Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Facts LNT'ers Simply *Hate* (#17)

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 16, 2006, 9:18:32 PM7/16/06
to
Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD that
Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly, no one
at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the plate
to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they came up
with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer
named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one remembered the
specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's
rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.

The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
attempting to frame LHO?

There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...

Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
purchase documents.

Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.

Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?

There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"

Bud

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 12:20:07 AM7/17/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD that
> Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly, no one
> at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the plate
> to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they came up
> with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer
> named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one remembered the
> specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's
> rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes.

They billed Oz for drilling three holes, but only drilled two?
Bastards.

> Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
> *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.

I find unstated reasons to be the most persuasive kind.

> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
> attempting to frame LHO?

Not the question that jumps to my mind. The question I was
wondering was whether kooks will ever take information like this and
move one single step in any direction off of it.

> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
> him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...

Yah, we rarely know what the fuck you are talking about.

> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
> was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
> Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
> "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
> a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
> had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
> identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
> purchase documents.
>
> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
> group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
> Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
>
> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?

No, but I did hear that a guy using the name "Oswald" bought some
trucks with a Cuban that had ties to a group Guy Bannister was a member
of.

> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
> famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
> becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"

Boy, this one went nowhere in a hurry. Kooks sure can
generate suspicious sounding stuff (could have something to do with
thousands of kooks spending thousands of hours determined to find
them). Too bad they can`t go anywhere with them. These are like kook
trading cards. "Suspicious Sounding Event #49, A guy named Oswald and
a Cuban buy some trucks". In only 40 years they have this, imagine what
they`ll have in a hundred.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 10:30:06 AM7/17/06
to
Hey Bud, who was the heavy-set guy in the photo from Mexico City, you
know, the guy the CIA said was Oswald? How come there are no photos of
the real Oswald from Mexico City? The impersonation of LHO in M.C. prior
to the assassination is well established. Wake up and smell the fish.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 11:25:12 AM7/17/06
to
In article <29841-44B...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net says...

Be sure to let me know if Bud actually says anything worth listening to...

Along with Grizzlie and Tommy-boy, they're in my killfile, and the daily posts
are almost an order of magnitude less numerous.

aeffects

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 12:30:41 PM7/17/06
to

Look at it this way Dudster -- any post '64 *suspicious* event can
create reasonable doubt in a jury members mind -- take these
*suspicious* events, in total, you'd have a tough time convicting him
[LHO] on the evidence, as assembled in the WCR.

If one pays ANY attention to Von Pein, V.Bugliosi has been dealing with
these *suspicious* events [issues] for the past 15 years (and
counting)... we can expect his two tome collection out in a few years
(more).

These day's, 50-50 chance Oswald walk -- far cry from what a trial in
'64 would of produced!

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 1:44:31 PM7/17/06
to
In article <1153153841.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...

>
>
>Bud wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the
>>> DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
>>> Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
>>> did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called. However,
>>> in checking their records, they came up with paperwork showing that work
>>> had been performed on a rifle for a customer named "Oswald" between
>>> November 4th-8th. And even though no-one remembered the specific
>>> person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's
>>> rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
>>> telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes.
>>
>> They billed Oz for drilling three holes, but only drilled two?
>> Bastards.

Bud isn't stupid enough to miss the point... so he's playing the clown again.
This is why I killfiled him.

Oswald *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE ONE* who had any work done on a rifle.
Therefore, someone is busy framing him BEFORE the assassination.

Rather hard to put that bit of evidence together in a non-conspiratorial way.


>>> Anthony Summer's, in recounting
>>> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket
>>> could *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
>>
>> I find unstated reasons to be the most persuasive kind.

I merely point out that it was not *only* the number of holes that make this
ticket impossible to reconcile with Oswald's rifle.

Even YOU, Bud, should know that - since the scope was mounted *BEFORE* it was
allegedly mailed to Oswald.


>>> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
>>> attempting to frame LHO?
>>
>> Not the question that jumps to my mind. The question I was
>> wondering was whether kooks will ever take information like this and
>> move one single step in any direction off of it.


Note, of course, that Bud can't offer any other possible understanding of this
incident... let alone the number of others...

There was a concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination, and Bud
would prefer to close his eyes and act the clown.


>>> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally
>>> frame him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally
>>> only specified his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had
>>> the man specifying his name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for
>>> the LNT'er crowd...
>>
>> Yah, we rarely know what the fuck you are talking about.


Again, Bud merely acts the clown...


>>> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when
>>> Oswald was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a
>>> manager of a Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI -
>>> stating that the name "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back
>>> through his order files, and found a prospective purchaser from 1961.
>>> The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban, had tried to purchase 10
>>> trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first identified himself as
>>> "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the purchase
>>> documents.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
>>> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the
>>> Anti-Castro group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the
>>> "Friends of Democratic Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was
>>> a key member of.
>>>
>>> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
>>
>> No,


Provably a lie. See? Bud would rather lie and clown than attempt to
legitimately support the WCR.


>> but I did hear that a guy using the name "Oswald" bought some
>> trucks with a Cuban that had ties to a group Guy Bannister was a member
>> of.
>>
>>> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The
>>> most famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the
>>> question becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
>>
>> Boy, this one went nowhere in a hurry.

Certainly! When the nuts like you, Bud; have to lie and clown around, and can't
rebute the evidence...


>> Kooks sure can
>> generate suspicious sounding stuff (could have something to do with
>> thousands of kooks spending thousands of hours determined to find
>> them).

Actually, much of this material is in the 26 volumes... you know, the books
you've never read?


>> Too bad they can`t go anywhere with them. These are like kook
>> trading cards. "Suspicious Sounding Event #49, A guy named Oswald and
>> a Cuban buy some trucks". In only 40 years they have this, imagine what
>> they`ll have in a hundred.


This was all known by the WC.


>Look at it this way Dudster -- any post '64 *suspicious* event can
>create reasonable doubt in a jury members mind -- take these
>*suspicious* events, in total, you'd have a tough time convicting him
>[LHO] on the evidence, as assembled in the WCR.

Couldn't have been done in 1964... any reasonably competent defense attorney
would have dug up far more material than we have access to today. Look, for
example, at the wealth of material that came from the cross-examination of Col
Finck at the Shaw Trial. What would have happened if even a minority of
eyewitnesses had been *cross-examined*???


>If one pays ANY attention to Von Pein, V.Bugliosi has been dealing with
>these *suspicious* events [issues] for the past 15 years (and
>counting)... we can expect his two tome collection out in a few years
>(more).
>
>These day's, 50-50 chance Oswald walk -- far cry from what a trial in
>'64 would of produced!

I wouldn't place the odds that high.

Anyway, looks like I'm not missing anything important by keeping Bud in my
killfile - clowns and nuts shouldn't be allowed to take up my valuable time. :)

Bud

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 2:01:08 PM7/17/06
to

This information has no bearing on whether Oz took his rifle to
work, and shot some people with it, which is the issue the jury would
be considering. Most of this kookshit would even be allowed to be
mentioned in a court of law.

> If one pays ANY attention to Von Pein, V.Bugliosi has been dealing with
> these *suspicious* events [issues] for the past 15 years (and
> counting)...

Thats kook thinking, to think Bugliosi is going to be a fireman
putting out every fire you kooks have set. He only needs point out your
total inability to go *anywhere* with *any* of these things you kooks
find suspicious. If Officer Smith says he ran into a SS man behind the
knoll, the explaination for that is unknown to me. It is also unknown
to Ben. Where can unknown information take you?

> we can expect his two tome collection out in a few years
> (more).
>
> These day's, 50-50 chance Oswald walk -- far cry from what a trial in
> '64 would of produced!

<snicker> You guys can`t even figure out poll percentages, now
you`re fucking oddsmakers?

Bud

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 2:07:49 PM7/17/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <29841-44B...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazu...@webtv.net says...
> >
> >Hey Bud, who was the heavy-set guy in the photo from Mexico City, you
> >know, the guy the CIA said was Oswald? How come there are no photos of
> >the real Oswald from Mexico City? The impersonation of LHO in M.C. prior
> >to the assassination is well established. Wake up and smell the fish.
>
> Be sure to let me know if Bud actually says anything worth listening to...

Big mistake not rebutting the easily refuted points I make, Ben,
it`s killing your standing amongst the lurkers.

> Along with Grizzlie and Tommy-boy, they're in my killfile, and the daily posts
> are almost an order of magnitude less numerous.

Is there someone here who doesn`t know you have me killfiled, Ben,
you fucking kook?

Bud

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 2:58:10 PM7/17/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1153153841.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
> >
> >
> >Bud wrote:
> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the
> >>> DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
> >>> Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
> >>> did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called. However,
> >>> in checking their records, they came up with paperwork showing that work
> >>> had been performed on a rifle for a customer named "Oswald" between
> >>> November 4th-8th. And even though no-one remembered the specific
> >>> person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's
> >>> rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> >>> telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes.
> >>
> >> They billed Oz for drilling three holes, but only drilled two?
> >> Bastards.
>
> Bud isn't stupid enough to miss the point... so he's playing the clown again.
> This is why I killfiled him.

You play your games, I`ll play mine. All you you are doing here is
the usual "explain this specific event to my satisfaction, or I will
believe stupid shit" one more time.

