and don't get killed.
> > > > It's hardly compelling either when that particular
> > > > revolver was said to have a defective firing pin,
>
> > > Numerous witnesses reported clicking, as if Oz`s gun was misfiring.
>
> > Then why was it deemed that the gun was unshootable afterwards?
>
> What did the ballistic report say?
>
Defective pin.
> > > > and that was
> > > > supposed to be working just fine just prior. And one would think,
> > > > that if he had fired all those rounds at the Tippit scene that the
> > > > revolver would have been reeking of smell, huh?
>
> > > In what meaningful way have you determined it wasn`t?
>
> > It's a simple act, and basic in logic to do, and simply not commented
> > on. It would have been the most telling thing to do, and would have
> > put the rest the whole years of investigations into the Tippit
> > murder. Do you think they were just that stupid to omit that, and
> > keep quiet about it?
>
> No, because it`s not a real, scientific test. It`s like smelling a
> person`s breath to see if he is driving drunk. It yields no
> information that is uncontestable, so it is useless in court.
>
That's like saying that the liquid on the shirt was red, but since
other things could be red we can't admit that it might be blood. And
of course many DUI police reports have officers claiming about the
breath they smelled on the motorist and it is used in court. You are
just making up something that probably wasn't done because they
already had what they wanted or we're told not to, or not to comment
on. Just like the Army brass told the people that saw what happened
to Tillman not to talk.
And how did they have Oswald's name, when they were just after a cop
killer? And if they were just after JFK's killer how did they get his
name with a wrong past address, one that DPD or the TSBD wouldn't have
had access to?
CJ
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177568422....@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1177569587.5...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
BADA-BING
(WR 172) States that one bullet taken from officer Tippit match Oswald's 38 "TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS"
BADA-BOOM
(WR 559) "The .38 had been RECHAMBERED for a .38 Special cartridge, it had not been REBARRELED for a .38 Special bullet. The barrel was therefore slightly oversized for a .38 Special bullet, which has a smaller diameter than a .38 S&W bullet. This would cause the passage of a .38 Special bullet through the barrel to be eratic, resulting in inconsistent microscopic markings."
tomnln
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177603011.5...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <1177449621.093657.142...@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
Ben,
I see you're still as impatient as ever.
While you wait until I decide the time is right to reply to you, let
me ask you this: If I really juts "run away each time (you) prove FBI
intimidation of eyewitnesses in this case", you're clear implication
being that I've supposedly NEVER addressed your claims of FBI
intimidation , how then in the next breath can you expect me to
"apologize for (my) misrepresentation of the record on FBI
intimidation"?
I mean, you're claiming that I've never addressed your claims of FBI
intimidation. Yet you're asking me to apologize for my superposed
"misrepresentation of the record on FBI intimidation" that according
to you I have yet to address.
Help me out here, Ben. Which of the following explains your
contradiction above:
1.) Too many kicks to the head in the Dojo.
2.) Low blood sugar.
3.) Just plain crazy.
4.) Liar
Todd
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
Same here, Walt.
> I wish I was perfect like you...
Oh, I'm far from perfect, Walt, far from perfect.
But, that said, you don't see me misrepresenting the record in this
case.
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177608327.5...@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
And don't forget that "MARK VII" at the end of each episode -- which
the LN case is thoroughly stamped with. (Meaning: Done deal.)
You seem to be on the outer limits of kookville even (i.e., deep in
The CT Twilight Zone). Geesh, you believe in a lot of strange shit,
curt.
Bud
Also possible is two independant lone nuts firing, with no
conspiracy.
> >> Yah, when looking through Oz`s possesions, they should have torn up
> >> the photo of Oz holding the murder weapon, disregarded his lies about
> >> owning it, ect. Just approach the case in the kook manner, if it
> >> points to Oz`s guilt, chuck it out.
> >>
> >Don't even listen to the guy when he said a head was pasted on. That
> >sure looks like a bona fide photo doesn't it?
>
>
> Bud won't admit that there are experts who agree with Oswald.