> Oswald *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE ONE* who had any work done on a rifle.

I missed where you established that.

> Therefore, someone is busy framing him BEFORE the assassination.

Or that.

> Rather hard to put that bit of evidence together in a non-conspiratorial way.

In what way is it incumbent upon me to provide answers to anything
kooks dredge up? Why don`t you take this information and use it to
establish a conspiracy in a meaningful way?

> >>> Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> >>> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket
> >>> could *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
> >>
> >> I find unstated reasons to be the most persuasive kind.
>
> I merely point out that it was not *only* the number of holes that make this
> ticket impossible to reconcile with Oswald's rifle.

That you think that the mention of a number of holes in a ticket
makes something impossible shows once again your faulty thought
processes.

> Even YOU, Bud, should know that - since the scope was mounted *BEFORE* it was
> allegedly mailed to Oswald.

Therefore it could never end up in a gunshop having work done on it.
Stellar.

> >>> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
> >>> attempting to frame LHO?
> >>
> >> Not the question that jumps to my mind. The question I was
> >> wondering was whether kooks will ever take information like this and
> >> move one single step in any direction off of it.
>
>
> Note, of course, that Bud can't offer any other possible understanding of this
> incident... let alone the number of others...

The truth is I don`t know for sure. The truth is, you don`t either.
The event really needs more information developed to draw any informed
conclusions. Will this happen soon, or are kooks content with
uninformed speculation?

> There was a concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination, and Bud
> would prefer to close his eyes and act the clown.

TA-DA. An amazing, astounding, extraordinary conclusion firmly
supported by scant information. Bravo.

> >>> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally
> >>> frame him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally
> >>> only specified his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had
> >>> the man specifying his name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for
> >>> the LNT'er crowd...
> >>
> >> Yah, we rarely know what the fuck you are talking about.
>
>
> Again, Bud merely acts the clown...

You started it. If Mark Chapman`s photo was circulated around
New York, how many people would say they saw ol` Mark at places he
never was, doing things he never did? You need to be able to separate
the wheat from the chafe, and you kooks keep trying to bake bread made
entirely out of chafe.

> >>> Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when
> >>> Oswald was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a
> >>> manager of a Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI -
> >>> stating that the name "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back
> >>> through his order files, and found a prospective purchaser from 1961.
> >>> The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban, had tried to purchase 10
> >>> trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first identified himself as
> >>> "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the purchase
> >>> documents.
> >>>
> >>> Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
> >>> released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the
> >>> Anti-Castro group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the
> >>> "Friends of Democratic Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was
> >>> a key member of.
> >>>
> >>> Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
> >>
> >> No,
>
>
> Provably a lie. See? Bud would rather lie and clown than attempt to
> legitimately support the WCR.

A connection can be made between Oz and the Pope, with enough
effort. Wake me when you are ready to present a cohesive package about
Oz, Bannister, and truck buying Cubans. If these things are the
stepping stones you claim, why don`t they lead anywhere?

> >> but I did hear that a guy using the name "Oswald" bought some
> >> trucks with a Cuban that had ties to a group Guy Bannister was a member
> >> of.
> >>
> >>> There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The
> >>> most famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the
> >>> question becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
> >>
> >> Boy, this one went nowhere in a hurry.
>
> Certainly! When the nuts like you, Bud; have to lie and clown around, and can't
> rebute the evidence...

<snicker> What did you present? More "explain this to my
satisfaction or I get to insert the kook explaination of my choosing".
You have a hundred book writers, spending hundreds of thousand of hours
developing information, and portraying it in a certain way. I should
counter this? Even if I could, say, explain the truck buying Cuban,
what have I accomplished, is the idea of conspiracy defeated? I await
you actually taking this information, and compiling it into a cohesive
and reasonable explaination of this event. But I`m not holding my
breath.

> >> Kooks sure can
> >> generate suspicious sounding stuff (could have something to do with
> >> thousands of kooks spending thousands of hours determined to find
> >> them).
>
> Actually, much of this material is in the 26 volumes... you know, the books
> you've never read?

I`m waiting for the movie. For fucks sake, the little I do look
into is enough to convince me of reality evasion you kooks are
indulging in. You bring up Richard Randolf Carr, so I look into him and
find he couldn`t possibly see what he said he saw at the Shaw trial.
But, that doesn`t hurt his credibility with kooks, it might even
enhance it.

> >> Too bad they can`t go anywhere with them. These are like kook
> >> trading cards. "Suspicious Sounding Event #49, A guy named Oswald and
> >> a Cuban buy some trucks". In only 40 years they have this, imagine what
> >> they`ll have in a hundred.
>
>
> This was all known by the WC.

They knew kooks couldn`t move off these issues in a hundred years
also? An intelligent, reasonable body of men that WC.

> >Look at it this way Dudster -- any post '64 *suspicious* event can
> >create reasonable doubt in a jury members mind -- take these
> >*suspicious* events, in total, you'd have a tough time convicting him
> >[LHO] on the evidence, as assembled in the WCR.
>
> Couldn't have been done in 1964... any reasonably competent defense attorney
> would have dug up far more material than we have access to today. Look, for
> example, at the wealth of material that came from the cross-examination of Col
> Finck at the Shaw Trial. What would have happened if even a minority of
> eyewitnesses had been *cross-examined*???

Oz would be convicted. What happens when Fritz and the other
interoggators get on the stand, and tell how Oz told them he didn`t own
a rifle? You can have Finck, I`ll take that any day. When the photos of
Oz holding the rifle are shown, a jury will have to ask themselves why
an innocent man would deny owning a rifle. Or why an innocent man would
lie about who he ate lunch with. Or why an innocent man would lie about
bringing a long package into work that day. You think the jury will
take your commie weasal`s word over the interrogators? You kooks are in
denial if you think the issues you raise here are going to trump the
simple things that strongly indicate Oz was a guilty man.

> >If one pays ANY attention to Von Pein, V.Bugliosi has been dealing with
> >these *suspicious* events [issues] for the past 15 years (and
> >counting)... we can expect his two tome collection out in a few years
> >(more).
> >
> >These day's, 50-50 chance Oswald walk -- far cry from what a trial in
> >'64 would of produced!
>
> I wouldn't place the odds that high.

Which one, the 50 or the 50?

> Anyway, looks like I'm not missing anything important by keeping Bud in my
> killfile - clowns and nuts shouldn't be allowed to take up my valuable time. :)

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case, is this a kook
or what? He won`t waste his time replying to my points, but will do so
by proxy through another posters response.

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 3:01:19 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "If one pays ANY attention to Von Pein, V. Bugliosi has been dealing with these *suspicious* events [issues] for the past 15 years (and counting)." <<<


Wrong. 20 years.

And, guess what? He STILL hasn't seen that "conspiracy" that you
CT-Kooks like to promote. Ever wonder why this is?


>>> "We can expect his {Bugliosi's} two-tome collection out in a few years (more)." <<<


Wrong again. Less than one year (more than likely).


>>> "These day's [sic], 50-50 chance Oswald walk{s} -- far cry from what a trial in '64 would of produced!" <<<


Thank God you weren't on the jury (had there been one to decide
Oswald's fate).

Mr. Bugliosi, in 1986, proved that a jury of Dallas citizens WOULD
convict Oswald (albeit in a very-short 21-hour "mock" trial).

But that trial DID utilize real evidence and real witnesses telling
what they knew and saw....including Paul O'Connor's and Cyril Wecht's
silly pro-CT ramblings, which certainly didn't dissuade that jury from
coming back with a "guilty" verdict. (Although, yes, some of the jurors
did say they thought a conspiracy did exist. But at least none of those
jurors was in the "CT-Kook" category, in that all of them easily
realized that Oswald was not an "innocent patsy".)

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 3:30:18 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "There was a concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination..." <<<


And would this "concerted effort" also include the unbelievably-stupid
"Frame The Lone Patsy" plan of utilizing three or four (more even?)
gunmen, firing from front and rear, to kill the one almost-stationary
target?

Has even ONE conspiracy-loving kook EVER even thought about how stupid
such a "concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination"
sounds, within the context of the supposed "Multi-Gunmen" assassination
plot?

I doubt it.

Or would you prefer to just ignore the obvious silliness of such a
PRE-arranged multi-gun, one-patsy "plot" and just start spouting stupid
pro-CT shit to justify such a kooky assassination plan?

Yeah...prob'ly so. Right?


>>> "Clowns and nuts shouldn't be allowed to take up my valuable time." <<<


Do you allow CT-Kooks (like yourself) to take up your "valuable time"?

"Valuable Time"????

LOL.

It's so valuable, that you're willing to post piles of stupid CT shit
day-in, day-out in this mausoleum. Yeah, that pro-CT crap is of a
certain "value" indeed. To this organization particularly:

http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 4:06:54 PM7/17/06
to
In article <1153162879.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> If one pays ANY attention to Von Pein, V. Bugliosi has been dealing with
>> these *suspicious* events [issues] for the past 15 years (and counting).
>
>
>Wrong. 20 years.
>
>And, guess what? He STILL hasn't seen that "conspiracy" that you
>CT-Kooks like to promote. Ever wonder why this is?


Because he's a nut like you?

>> We can expect his two-tome collection out in a few years.


>
>
>Wrong again. Less than one year (more than likely).


We've heard that before...


>> These day's [sic], 50-50 chance Oswald walk{s} -- far cry from what a trial
>> in '64 would of produced!
>
>
>Thank God you weren't on the jury (had there been one to decide
>Oswald's fate).
>
>Mr. Bugliosi, in 1986, proved that a jury of Dallas citizens WOULD
>convict Oswald (albeit in a very-short 21-hour "mock" trial).
>
>But that trial DID utilize real evidence and real witnesses telling
>what they knew and saw....including Paul O'Connor's and Cyril Wecht's
>silly pro-CT ramblings, which certainly didn't dissuade that jury from
>coming back with a "guilty" verdict. (Although, yes, some of the jurors
>did say they thought a conspiracy did exist. But at least none of those
>jurors was in the "CT-Kook" category, in that all of them easily
>realized that Oswald was not an "innocent patsy".)

Davey-boy is forced to the silly theory that up to 90% of America are "kooks".

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 4:10:27 PM7/17/06
to
In article <1153164618.6...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> There was a concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination...

And yet, coward that he is, Davey-boy snipped all the supporting material *for*
that statement.


>And would this "concerted effort" also include the unbelievably-stupid
>"Frame The Lone Patsy" plan of utilizing three or four (more even?)
>gunmen, firing from front and rear, to kill the one almost-stationary
>target?

Yep. When you control the investigation, you can do whatever you want. Such as
not questioning the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder, for example... or
not including the death certificate...


>Has even ONE conspiracy-loving kook EVER even thought about how stupid
>such a "concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination"
>sounds, within the context of the supposed "Multi-Gunmen" assassination
>plot?

The facts are there... you haven't even *tried* to rebute them.


>I doubt it.
>
>Or would you prefer to just ignore the obvious silliness of such a
>PRE-arranged multi-gun, one-patsy "plot" and just start spouting stupid
>pro-CT shit to justify such a kooky assassination plan?
>
>Yeah...prob'ly so. Right?
>
>
>> Clowns and nuts shouldn't be allowed to take up my valuable time.
>
>
>Do you allow CT-Kooks (like yourself) to take up your "valuable time"?
>
>"Valuable Time"????
>
>LOL.


Snipped my statement, didn't you? Rather cowardly and dishonest of you, wasn't
it?


>It's so valuable, that you're willing to post piles of stupid CT shit


That amazingly, you're unable to refute.

Bud

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 4:49:58 PM7/17/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1153164618.6...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> There was a concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination...
>
> And yet, coward that he is, Davey-boy snipped all the supporting material *for*
> that statement.

I didn`t see any. Did you bring up Milteer again?

> >And would this "concerted effort" also include the unbelievably-stupid
> >"Frame The Lone Patsy" plan of utilizing three or four (more even?)
> >gunmen, firing from front and rear, to kill the one almost-stationary
> >target?
>
> Yep. When you control the investigation, you can do whatever you want.

And when you are not impeded by reality, you can say whatever you
want.

> Such as
> not questioning the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder, for example... or
> not including the death certificate...

Ben seems to have complaints about the way the WC conducted the
investigation.
Much like Tomnln with his squalking points, he repeats them endlesssly,
and takes not one meaningful step with the information.

> >Has even ONE conspiracy-loving kook EVER even thought about how stupid
> >such a "concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination"
> >sounds, within the context of the supposed "Multi-Gunmen" assassination
> >plot?
>
> The facts are there... you haven't even *tried* to rebute them.

Sure, the facts are there. Have kooks given one real reason not to
believe Oz killed a policeman in broad daylight? And if there is no
reason to disbelieve that event, is there a reason not to believe it
was connected to another murder committed from his workplace, using his
rifle? All this "look over here" is meant to distract from the
meaningful, to the meaningless issues kooks want to obsess over.

> >I doubt it.
> >
> >Or would you prefer to just ignore the obvious silliness of such a
> >PRE-arranged multi-gun, one-patsy "plot" and just start spouting stupid
> >pro-CT shit to justify such a kooky assassination plan?
> >
> >Yeah...prob'ly so. Right?
> >
> >
> >> Clowns and nuts shouldn't be allowed to take up my valuable time.
> >
> >
> >Do you allow CT-Kooks (like yourself) to take up your "valuable time"?
> >
> >"Valuable Time"????
> >
> >LOL.
>
>
> Snipped my statement, didn't you? Rather cowardly and dishonest of you, wasn't
> it?
>
>
> >It's so valuable, that you're willing to post piles of stupid CT shit
>
>
> That amazingly, you're unable to refute.

Or, predictably, Ben can`t use to advance any reasonable
alternatives to what the WC found with.

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 5:08:28 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "Because he's {VB} a nut like you?" <<<


Thanks, Ben. I'd be proud to be placed into the same "nut" basket as
Vince Bugliosi. Any day of any week, in fact. Thanks much. That's a
compliment of the first order (even though you didn't realize it).


>>> "Davey-boy is forced to the silly theory that up to 90% of America are "kooks"." <<<


As per the norm, Ben-boy overstates everything (and misinterprets to
boot). Not to mention his silly "90%" business yet again.

Not nearly ALL of the 70%-75% of the American people who believe in
conspiracy in the JFK case are to be considered outright "kooks". And
that stated % of conspiracy-believers is a figure that's much closer to
reality than Ben's data, based on relatively-recent 2003 polls, that
can be verified here....

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

The "kooks" out of that 70%-75% are the pct. (whatever it may be; I
have no idea) who have actually studied the evidence in the case and
read the WR and yet still think like Ben-Kook thinks -- i.e.,
EVERYTHING seems "conspiratorial" no matter what (and Oswald didn't
have a thing to do with J.D. Tippit's demise either).

THAT'S the type of CTer who ranks as a "kook" (for certain).

You qualify there, don't you Benjamin?

Sure ya do. No self-respecting CTer in Kooksville would ever think Lee
H. Oswald took a life on 11/22 -- or that he tried to take a life on
04/10/1963 A.D. either. Right?