Ben is too much of a kook to dismiss stupid claims out of hand.
> >> > Anything else must be sorted into your desires of
> >> > 'not quite good enough'.
> >>
> >> If what is in evidence that points to Oz`s guilt is good enough,
> >> then how can you convict any others with puffs of smoke, and the smell
> >> of gunpower?
>
>
> You start by doing a *real* investigation. And not lying about the evidence you
> *do* find. The Dallas PD was *already* closing down the investigation by late
> afternoon... no suspects other than Oswald were being followed up on.
Forty plus years of kooks coming up empty handed confirms they made
the right call.
> >You can't convict if you can't catch them. You don't need a
> >weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
> >
> >> > > > >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> >> > > > >> of this.
> >>
> >>> > > There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said.
> >>So
> >> > > > why pretend?
> >>
> >> > > Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
> >> > > these issues. Coward.
> >>
> >> > LOL, Bud decides to talk to a ghost.
> >>
> >> Ben is dead? YES!
> >>
> >He would stilll slam dunk you everytime even if he were.
>
>
> Bud isn't worth my time. He's a troll. We've already seen that he can't deal
> honestly with the evidence.
You are better off hiding from me, you haven`t a chance in a
discussion., the flaws in your thinking are too readily apparent to
me.
> >> > Wasn't Markham there with hands
> >> > over eyes,
> >>
> >> Someone unaware of what she said might think so.
> >>
> >Unaware? Wasn't this testified to?
> >
> >> >150 feet from the murder scene,
> >>
> >> But the path of Oz`s flight took him closer to her.
> >>
> >How close?
> >
> >> > and said to be talking to
> >> > the fallen Tippit? Something about short and bushy hair too. She's a
> >> > real beaut.
> >>
> >> This from the person who finds Jean Hill credible.
> >>
> >Jean Hill gets corroboration from others. Markham basically destroys
> >the case for Oz, but is twisted around like Marina and Brennan and
> >Postal to 'get the story straight'.
>
>
> I've already commented that LNT'ers *CAN'T* believe what Markham actually said.
> They merely believe what the -WC decided- to believe she said.
She said that the man who shot Tippit was Oz. I believe that.
> But you'll never find a LNT'er who will admit what a disaster Markham really
> was.
These weren`t professional witnesses.
Walt
Well if you believe the W.R. is gospel, and quote it as if it's the
gospel, you may be repeating a lie, because much of the W.R. is either
an outright lie, or a distortion of the truth. Infact the basic tenet
of the W.R., that Oswald was a lone nut killer, is false.
Walt
Ben Holmes
>W=2E
>> Vaughan says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 23, 9:49 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On 23 Apr, 18:41, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 23, 7:11 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On 23 Apr, 15:07, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > curtjester1 wrote:
>> >> > > > > On 20 Apr, 17:04, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > curtjester1 wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > On 20 Apr, 03:43, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
>>
> ki=3D
>> >lled 33
>> >> > > > > > > > people.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > that he didn't
>exp=3D
>> >erts.........
>> >> > > > > > > > > he wanted FAME.
>> >> > > > > > > > > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculd=
>ing=3D
>> > home video
>> >> > > > > > > > > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be s=
>een=3D
>> > on TV sets
>> >> > > > > > > > > around the world.
>>
>e J=3D
>> >esus
>> >> > > > > > > > couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it =
>for=3D
>> > "the
>> >> > > > > > > > defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than colleg=
>e k=3D
>> >ids on
>> >> > > > > > > > campus?
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. M=
>ent=3D
>> >al health
>> >> > > > > > > > > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
>>
> on=3D
>> >e of smug
>> >> > > > > > > > confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powe=
>rfu=3D
>> >l forces.
>> >> > > > > > > > Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Guilt unfortunately would not preclude conspiracy.
>>
>hoo=3D
>> >ter
>> >> > > > > > behind every blade of grass. By accepting Oz`s obvious culpa=
>bil=3D
>> >ity
>> >> > > > > > would be a baby step in the right direction.