Right.

~~~~~~~

The above-referenced poll (from November 2003) includes the
amazingly-low % of SEVEN PERCENT in the "Oswald Not Involved" category.

That's "amazingly-low", that is, if Oswald had really been what Ben and
like-minded CT-Kookatics seem to believe Oswald was on 11/22 -- i.e.,
an innocent Patsy.

It would mean, according to Ben's ilk, that 83% of those people polled
in 2003 (not counting the 10% with "no opinion") are dead-wrong when it
comes to the question of Saint Oswald's "involvement" in the JFK
murder.

Are those 83% to be considered "kooks" by the likes of Benjamin (and
other CTers)? Or could it actually be that that 83% of the people from
that particular poll actually have the common sense to realize that
Oswald's Nov. 22nd involvement is all too obvious (as spelled out by
the entire batch of physical and circumstantial evidence in the JFK
case)?

I'll choose the latter option.

Here's what that portion of the above poll revealed:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy
assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to
Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the
assassination at all?" .....

Only Oswald -- 32%

Another Gunman -- 51%

Oswald Not Involved -- 7%

No Opinion -- 10%

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 5:40:03 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "When you control the investigation, you can do whatever you want." <<<


Ah, yes. A favorite refrain of the CT-Kooksville population. And it's a
beaut too...until, that is, a reasonable person with a grain of common
sense looks at this matter and realizes that not nearly ALL of this
"Oswald-Favoring Evidence" could POSSIBLY have been "controlled"
IMMEDIATELY by this CTer-created group of never-failing, always-perfect
cover-up operatives.

Could anyone have actually "controlled" all of the Parkland people?
Surely at least ONE of those Parkland witnesses saw an unwanted
non-Oswald bullet someplace in the hospital, right? Must have. After
all, there WERE at least 6 or 8 or 10 shots fired at the limo. Right?
But ALL of these non-LHO bullets just vanish BEFORE the car reaches
Parkland?

Was Harry Houdini a passenger in X-100 too?

And how many people would have been needed to "control" everything that
needed to be "controlled"? Which is a lot of stuff, including Oswald
himself. Or did Oswald conveniently AID in his own "frame-up" by acting
like he did on 11/22? (And lying his ass off time and time again as
well. Does a truly "innocent patsy" NEED to lie that much?)

Your "controlled the investigation" mantra is a smelly pile, Ben-Kook.
When will you come to realize that fact--when the smell reaches
unbearable heights perhaps? (Or maybe by May 2007 anyway, huh?)


>>> "Such as not questioning the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder...or not including the death certificate..." <<<


As if either of these "isolated" items PROVES the vast "plot" and
"frame-up" of Oswald that Ben-Kook suggests. LOL....and "geesh!".

Of course, as Jean Davison has wisely (as usual) pointed out in
previous posts (and Bud too I believe), several other people in and
around the limo were called upon to testify.

And many people weren't called to testify. Chaney just happened to be
one of them.

Are we to believe that the WC knew Chaney had something to say that the
WC didn't want in the record? Is that your CT contention, Ben-Kook? If
so, how can you prove this assertion? Any chance you can? Or will?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 6:28:40 PM7/17/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>>> "When you control the investigation, you can do whatever you want." <<<
>
>
> Ah, yes. A favorite refrain of the CT-Kooksville population. And it's a
> beaut too...until, that is, a reasonable person with a grain of common
> sense looks at this matter and realizes that not nearly ALL of this
> "Oswald-Favoring Evidence" could POSSIBLY have been "controlled"
> IMMEDIATELY by this CTer-created group of never-failing, always-perfect
> cover-up operatives.
>
> Could anyone have actually "controlled" all of the Parkland people?

Not immediately, as they were already talking to the press. But then
Baxter rounded them up and threatened them.

> Surely at least ONE of those Parkland witnesses saw an unwanted
> non-Oswald bullet someplace in the hospital, right? Must have. After

Your imagination is running wild.

> all, there WERE at least 6 or 8 or 10 shots fired at the limo. Right?

No. No one here has said that. You can also claim there were thousands
of shots fired, but I am not impressed.

> But ALL of these non-LHO bullets just vanish BEFORE the car reaches
> Parkland?

Not my allegation, but others have claimed that the original bullet
found was of a different type than Oswald's ammo.

>
> Was Harry Houdini a passenger in X-100 too?

The WC used Harry Houdini to explain their SBT.

>
> And how many people would have been needed to "control" everything that
> needed to be "controlled"? Which is a lot of stuff, including Oswald

Usually one one person at each location. Someone in charge. And you fail
to understand the difference between running a cover-up and carrying out
the original crime.

> himself. Or did Oswald conveniently AID in his own "frame-up" by acting
> like he did on 11/22? (And lying his ass off time and time again as
> well. Does a truly "innocent patsy" NEED to lie that much?)
>

Yes, if he is trying to defend himself from being railroaded and framed
by the police.

> Your "controlled the investigation" mantra is a smelly pile, Ben-Kook.
> When will you come to realize that fact--when the smell reaches
> unbearable heights perhaps? (Or maybe by May 2007 anyway, huh?)
>
>
>>>> "Such as not questioning the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder...or not including the death certificate..." <<<
>
>
> As if either of these "isolated" items PROVES the vast "plot" and
> "frame-up" of Oswald that Ben-Kook suggests. LOL....and "geesh!".
>
> Of course, as Jean Davison has wisely (as usual) pointed out in
> previous posts (and Bud too I believe), several other people in and
> around the limo were called upon to testify.
>
> And many people weren't called to testify. Chaney just happened to be
> one of them.
>
> Are we to believe that the WC knew Chaney had something to say that the
> WC didn't want in the record? Is that your CT contention, Ben-Kook? If
> so, how can you prove this assertion? Any chance you can? Or will?
>

Don't know how much the WC knew about what Chaney could say. We do know
that they did not want to hear about Tague and did not want to hear
conspiracy witnesses.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 6:37:21 PM7/17/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>>> "Because he's {VB} a nut like you?" <<<
>
>
> Thanks, Ben. I'd be proud to be placed into the same "nut" basket as
> Vince Bugliosi. Any day of any week, in fact. Thanks much. That's a
> compliment of the first order (even though you didn't realize it).
>
>
>>>> "Davey-boy is forced to the silly theory that up to 90% of America are "kooks"." <<<
>
>
> As per the norm, Ben-boy overstates everything (and misinterprets to
> boot). Not to mention his silly "90%" business yet again.
>
> Not nearly ALL of the 70%-75% of the American people who believe in

And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?

> conspiracy in the JFK case are to be considered outright "kooks". And

So, you are an elitist who believes that 70-75% of the American people
are outright kooks. That explains your world view. Part of your
superiority complex. Then why not just extend that 75% to 90%? What's
your big objection to that other 15%? After all, if you are so superior,
maybe you are the only sane person in the world and everyone else is insane.

> that stated % of conspiracy-believers is a figure that's much closer to
> reality than Ben's data, based on relatively-recent 2003 polls, that
> can be verified here....

The problem is that you are so out of touch with reality that you can
not understand simple facts.

>
> http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
> The "kooks" out of that 70%-75% are the pct. (whatever it may be; I
> have no idea) who have actually studied the evidence in the case and
> read the WR and yet still think like Ben-Kook thinks -- i.e.,
> EVERYTHING seems "conspiratorial" no matter what (and Oswald didn't
> have a thing to do with J.D. Tippit's demise either).
>
> THAT'S the type of CTer who ranks as a "kook" (for certain).
>
> You qualify there, don't you Benjamin?
>
> Sure ya do. No self-respecting CTer in Kooksville would ever think Lee
> H. Oswald took a life on 11/22 -- or that he tried to take a life on
> 04/10/1963 A.D. either. Right?
>
> Right.
>

More strawman arguments.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 6:39:05 PM7/17/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>>> "If one pays ANY attention to Von Pein, V. Bugliosi has been dealing with these *suspicious* events [issues] for the past 15 years (and counting)." <<<
>
>
> Wrong. 20 years.
>
> And, guess what? He STILL hasn't seen that "conspiracy" that you
> CT-Kooks like to promote. Ever wonder why this is?
>

No need to wonder. He has WC issued blinders on.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 6:26:09 PM7/17/06
to
In article <1153170508....@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Because he's a nut like you?

>
>
>Thanks, Ben. I'd be proud to be placed into the same "nut" basket as
>Vince Bugliosi. Any day of any week, in fact. Thanks much. That's a
>compliment of the first order (even though you didn't realize it).


If Bugliosi is in the roughly 10% of Americans that believe in the WCR, then
he's in the same number, percentage wise, that believe Elvis is alive, the moon
landings a hoax, and other silly things...

That makes him a nut.


>> Davey-boy is forced to the silly theory that up to 90% of America
>> are "kooks".
>
>
>As per the norm, Ben-boy overstates everything (and misinterprets to
>boot). Not to mention his silly "90%" business yet again.

Bugs you that you can't refute such a simple statement, doesn't it?


>Not nearly ALL of the 70%-75% of the American people who believe in
>conspiracy in the JFK case are to be considered outright "kooks".

Why not? They believe the same things I do. If I'm more knowledgeable on the
specifics, it's only because I'm interested enough to dig into them.


>And
>that stated % of conspiracy-believers is a figure that's much closer to
>reality than Ben's data, based on relatively-recent 2003 polls, that
>can be verified here....
>
>http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy


Who cares? The stats I cite are accurate. *All* polls are time-based, or did
you know that?


<garbage snipped>

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 6:52:24 PM7/17/06
to
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1153153841.1...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
> >
> >
> >Bud wrote:
> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the
> >>> DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.
> >>> Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor
> >>> did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called. However,
> >>> in checking their records, they came up with paperwork showing that work
> >>> had been performed on a rifle for a customer named "Oswald" between
> >>> November 4th-8th. And even though no-one remembered the specific
> >>> person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's
> >>> rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> >>> telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes.
> >>
> >> They billed Oz for drilling three holes, but only drilled two?
> >> Bastards.
>
> Bud isn't stupid enough to miss the point... so he's playing the clown again.
> This is why I killfiled him.
>
> Oswald *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE ONE* who had any work done on a rifle.
> Therefore, someone is busy framing him BEFORE the assassination.
>
Bud can't seem to figure this one out. (Hint: He had an impeccable
work attendance record).

> Rather hard to put that bit of evidence together in a non-conspiratorial way.
>
>
> >>> Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> >>> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket
> >>> could *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
> >>
> >> I find unstated reasons to be the most persuasive kind.
>
> I merely point out that it was not *only* the number of holes that make this
> ticket impossible to reconcile with Oswald's rifle.
>
> Even YOU, Bud, should know that - since the scope was mounted *BEFORE* it was
> allegedly mailed to Oswald.
>

Interesting. Wow, a double whammy.

>
> >>> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
> >>> attempting to frame LHO?
> >>
> >> Not the question that jumps to my mind. The question I was
> >> wondering was whether kooks will ever take information like this and
> >> move one single step in any direction off of it.
>
>
> Note, of course, that Bud can't offer any other possible understanding of this
> incident... let alone the number of others...
>

Yeah, there must have been 10-20 incidences where LHO was at work at
the TSBD or at a place where 'Oswald' was during the day or elsewhere.
And probably about 5 on the day of the assassination.

> There was a concerted effort to frame Oswald BEFORE the assassination, and Bud
> would prefer to close his eyes and act the clown.
>

Yep, straight to the MC in the TSBD. Nothing else matters.

>
> >>> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally
> >>> frame him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally
> >>> only specified his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had
> >>> the man specifying his name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for
> >>> the LNT'er crowd...
> >>
> >> Yah, we rarely know what the fuck you are talking about.
>
>
> Again, Bud merely acts the clown...
>

Doesn't matter how his name is tossed around or the addresses where he
lived...etc..except when Army Intel passes along the wrong address at
the wrong time.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 6:38:13 PM7/17/06
to
In article <1153172403.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> When you control the investigation, you can do whatever you want.
>
>
>Ah, yes. A favorite refrain of the CT-Kooksville population.


And when you can't disprove something, you resort to ad hominem.

Thankyou for your admission...

>And it's a
>beaut too...until, that is, a reasonable person with a grain of common
>sense looks at this matter and realizes that not nearly ALL of this
>"Oswald-Favoring Evidence" could POSSIBLY have been "controlled"
>IMMEDIATELY by this CTer-created group of never-failing, always-perfect
>cover-up operatives.

Yep... some of it slipped into the evidence stream despite their best efforts.
At that point, the best they could do was make it difficult to access... the
Z-film, and the plats of Dealey Plaza come immediately to mind.

But quite a bit of it could easily be manipulated away... take, for example, the
control studies done on the cheek caste at Oak Ridge. Tell us about 'em...

Of course, you can't. The WC buried them.


>Could anyone have actually "controlled" all of the Parkland people?

Yep... it *was* done... we have eyewitness statements to that effect.

>Surely at least ONE of those Parkland witnesses saw an unwanted
>non-Oswald bullet someplace in the hospital, right? Must have. After
>all, there WERE at least 6 or 8 or 10 shots fired at the limo. Right?
>But ALL of these non-LHO bullets just vanish BEFORE the car reaches
>Parkland?
>
>Was Harry Houdini a passenger in X-100 too?
>
>And how many people would have been needed to "control" everything that
>needed to be "controlled"? Which is a lot of stuff, including Oswald
>himself. Or did Oswald conveniently AID in his own "frame-up" by acting
>like he did on 11/22? (And lying his ass off time and time again as
>well. Does a truly "innocent patsy" NEED to lie that much?)
>
>Your "controlled the investigation" mantra is a smelly pile, Ben-Kook.
>When will you come to realize that fact--when the smell reaches
>unbearable heights perhaps? (Or maybe by May 2007 anyway, huh?)


When you have no argument, you resort to ad hominem. Thankyou for that
admission that you have no rebuttal.

>> Such as not questioning the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder... or
>> not including the death certificate...
>
>
>As if either of these "isolated" items PROVES the vast "plot" and
>"frame-up" of Oswald that Ben-Kook suggests. LOL....and "geesh!".


Not "isolated" at all. I can give dozens of additional examples. In fact,
entire books have been written on how the WC spun the evidence.

>Of course, as Jean Davison has wisely (as usual) pointed out in
>previous posts (and Bud too I believe), several other people in and
>around the limo were called upon to testify.

Just not the closest non-limo eyewitness who also happened to be a police
officer.


>And many people weren't called to testify. Chaney just happened to be
>one of them.

What Davey-boy refuses to admit is any pattern to those who were *not* called.

It's inconceivable in the first place to have a police officer less than a dozen
feet from the murder, yet not asked a *SINGLE* question.


>Are we to believe that the WC knew Chaney had something to say that the
>WC didn't want in the record?

Yep.

>Is that your CT contention, Ben-Kook? If
>so, how can you prove this assertion? Any chance you can? Or will?

Already have. Much of what he would have testified to is brought into the
record by others who testified. Other statements went to the press.

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 7:12:05 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "Your imagination is running wild." <<<


This comment coming from a kook who seconds earlier spouted this
gem.....

"Baxter rounded them up and threatened them".

Any proof re. that one, Tony-Kook? Or is it just something to be "taken
on faith", as per usual with "all things CT"?


>>> "You can also claim there were thousands of shots fired, but I am not impressed." <<<


Nor am I. I'm not even impressed by 4.


>>> "The WC used Harry Houdini to explain their SBT." <<<


That must have been shortly after Harry spent months trying to figure
out how he was going to make that THREE-SHOT portion of the
assassination attempt funnel down to just the SBT.*

* = In a PRE-11/22 context, keep in mind. Or did those bonehead
conspirators who gave the green light to that spectacularly-absurd
multi-shooter Patsy scheme just toss up the ol' hands and rely on
garden-variety luck when their three bullets that went into JFK & JBC
came out looking like it could be explained via just a ONE-shot
scenario?

Surely, Harry helped the CT-Patsy architects with that little snafu
prior to 11/22. Didn't he?

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 7:29:57 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<


Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

Of course, if I'd wanted to, I could have honed that 70%-75% figure to
an even more-favorable LN argument of "58%-75%", based on the one poll
I cited in detail, which has just 58% of those polled believing in a
conspiracy.

But we'll just ignore that very close to "50-50" poll and concentrate
on Ben-Kook's inflated (and non-existent) "90%" figure instead. Looks
better in Kooksville anyway.


>>> "He (Mr. V.T. Bugliosi of Los Angeles, CA. USA} has WC issued blinders on." <<<


Yeah? Cool beans! Didn't realize that.

Was it Gerry Ford or Arlen Specter who personally issued them to Vince?
And does Vince have to share his commission with "The Commission"?
After all, Tony Marsh The Great oughta know. Right?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 7:25:43 PM7/17/06
to
In article <1153176744....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
curtj...@webtv.net says...


Yeah... and Bud *should* be embarrassed, but I doubt that he even noticed.

The interesting fact here is that the DPD got an anonymous tip. Who could have
provided this tip? The gun shop employees denied any knowledge. If they *did*
know that Oswald, or someone claiming to be Oswald, had work on a rifle done
there, there's *NO REASON WHATSOEVER* to deny to the police any knowledge of
this. It would be their "patriotic duty" to step up and help convict the man.

So the "anonymous" caller was truly that, anonymous, and most certainly a part
of the intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the assassination.

So when LNT'ers claim that there's no evidence of a conspiracy - they are simply
lying through their teeth. There's *plenty* of evidence, and this is just one
bit of it.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 7:54:34 PM7/17/06
to
In article <1153178997.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>
>
>Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>
>http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
>Of course, if I'd wanted to, I could have honed that 70%-75% figure to
>an even more-favorable LN argument of "58%-75%", based on the one poll
>I cited in detail, which has just 58% of those polled believing in a
>conspiracy.
>
>But we'll just ignore that very close to "50-50" poll and concentrate
>on Ben-Kook's inflated (and non-existent) "90%" figure instead. Looks
>better in Kooksville anyway.


Would you like to put *money* on that statement, Davey-boy? Or are you just
blowing smoke?

Message has been deleted

Bud

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 8:15:26 PM7/17/06
to

Saying that the gunshop worked on the rifle between the 4th and the
8th doesn`t say when they received the rifle.

> >> Rather hard to put that bit of evidence together in a non-conspiratorial way.
> >>
> >>
> >> >>> Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> >> >>> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket
> >> >>> could *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
> >> >>
> >> >> I find unstated reasons to be the most persuasive kind.
> >>
> >> I merely point out that it was not *only* the number of holes that make this
> >> ticket impossible to reconcile with Oswald's rifle.
> >>
> >> Even YOU, Bud, should know that - since the scope was mounted *BEFORE* it was
> >> allegedly mailed to Oswald.
> >>
> >Interesting. Wow, a double whammy.
>
>
> Yeah... and Bud *should* be embarrassed, but I doubt that he even noticed.

Ben is too cowardly to address what I say directly, so why is he
engaging in this "rebuttal by proxy" nonsense? Nobody told him to plonk
me, he did it because he was afraid to engage me in discussion. Now, he
still doesn`t engage me, he just wants to address what I say? Make up
your mind, Ben, ignore me or don`t.

> The interesting fact here is that the DPD got an anonymous tip.

I would be surprised if the DPD didn`t get many Oz sightings. I
would be surprised if the FBI didn`t get nationwide Oz sightings, tips
and such.

> Who could have
> provided this tip?

Forty-two years and counting...

> The gun shop employees denied any knowledge.

It only needs to be someone who thought they saw a person that
looked like Oz in that store. They tell the DPD, the DPD checks it out.
They find a work order to someone named Oswald concerning work on a
rifle. Could have been Oz, could have been someone else with that name,
could have been someone using that name. Could have been someone in the
store fabricated that work order, and called it in as a prank.

> If they *did*
> know that Oswald, or someone claiming to be Oswald, had work on a rifle done
> there, there's *NO REASON WHATSOEVER* to deny to the police any knowledge of
> this. It would be their "patriotic duty" to step up and help convict the man.