>>
>ero=3D
>> >us
>> >> > > > > upon numerous who heard gunshots, smelled gunpowder, and saw g=
>uns=3D
>> >moke
>> >> > > > > from behind the stockade fence on the GK, but that gets into '=
>Oz's
>> >> > > > > unculpability'.
>>
>> >> > > > Some babies are doomed to crawl. In what meaningful way have =
>you
>> >> > > > established that the shots they heard came form that place, and =
>that
>> >> > > > place only, that what they smelled was gunpowder, or that the sm=
>oke
>> >> > > > seen was gunsmoke?
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > and they crow long
>> >> > > > > > > > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>>
> ki=3D
>> >lled
>> >> > > > > > > > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for h=
>is =3D
>> >actions
>> >> > > > > > > > also.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he=
> wa=3D
>> >s indeed
>> >> > > > > > > part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
>>
>rge
>> >> > > > > > portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is =
>in
>> >> > > > > > evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, t=
>his=3D
>> > is
>> >> > > > > > from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action whe=
>n h=3D
>> >e was
>> >> > > > > > surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer=
> in=3D
>> > Philly
>> >> > > > > > in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
>>
>> >> > > > > Whoever came at him, came at him "gun drawn".
>>
>> >> > > > I don`t think McDonald had his gun out.
>>
>> >> > > > > Ever think it could
>rev=3D
>> >olver
>> >> > > > > were true?
>>
>> >> > > McDonald was searching other patrons of the theater as he worked =
>his
>> >> > > way towards Oz.
>>
>> >> > > Why do you lie? No such thing happened.. McDonald said someone to=
>ld
>> >> > > him the man they wanted was seated in such and such a seat. He nev=
>er
>> >> > > searched anybody as he walked up the aisle.
>>
>> >> > You're lying, Walt.
>>
>> >> > Here's what McDonald testified to:
>>
>> >> > Mr. BALL - You could see the man. Did the civilian point out to you
>> >> > the man in one of the rear seats?
>he
>> >> > suspect to another officer with him on the right of the stage, just
>> >> > right of the movie screen.
>> >> > Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
>> >> > Mr. McDONALD - Well, after seeing him, I noticed the other people in
>> >> > the theater--there was approximately 10 or 15 other people seated
>> >> > throughout the theater. There were two men sitting in the center,
>> >> > about 10 rows from the front.
>> >> > I walked up the left center aisle into the row behind these two men,
> I
>> >> > told them to get on their feet. They got up. I searched them for a
>> >> > weapon.
>to
>> >> > me. He remained seated without moving, just looking at me.
>> >> > Mr. BALL - Why did you frisk these two men in the center of the
>> >> > theater?
>> >> > Mr. McDONALD - I wanted to make sure that I didn't pass anything or
>> >> > miss anybody. I wanted to make sure I didn't overlook anybody or
>> >> > anything.
>> >> > Mr. BALL - And you still kept your eye on the suspect?
>> >> > Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. He was to my back. I was looking over my
>> >> > shoulder at him.
>> >> > Mr. BALL - Was he sitting nearest the right or the left aisle as you
>> >> > came in?
>> >> > Mr. McDONALD - The right center aisle. He was in the second seat.
>> >> > Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
>ed
>> >> > or had a weapon on them, I walked out of this row, up to the right
>> >> > center aisle toward the suspect. And as I walked up there, just at a
>> >> > normal gait, I didn't look directly at him, but I kept my eye on him
>> >> > and any other persons. And to my left was another man and I believe a
>> >> > woman was with him. But he was further back than the suspect.
>> >> > And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped
>> >> > abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose
>> >> > immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder
>> >> > high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about
>> >> > breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now."
>> >> > As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand
>> >> > went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the
>> >> > bridge of the nose.
>>
>> >> Ok I apologize....I was in error about McDonald going through the
>> >> motions of searching those two men a few rows in front of Oswald,
>>
>> >You should apologize...you're distorting the record in the case with
>> >your uninformed claims.
>>
>ation
>> of eyewitnesses in this case - you seem like just a tad bit of a hypocrit=
>e=2E
>>
>> Care to apologize for your misrepresentation of the record on FBI intimid=
>ation,
>> Toddy?
>
>
>
>
>
>Ben,
>
>I see you're still as impatient as ever.
How can I be "impatient?"
You're *now* claiming that you've *ALREADY* responded...
>While you wait until I decide the time is right to reply to you,
Oops... now your admitting that you've never responded... which is it, Toddy?
>let
>me ask you this: If I really juts "run away each time (you) prove FBI
>intimidation of eyewitnesses in this case",
Implying that you don't?
>you're clear implication
>being that I've supposedly NEVER addressed your claims of FBI
>intimidation , how then in the next breath can you expect me to
>"apologize for (my) misrepresentation of the record on FBI
>intimidation"?
First, you admit that you'll respond whenever you get around to it, next you're
claiming that you've *ALREADY* responded... Which is it, Toddy? And would you
like to *QUOTE* your supposed response?
In any case, you need to apologize for your misrepresentation of the record of
evidence on FBI intimidation in this case. My post has *NOTHING* to do with it.
*YOU'VE* claimed that there has been no FBI intimidation. I've proven that
"factoid" false. Where's your apology, Toddy?
>I mean, you're claiming that I've never addressed your claims of FBI
>intimidation.
Toddy... you've never addressed the evidence that I presented REBUTTING your
insistence that there was no FBI intimidation.
You're *CLEARLY* wrong. And yet, you refuse to retract or to apologize.
What's so hard to understand about that?
>Yet you're asking me to apologize for my superposed
>"misrepresentation of the record on FBI intimidation" that according
>to you I have yet to address.
Your literacy problems will have to remain your own.
You need to apologize for the fact that you've been caught on the wrong side of
the evidence. Not for the fact that you've never responded to the evidence I
presented...
>Help me out here, Ben. Which of the following explains your
>contradiction above:
Sorry Toddy... the contradiction is in your mind.
>1=2E) Too many kicks to the head in the Dojo.
Judo, Toddy... not Karate. Come on by, I'll be happy to show you the
difference.
>2=2E) Low blood sugar.
>3=2E) Just plain crazy.
>4=2E) Liar
>
>Todd
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> but
>> >> by his own admission he never took his eyes off Oswald. =3D20
>>
>> >And why should he have? Brewer had already pointed him out as the man
>> >he had Postal call about.
>>
>> >Time to apologize again.
>>
>> >> Obviously
>> >> they were looking for Oswald when they entered the theater.
>>
>> >No, they were looking for the suspect in the Tippit shooting and the
>> >man Brewer had Postal call them in regard to.
>>
>> >Time to apologize again.
>>
>> >> When they
>> >> were asked how they knew who they were looking they said they were
>> >> going by the description that was broadcast. But that description
>> >> probably fit half the men in the theater at the time.
>>
>> >Nope. Brewer pointed the man out to them.
>>
>> >Time to apologize again.
>>
>> >> Walt
>>
>> >> > >When he got to Oswald, he
>> >> > > called out "HERE HE IS"! Which begs the question...How did he, and=
> the
>> >> > > other cops KNOW who they were looking for??
>>
>> >> > > You lying bastarrds always embroider Oswald's arrest, by saying Os=
>wald
>> >> > > pulled his gun and yelled "this is it", but
>> >> > > when the testimonies of the cops who were there are examined it's
>> >> > > clear that nothing of the kind happened. I know it makes a good
>> >> > > believable lie for those of you who have been raised to believe th=
>at
>> >> > > Oswald was a "boggie man" in the image of Snidely Whiplash, but the
>> >> > > testimonies show that you've been lead to believe in a fairy tale.
>>
>> >> > > Walt
>>
>> >> > > > Reflex action to hit a cop? I hope my reflexes never get that =
>goo=3D
>> >d=3D2E
>> >> > > > the house lights were turned up, and McDonald was searching other
>> >> > > > patrons of the theater as he worked his way towards Oz. Oz could=
>n`t
>> >> > > > have been startled when his turn came to be searched.