I don`t remember a thing the woman who worked the cash register at
the supermarket I shopped at last month, and I doubt she remembers a
thing about me.

> So the "anonymous" caller was truly that, anonymous, and most certainly a part
> of the intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the assassination.

"most certainly". Funny kook phrasing. Not content to have pictures
of Oz holding the weapon, and his wife saying he owned a rifle that he
kept in the Paine`s garage, the conspiractors needed an obscure work
order which is useless to show that Oz owned a rifle, and is only
useful to conspiracy kooks.

> So when LNT'ers claim that there's no evidence of a conspiracy - they are simply
> lying through their teeth.

You haven`t established this to be evidence of conspiracy, although
I doubt you can see that.

> There's *plenty* of evidence, and this is just one
> bit of it.

The Emperor declares his clothes look nifty.

<SNIP>

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 8:24:00 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "So the anonymous caller was most certainly a part of the intelligence setup that was framing Oswald before the assassination." <<<


A remarkable quantum leap there -- from an "anonymous tip" about
something completely unrelated to the actual murder of the President
.... to .... "The intelligence setup that was framing Oswald before the
assassination".

A leap that only a true CT-Kook would dare make.

Should anyone be surprised by this silly, unsupportable leap however?

Nah.

Oswald being seen taking a piss in a men's room that was once occupied
by a third-cousin of Al Capone's next-door neighbor would be enough of
a "tie-in" to a JFK Conspiracy for the likes of a rabid CT-Kook.

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 8:26:43 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "Or are you just blowing smoke?" <<<


I would answer you here....but all that smoke from the Knoll gunman is
making me gag, so I can't right now. Ask again when the smoke clears.

Bud

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 8:28:04 PM7/17/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1153178997.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
> >
> >
> >Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
> >preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
> >
> >http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
> >
> >Of course, if I'd wanted to, I could have honed that 70%-75% figure to
> >an even more-favorable LN argument of "58%-75%", based on the one poll
> >I cited in detail, which has just 58% of those polled believing in a
> >conspiracy.
> >
> >But we'll just ignore that very close to "50-50" poll and concentrate
> >on Ben-Kook's inflated (and non-existent) "90%" figure instead. Looks
> >better in Kooksville anyway.
>
>
> Would you like to put *money* on that statement, Davey-boy? Or are you just
> blowing smoke?

Ben is a sneaky snake. He has said in the past that 90% of the
American people believe Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Now, he has
subtlely rephrased this into a completely different assertion, that 90%
of the American people don`t believe the Warren Commission. Who the
hell cares about their opinion of a report most of them never read? The
issue initially was how many people believe there was a conspiracy, and
Ben has never supported that assertion. You can not believe the Warren
Commission in it`s entirety, and still believe Oz acted alone, despite
kook beliefs otherwise.

Bud

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 9:47:48 PM7/17/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >>> "So the anonymous caller was most certainly a part of the intelligence setup that was framing Oswald before the assassination." <<<
>
>
> A remarkable quantum leap there -- from an "anonymous tip" about
> something completely unrelated to the actual murder of the President
> .... to .... "The intelligence setup that was framing Oswald before the
> assassination".
>
> A leap that only a true CT-Kook would dare make.

Especially when Ben is only telling part of the story. I googled
"Irving Sports Shop scope", and I found some interesting information,
which I am going to take as reliable, as it comes from people who know
these things (DRietz, McAdams, ect). Apparently this ticket was
actually a tag, like what would be tied on a weapon being worked on. It
had on it the name Oswald, that a scope was mounted drilling three
holes and boresighting. I also found that two women who run a furniture
shop that had recently been converted from a gunshop (the
sign-guns-still hung outside), Edith Whitworth and Gertrude Hunter say
Oswald and his family came into their shop on November 4th, looking to
have work performed on his rifle. He was carrying a paper-covered
package around 15 inches long (makes me wonder if this doesn`t show
that Oz had the bag found in the TSBD made well in advance). These
women describe Oz, and his family perfectly, including the names of the
kids. Mrs Whitworth says she directed Oz to the Irving Sports Shop, a
few blocks away. Now, let me suggest a simpler explaination for this
event than the one put forth by Ben, one that doesn`t take such quantum
leaps. First, Kennedy`s trip to Dallas was announced just a few days
before this event. Oz wants to be prepared for him, but knows his rifle
needs some work. He either goes to Truly or the other guy, and asks to
leave early, or just leaves (would they miss him?) He goes out with the
pretext of taking Marina out shopping (baby clothes), and brings his
paper wrapped rifle along. Goes to this furniture shop, where the owner
directs him to an actual gunshop. He goes there, and he wants to have
his rifle boresighted. The clerk grabs a tag, writes his name on it,
but the tag had information on it from a previous repair that he
doesn`t take notice of, or ignores. Tells Oz to come back at the end of
the week to pick it up. Some other customer, or more likely, one of the
women who directed him to the gunshop, phone into the newspaper that
they know Oz went to this gunshop.

aeffects

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 11:19:09 PM7/17/06
to

Bud wrote:

> aeffects wrote:
> > Bud wrote:
> > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD that
> > > > Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly, no one
> > > > at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the plate
> > > > to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they came up
> > > > with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer
> > > > named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one remembered the
> > > > specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's
> > > > rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> > > > telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes.
> > >
> > > They billed Oz for drilling three holes, but only drilled two?
> > > Bastards.
> > >
> > > > Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> > > > this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
> > > > *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
> > >
> > > I find unstated reasons to be the most persuasive kind.
> > >
> > > > The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
> > > > attempting to frame LHO?
> > >
> > > Not the question that jumps to my mind. The question I was
> > > wondering was whether kooks will ever take information like this and
> > > move one single step in any direction off of it.
> > >
> > > > There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
> > > > him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
> > > > his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
> > > > name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
> > >
> > > Yah, we rarely know what the fuck you are talking about.
> > >
> > > > Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
> > > > was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
> > > > Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
> > > > "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
> > > > a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
> > > > had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
> > > > identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
> > > > purchase documents.
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
> > > > released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
> > > > group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
> > > > Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
> > >
> > > No, but I did hear that a guy using the name "Oswald" bought some

> > > trucks with a Cuban that had ties to a group Guy Bannister was a member
> > > of.
> > >
> > > > There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
> > > > famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
> > > > becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
> > >
> > > Boy, this one went nowhere in a hurry. Kooks sure can

> > > generate suspicious sounding stuff (could have something to do with
> > > thousands of kooks spending thousands of hours determined to find
> > > them). Too bad they can`t go anywhere with them. These are like kook

> > > trading cards. "Suspicious Sounding Event #49, A guy named Oswald and
> > > a Cuban buy some trucks". In only 40 years they have this, imagine what
> > > they`ll have in a hundred.
> >
> > Look at it this way Dudster -- any post '64 *suspicious* event can
> > create reasonable doubt in a jury members mind -- take these
> > *suspicious* events, in total, you'd have a tough time convicting him
> > [LHO] on the evidence, as assembled in the WCR.
>
> This information has no bearing on whether Oz took his rifle to
> work, and shot some people with it, which is the issue the jury would
> be considering. Most of this kookshit would even be allowed to be
> mentioned in a court of law.

>
> > If one pays ANY attention to Von Pein, V.Bugliosi has been dealing with
> > these *suspicious* events [issues] for the past 15 years (and
> > counting)...
>
> Thats kook thinking, to think Bugliosi is going to be a fireman
> putting out every fire you kooks have set. He only needs point out your
> total inability to go *anywhere* with *any* of these things you kooks
> find suspicious. If Officer Smith says he ran into a SS man behind the
> knoll, the explaination for that is unknown to me. It is also unknown
> to Ben. Where can unknown information take you?

>
> > we can expect his two tome collection out in a few years
> > (more).
> >
> > These day's, 50-50 chance Oswald walk -- far cry from what a trial in
> > '64 would of produced!
>
> <snicker> You guys can`t even figure out poll percentages, now
> you`re fucking oddsmakers?

Dudster, this is Las Vegas, you moron -- world events are replete with
then reduced to; odds. What don't you understand about a 50/50 chance?

Only poll you idiots have to concern yourself with is: American public
ain't buying Lone Neuter bullshit, up to 90% say LNer's are shitting
themselves....

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 11:23:21 PM7/17/06
to
Ben's even got Mr. Healy believing the "up to 90%" spiel.

Are those "CT-Kook Brainwashing Pills" available over-the-counter? Or
does a doctor have to write a prescription in order for you guys to get
'em? (Must get expensive....month after month.)

aeffects

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 11:37:41 PM7/17/06
to

this one of those simple minded Lone Neuter "ad hominen" attacks?

David VP

unread,
Jul 17, 2006, 11:41:43 PM7/17/06
to
>>> "This one of those simple minded Lone Neuter "ad hominen" [sic] attacks?" <<<

What else?

You think your last post to "Dudster" deserved anything more?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 12:01:32 AM7/18/06
to
In article <1153181625.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> So the "anonymous" caller was truly that, anonymous, and most certainly a