>>
>> >> > > > > It's hardly compelling either when that particular
>> >> > > > > revolver was said to have a defective firing pin,
>>
>> >> > > > Numerous witnesses reported clicking, as if Oz`s gun was misf=
>iri=3D
>> >ng.
>>
>> >> > > > > and that was
>> >> > > > > supposed to be working just fine just prior. And one would th=
>ink,
>> >> > > > > that if he had fired all those rounds at the Tippit scene that=
> the
>> >> > > > > revolver would have been reeking of smell, huh?
>>
>> >> > > > In what meaningful way have you determined it wasn`t?
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone =
>nut=3D
>> > that the
>> >> > > > > > > > > Warren Commission said he was??
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and =
>ora=3D
>> >nges,
>> >> > > > > > > > although there are some similarities. There was a pause =
>bet=3D
>> >ween Oz`s
>> >> > > > > > > > killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different=
> we=3D
curtjester1
These are just Dealey Plaza folks giving their observations. Just
because the WC didn't try or want them doesn't mean they are in a
Twilight Zone.
Yates who gave Oswald a ride to the TSBD with the long package was
interviewed by the FBI and even took a polygraph. Mrs. Lopez was not
only there she was employed by a company near the TSBD, and her
daughter and fellow workers had an occasion to eat lunch with Oswald
where he spoke some Spanish. Ms. McKinnon who was on the Knoll was a
Journalism major and was emphatic about the shots behind her when the
Sniper's Nest would have been well left and in front of her.
Ellsworth was an crime agent and would not back down from his story of
rifle found in a spot different floor different from where the
cartridges were found. Maybe that's why there was so many mixup's in
testimonies of the MC versus the Mauser, huh?
Really anyone who wants to paint LN and sole guilt, has to have some
sort of agenda when they repel good old fashioned evidence, right from
people that were in or related to Dealey Plaza itself.
CJ
David Von Pein
How many of those witnesses help to place HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at
any other shooting location except the SN of the TSBD?
And how does your laundry list help to exonerate Oswald with respect
to the ballistics evidence found all over the place where a shooter
was certainly located and also found in non-TSBD locations WHERE
BULLETS ENDED UP (limo; hospital)?
And do those witnesses somehow wipe out Oswald's fingerprints all over
the SN and the rifle?
And there's a set of LHO prints being on an item--the paper bag--that
NO conspiracy theorist can possibly REASONABLY explain away....because
that empty bag was picked up (and written on) by Carl Day of the DPD
and was picked up from a location where it had no logical, legit, and
INNOCENT reason for being where it was (in the SN) during the course
of a normal Depository business day.
And do those witnesses wipe out all of those lies that LHO told after
his arrest? Does an innocent PATSY need to lie THIS much?
Really??.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
CTers continually attempt to cloud the issues surrounding Lee Oswald's
obvious guilt in both murders (JFK & Tippit). The only thing those
CTers (who lack any physical evidence of a conspiracy) truly
accomplish is to look DESPERATE, as they search high & low for
ANYTHING they can find to avoid the unavoidable -- with that
"unavoidable" being: Lee Harvey Oswald killed 2 men on 11/22.
I'm still trying to figure out why so many people WANT Oswald to be
innocent of these murders? It's possibly the biggest mystery
surrounding the whole JFK case.
Any psychiatrists among us who can explain the "Anybody But Oswald"
mindset in more detail? Or is it just a built-in "kook gene" that some
people possess and others don't?
tomnln
nobody?
The only "CLOUD" in this issue is WHY don't you ever Cite Official
evidence/testimony?
The only "CLOUD" in this issue is WHY WCR defenders Refuse to address
evidence/testimony?
The only "CLOUD" in this issue is WHY you support Proven Felons?
Start HERE>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177696083.1...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Does anybody have the slightest idea why Tom-Kook continues (daily,
hourly!) to spout the following totally-untrue garbage? Any idea at
all?.....
tomnln
Has anyone noticed that the KOOK-SUCKER David Von Pain (in theAss)
disagrees with his own Report?