>> part of the intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the

>> assassination.
>
>A remarkable quantum leap there -- from an "anonymous tip" about
>something completely unrelated to the actual murder of the President
>... to ... "The intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the

>assassination".
>
>A leap that only a true CT-Kook would dare make.
>
>Should anyone be surprised by this silly, unsupportable leap however?
>
>Nah.

If it truly wasn't anyone from the gun shop, then you're stuck, Davey-boy. No
amount of "common sense and logic" will get you out of the problem that is here
presented...

For if it wasn't any gunshop employee, and it's *provably* not Oswald, then the
anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald. This is a normal
sort of idea that intelligence agencies practice, but is not seen anywhere else.

But, just for the fun of it, I note that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE
EXPLANATION!!!

Rather cowardly of you, wasn't it?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 12:04:02 AM7/18/06
to
In article <1153182239.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


However, the *fact* that Jack Ruby once worked for Al Capone isn't enough for
the WC to figure out that Ruby was tied to the Mafia.

Rather silly, isn't it?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 12:02:47 AM7/18/06
to
In article <1153182403....@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> Or are you just blowing smoke?
>
>
>I would answer you here....but all that smoke from the Knoll gunman is
>making me gag, so I can't right now. Ask again when the smoke clears.

Snipped and ran, I see. Rather cowardly, isn't it?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 12:12:26 AM7/18/06
to
In article <1153193001....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>Ben's even got Mr. Healy believing the "up to 90%" spiel.


And you're too much of a yellow coward to put your money where your mouth is.

cdddraftsman

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 12:43:27 AM7/18/06
to
Again Ben't Holmes uses the opposite of the scientific method , he want
somebody else to do his homework for him , Boo Hoo ! , it's up to Ben't
Holmes to prove it couldn't be anything else but his asssertion , not
the other way around . So in fact he's lying , by telling only half the
story . but don't ask him to start being scientific now , his foot is
so far down his mouth , it's gonna take a operation , bigger than
mongose , to extract it . HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA , Ben't Holmes
and his factoid furnace that burns 365/24/7 , that same fire I hope
that propels him to hell . When he gets there , he can say hello to his
' Red Romeo ' , they'll make quite a couple ! Tom Lowry

David VP

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 1:41:30 AM7/18/06
to
>>> "If it wasn't any gunshop employee, and it's provably not Oswald, then the anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald. ... I note that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION!!!" <<<


~Large-Sized LOL!~

Bud offered up a perfectly-reasonable "So The Hell What?" type of
"alternative" explanation for your gun shop caller -- an explanation
that grinds your skewed CT thinking right into the ground, where it
belongs. ....

I.E.: Why in HELL would these 'plotters' feel the need to add this
"anonymous call" to their already-thorough barrage of Patsy-Framing
handiwork?

They've set LHO up using the so-called faked backyard photos (showing
the gun and the Russian newspapers, et al).

And they've "planted" Oswald's palmprint on the rifle after the fact
(per some CT-Kookatics...of which you, Ben, are SURELY one...right?
Check).

And they've planted the rifle (C2766) in just the right place so it'll
certainly frame their Patsy, Ozzie-boy.

So....why the need for ANYTHING MORE?

Were these plotters just wanting something to do in the weeks leading
up to the assassination...so they went LOOKING for ways to add to the
frame-up (and, hence, add to the RISK as well)?

After all, Ben-boy, YOU seem to have "caught on" to this little
"gunshop/scope mount" scheme right quick. Surely, the FBI would be able
to see through some phony "anonymous caller" implicating the
Patsy...right? Or is that type of detective work reserved only for the
CT-Kooks many years later?

Oh, shit, I forgot! The FBI was "in" on the Patsy Plot, right? Or at
least they were "in" on the "cover-up" operation after 11/22, right?
Right. So, naturally, they won't investigate this caller. Sorry for
that slip in judgement Check. Gotcha.

It's always a good thing for the CT-Kooks that they can fall back on
the "Everybody In Officialdom Is In On The Plot" scenario. It makes
creating these dead-end, unsupportable theories everlastingly
open-ended for the kook population. Of course, they can never PROVE any
of these dead-end claims....but just the ACCUSATION itself is always
good enough for the CT-Kooks (naturally).

There must, therefore, have also been some kind of fake phone call or
sales receipt or "Oswald Sighting" to implicate Lee Harvey for the
purchase of his MC bullets too, right? Surely there must have been.
That always-bored patsy-framing Dream Team couldn't pass up another
meaningless opportunity to add to the assorted "It Was Oswald" phony
evidence....could they?

Oh, that's right, I forgot (again)....most CT-Kooks are of the belief
that Oswald purchased the type of Carcano rifle in March '63 that was
IMPOSSIBLE to find ammunition for. Correct? Check.

And since there's no specific paper trail for Oz's bullets -- this
means he couldn't have shot JFK with C2766, because he had no bullets
to place into the gun's chamber. Correct? Check.

If he were to ever have purchased his first car, I wonder if Oswald
would have bought the type of car for which no gasoline was readily
available? Seems about as logical as the "Buying A Gun That Can Never
Be Used" line of silly thought.

Anything else?

Silly question indeed. For you've got hundreds more of those
'pulled-from-somebody's-butt', unconnected, unsupportable conspiracy
theories....just like the gun-shop thingy.

Why not make a "Silly Unsupportable CT List"? And see how many miles
long the thing becomes.

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 5:45:24 AM7/18/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1153181625.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> So the "anonymous" caller was truly that, anonymous, and most certainly a
> >> part of the intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the
> >> assassination.
> >
> >A remarkable quantum leap there -- from an "anonymous tip" about
> >something completely unrelated to the actual murder of the President
> >... to ... "The intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the
> >assassination".
> >
> >A leap that only a true CT-Kook would dare make.
> >
> >Should anyone be surprised by this silly, unsupportable leap however?
> >
> >Nah.
>
> If it truly wasn't anyone from the gun shop, then you're stuck, Davey-boy. No
> amount of "common sense and logic" will get you out of the problem that is here
> presented...

No, the exact opposite is true. Common sense would tell you it
doesn`t have to be an employee working at the gunshop, that it could be
a customer who saw him there, or someone who gave him directions to the
place. Another fine example of why Ben should not even be looking into
this case, his narrow minded "this must mean this" approach is nothing
more than one assumption piled onto another.

> For if it wasn't any gunshop employee,

Who said it needed to be?

> and it's *provably* not Oswald,

Once again, Ben makes a claim he can`t support. There are strong
indications, including eyewitnesses, that it was.

> then the
> anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald.

Ben doesn`t let anything stop him from going where he desires to
go.

> This is a normal
> sort of idea that intelligence agencies practice, but is not seen anywhere else.

Ben sees this as the work of shadowy government types. What a kook.

> But, just for the fun of it, I note that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE
> EXPLANATION!!!

I note that you begin to prove any of the assertions you`ve made
about this event. Can`t prove it wasn`t a regular civilian that made
the anonymous call, can`t prove that it wasn`t Oswald who put his rifle
in this shop, can`t prove that any government agency had a hand in this
event. You`re batting a thousand.

> Rather cowardly of you, wasn't it?

Rather stupid of Ben to demand that people present alternatives. Why
can`t he just prove his assertions?

aeffects

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 7:25:10 AM7/18/06
to

this is what lurkers see, you're stock-in-trade Lone Nutter answers
aren't cutting it anymore. You're being hounded by the very report
(WCR) and evidence (attending volumes) you support as being true and
accurate... We understand its a difficult pill (forty years in the
making) to swallow.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 10:02:04 AM7/18/06
to

Rather cowardly, you once again snipped all context.


In article <1153201290.4...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> If it wasn't any gunshop employee, and it's provably not Oswald, then the
>> anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald. ... I note
>> that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION!!!
>
>
>~Large-Sized LOL!~
>
>Bud offered up a perfectly-reasonable "So The Hell What?" type of
>"alternative" explanation for your gun shop caller -- an explanation
>that grinds your skewed CT thinking right into the ground, where it
>belongs. ....


Bud can offer any clownish assertions he wants to. Being on my killfile, I'm
not bothered by him, nor do I see his posts...

I'm pointing out that *YOU* cannot offer any explanation... *regardless* of
where it originates.


>I.E.: Why in HELL would these 'plotters' feel the need to add this
>"anonymous call" to their already-thorough barrage of Patsy-Framing
>handiwork?

This is the same argument that was offered for the 6.5mm virtually round object.

And the *answer* is the same - the object exists... the incident exists...

Once again, the *ONLY* way someone who didn't work at the gunshop would know of
this is that he was *INVOLVED* in setting it up... and setting it up *BEFORE*
the assassination.


>They've set LHO up using the so-called faked backyard photos (showing
>the gun and the Russian newspapers, et al).

Yep... quite likely.


>And they've "planted" Oswald's palmprint on the rifle after the fact
>(per some CT-Kookatics...of which you, Ben, are SURELY one...right?
>Check).

Tis possible... the story of this print is surely strange...


>And they've planted the rifle (C2766) in just the right place so it'll
>certainly frame their Patsy, Ozzie-boy.
>
>So....why the need for ANYTHING MORE?


Speculation. If all you have is speculation to refute *FACTS*, then you're
really in a jam, aren't you Davey-boy?


>Were these plotters just wanting something to do in the weeks leading
>up to the assassination...so they went LOOKING for ways to add to the
>frame-up (and, hence, add to the RISK as well)?


This was indisputably done *BEFORE* the assassination. You're going to have to
live with it.

>After all, Ben-boy, YOU seem to have "caught on" to this little
>"gunshop/scope mount" scheme right quick. Surely, the FBI would be able
>to see through some phony "anonymous caller" implicating the
>Patsy...right? Or is that type of detective work reserved only for the
>CT-Kooks many years later?


Once again, your speculation doesn't explain the facts. Why is that, Davey-boy?

>Oh, shit, I forgot! The FBI was "in" on the Patsy Plot, right? Or at
>least they were "in" on the "cover-up" operation after 11/22, right?