Good reason he Refuses to address official evidence/testimony.
When it comes to addressing evidence/testimony he's lost for words.
(most likey because of the Truckers stuck in his throat.)
btw; Why don't you take some time off from servicing those truckers at the
Rest Starts on
the I-80 so, you'll have time to read the evidence/testimony?
You have NEVER addressed THESE Criminal acts by your friends>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
You Nazi Putz:
JUST ONE OF THEM COWARD.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177698779.0...@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
> Curt,
>
> How many of those witnesses help to place HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at
> any other shooting location except the SN of the TSBD?
>
evidence, or 'Unworthy' evidence? And can't evidence be made to look
'hard' to set up an illusion? The SN of the TSBD has to withstand the
scrutiny of evidence examination too. How can so many people that
were almost underneath it so to speak or just in front of it, not be
able to turn around after a shot or two and see what was going on?
There is just a tremendous amount of anomalies that the nest just
doesn't give a good scenario behind it. And even if it did, it
doesn't negate the other evidence of the action behind the fence of
the GK.
> And how does your laundry list help to exonerate Oswald with respect
> to the ballistics evidence found all over the place where a shooter
> was certainly located and also found in non-TSBD locations WHERE
> BULLETS ENDED UP (limo; hospital)?
>
There is no decisive desire to exonerate LHO. He very well could have
been orchestrating, or running interference even if he was not perhaps
doing the shooting.
> And do those witnesses somehow wipe out Oswald's fingerprints all over
> the SN and the rifle?
>
It's really insignificant since the rifle was wiped down, and LHO
would like many be likely to have fingerprints on boxes.
> And there's a set of LHO prints being on an item--the paper bag--that
> NO conspiracy theorist can possibly REASONABLY explain away....because
> that empty bag was picked up (and written on) by Carl Day of the DPD
> and was picked up from a location where it had no logical, legit, and
> INNOCENT reason for being where it was (in the SN) during the course
> of a normal Depository business day.
>
Certainly not the bag that was taken into work that day, and no oil
from a gun is all to telling for a beginning.
> And do those witnesses wipe out all of those lies that LHO told after
> his arrest? Does an innocent PATSY need to lie THIS much?
> Really??.....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
>
The most telling statement was the one when confronted with the Craig
info at Fritz's office where he said he sadly that, "now you will know
who I am." Didn't even say that he wasn't in the car of Mrs. Paines,
but I would suggest that the real LHO was, and they were of some sort
of tandem team. The LHO born in 39' in New Orleans had a tattoo on
his right forearm. So, I would suggest that LHO with the tattoo on
his forearm was the one in Mexico City, and in the states while 'LHO'
was in Russia, which makes for 'hard evidence' a much more difficult
undertaking.
> CTers continually attempt to cloud the issues surrounding Lee Oswald's
> obvious guilt in both murders (JFK & Tippit). The only thing those
> CTers (who lack any physical evidence of a conspiracy) truly
> accomplish is to look DESPERATE, as they search high & low for
> ANYTHING they can find to avoid the unavoidable -- with that
> "unavoidable" being: Lee Harvey Oswald killed 2 men on 11/22.
>
TSBD Oswald didn't and it can be very well proven, and the real LHO
very well could have. I believe the real LHO said he might be forced
to take one shot on his last phone call to Judyth a few nights before
the assassination and he reiterated that it would be a diversionary
one. Hence the possible answer of the widely first missed shot.
> I'm still trying to figure out why so many people WANT Oswald to be
> innocent of these murders? It's possibly the biggest mystery
> surrounding the whole JFK case.
>
I want to find out the extent of the Coup d' etat, and not focus on
morbidly exact how guilty either of the LHO's might have been.
> Any psychiatrists among us who can explain the "Anybody But Oswald"
> mindset in more detail? Or is it just a built-in "kook gene" that some
> people possess and others don't?
Denying Conspiracy, means you have to avoid the witnesses and all the
anomalies of the 'hard evidence' that has to be rearranged for LNT's
preconceived notions.
CJ