Provably so.


>Right. So, naturally, they won't investigate this caller. Sorry for
>that slip in judgement Check. Gotcha.
>
>It's always a good thing for the CT-Kooks that they can fall back on
>the "Everybody In Officialdom Is In On The Plot" scenario. It makes
>creating these dead-end, unsupportable theories everlastingly
>open-ended for the kook population. Of course, they can never PROVE any
>of these dead-end claims....but just the ACCUSATION itself is always
>good enough for the CT-Kooks (naturally).


No need for groundless "accusations". You have facts here... you've been unable
to explain them in any non-conspiratorial way.


>There must, therefore, have also been some kind of fake phone call or
>sales receipt or "Oswald Sighting" to implicate Lee Harvey for the
>purchase of his MC bullets too, right? Surely there must have been.

Actually, this is *YOUR* problem. The FBI & WC were completely unable to
determine where LHO purchased any ammunition. And only 4 bullets... how silly!


>That always-bored patsy-framing Dream Team couldn't pass up another
>meaningless opportunity to add to the assorted "It Was Oswald" phony
>evidence....could they?

If they *had*, it would have been more convincing. *YOU* have the unexplainable
problem, not I.


>Oh, that's right, I forgot (again)....most CT-Kooks are of the belief
>that Oswald purchased the type of Carcano rifle in March '63 that was
>IMPOSSIBLE to find ammunition for. Correct? Check.

Wasn't impossible. But the FBI and WC couldn't locate any place that admitted
selling someone just four bullets...


>And since there's no specific paper trail for Oz's bullets -- this
>means he couldn't have shot JFK with C2766, because he had no bullets
>to place into the gun's chamber. Correct? Check.

You *do* have a problem, don't you?


>If he were to ever have purchased his first car, I wonder if Oswald
>would have bought the type of car for which no gasoline was readily
>available? Seems about as logical as the "Buying A Gun That Can Never
>Be Used" line of silly thought.
>
>Anything else?
>
>Silly question indeed. For you've got hundreds more of those
>'pulled-from-somebody's-butt', unconnected, unsupportable conspiracy
>theories....just like the gun-shop thingy.
>
>Why not make a "Silly Unsupportable CT List"? And see how many miles
>long the thing becomes.

Once again, after this long ramble, I note for the record that you *STILL*
haven't provided any explanation for this incident. How revealing...

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 10:34:08 AM7/18/06
to

What the lurkers see, if they have any sense, is kooks seeing spooks
under their beds. Describe these spooks, kook, did they rattle chains,
did they moan and wail? If you are going to imagine them, at least make
them interesting to read.

> You're being hounded by the very report
> (WCR) and evidence (attending volumes) you support as being true and
> accurate...

Their findings were, and kooks have given no reason to doubt it.

> We understand its a difficult pill (forty years in the
> making) to swallow.

It is painful to watch you kooks still in pursuit of your tails
after all these years. The trick is to be smarter than the tail.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 10:18:10 AM7/18/06
to
In article <1153221910.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...

>
>
>Bud wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <1153181625.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> > says...
>> > >
>>> >> So the "anonymous" caller was truly that, anonymous, and most certainly a
>> > >> part of the intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the
>> > >> assassination.
>> > >
>> > >A remarkable quantum leap there -- from an "anonymous tip" about
>> > >something completely unrelated to the actual murder of the President
>> > >... to ... "The intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the
>> > >assassination".
>> > >
>> > >A leap that only a true CT-Kook would dare make.
>> > >
>> > >Should anyone be surprised by this silly, unsupportable leap however?
>> > >
>> > >Nah.
>> >
>>> If it truly wasn't anyone from the gun shop, then you're stuck, Davey-boy. No
>>> amount of "common sense and logic" will get you out of the problem that is
>>here
>> > presented...
>>
>> No, the exact opposite is true. Common sense would tell you it
>> doesn`t have to be an employee working at the gunshop, that it could be
>> a customer who saw him there,

No "customer" would have known his name.


>> or someone who gave him directions to the
>> place.

LHO the loner... suddenly asking questions from his best buddy, right? How
silly. WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT WASN'T OSWALD!! You really have to get that
little fact sunk into your head.

>> Another fine example of why Ben should not even be looking into
>> this case, his narrow minded "this must mean this" approach is nothing
>> more than one assumption piled onto another.

And yet, you can't provide an alternative explanation that EXPLAINS the known
facts.


>> > For if it wasn't any gunshop employee,
>>
>> Who said it needed to be?

If it wasn't, then it was a frameup.


For that matter, even if it was, it was still a frameup, since we *know* that it
wasn't Oswald.


>> > and it's *provably* not Oswald,
>>
>> Once again, Ben makes a claim he can`t support. There are strong
>> indications, including eyewitnesses, that it was.


There are *NO* eyewitnesses to this incident. Bud lies just for the fun of it.
Come on, Bud... list the names of *ANY* "eyewitnesses".

Better yet, I invite lurkers to see what the WCR said about this incident...
page 646 of the WCR. Not an eyewitness in sight.

Bud simply lied.

This is another reason that he's on my killfile list.


>> > then the
>> > anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald.
>>
>> Ben doesn`t let anything stop him from going where he desires to
>> go.


Explain it in any other terms...


>> > This is a normal
>>> sort of idea that intelligence agencies practice, but is not seen anywhere
>>else.
>>
>> Ben sees this as the work of shadowy government types. What a kook.
>
>this is what lurkers see, you're stock-in-trade Lone Nutter answers
>aren't cutting it anymore. You're being hounded by the very report
>(WCR) and evidence (attending volumes) you support as being true and
>accurate... We understand its a difficult pill (forty years in the
>making) to swallow.

Yep... how true Weisberg has ended up being when he stated that all that was
needed to prove conspiracy was the WC's 26 volumes.


>> > But, just for the fun of it, I note that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE
>> > EXPLANATION!!!
>>
>> I note that you begin to prove any of the assertions you`ve made
>> about this event. Can`t prove it wasn`t a regular civilian that made
>> the anonymous call,

It couldn't have been. It would have had to have been someone who *KNEW* that
Oswald had had work done on a rifle at that shop - and even the shop employees
didn't know that until they searched their paperwork. But since we *KNOW* that
it wasn't Oswald, it could only have been a "civilian" that posed as Oswald...

>> can`t prove that it wasn`t Oswald who put his rifle
>> in this shop,

Of course I can. The WC eliminated this as a possibility. See page 646 of the
WCR.

Of course, we all know that the scope *WAS ALREADY MOUNTED* when it was sold and
shipped. And with *two* holes, not three.


>> can`t prove that any government agency had a hand in this
>> event.

This is true. But it's also merely one of many instances that show a pattern of
framing that could only have been done by a government agency.


>> You`re batting a thousand.

Yep... I am. I note for the record that Davey-boy lied when he said that *YOU*
had a reasonable explanation for this incident.


>> > Rather cowardly of you, wasn't it?
>>
>> Rather stupid of Ben to demand that people present alternatives. Why
>> can`t he just prove his assertions

I have. Your inability to present any alternative theory that explains this
event illustrates that my explanation is the only one that people won't gag
over.

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 11:04:05 AM7/18/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> Rather cowardly, you once again snipped all context.
>
>
> In article <1153201290.4...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> If it wasn't any gunshop employee, and it's provably not Oswald, then the
> >> anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald. ... I note
> >> that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION!!!
> >
> >
> >~Large-Sized LOL!~
> >
> >Bud offered up a perfectly-reasonable "So The Hell What?" type of
> >"alternative" explanation for your gun shop caller -- an explanation
> >that grinds your skewed CT thinking right into the ground, where it
> >belongs. ....
>
>
> Bud can offer any clownish assertions he wants to.

It was your assertions I was responding to.

> Being on my killfile, I'm
> not bothered by him, nor do I see his posts...

You might not see my posts, but your still bothered by me.

> I'm pointing out that *YOU* cannot offer any explanation... *regardless* of
> where it originates.

"Explain this event to my statisfaction or I will believe stupid
shit."

> >I.E.: Why in HELL would these 'plotters' feel the need to add this
> >"anonymous call" to their already-thorough barrage of Patsy-Framing
> >handiwork?
>
> This is the same argument that was offered for the 6.5mm virtually round object.

Yah, the reasons you create don`t make sense in that instance,
either.

> And the *answer* is the same - the object exists... the incident exists...

And somewhere where you prove what you imagine happened in both
cases does not exist.

> Once again, the *ONLY* way someone who didn't work at the gunshop would know of
> this is that he was *INVOLVED* in setting it up... and setting it up *BEFORE*
> the assassination.

This looks stupider every time Ben says it.

> >They've set LHO up using the so-called faked backyard photos (showing
> >the gun and the Russian newspapers, et al).
>
> Yep... quite likely.

Yah, with hundreds of people working on this frame-up, they could
accomplish anything. And all these people are quite for all these
years.

> >And they've "planted" Oswald's palmprint on the rifle after the fact
> >(per some CT-Kookatics...of which you, Ben, are SURELY one...right?
> >Check).
>
> Tis possible... the story of this print is surely strange...

Lets not rule out Martian involvement.

> >And they've planted the rifle (C2766) in just the right place so it'll
> >certainly frame their Patsy, Ozzie-boy.
> >
> >So....why the need for ANYTHING MORE?
>
>
> Speculation. If all you have is speculation to refute *FACTS*, then you're
> really in a jam, aren't you Davey-boy?

Theres a tag in a gunstore with Oz`s name on it. How did we get to a
complex frame-up scenario without the benefit of speculation?

> >Were these plotters just wanting something to do in the weeks leading
> >up to the assassination...so they went LOOKING for ways to add to the
> >frame-up (and, hence, add to the RISK as well)?
>
>
> This was indisputably done *BEFORE* the assassination.

Of course this is untrue. Anyone entering the store after the
assassination could write Oswald`s name on an existing tag, and call in
an anonymous tip. A very simple, 20 word explaination that doesn`t
require shadowy governmental agents. But the best explaination is that
Oz, upon hearing that JFK was coming to Dallas, put his rifle in the
shop in order to get it into better working condition to commit
assassination with.

> You're going to have to
> live with it.

Damn, it will to tough to survive knowing you can`t prove any of the
things you allege,

> >After all, Ben-boy, YOU seem to have "caught on" to this little
> >"gunshop/scope mount" scheme right quick. Surely, the FBI would be able
> >to see through some phony "anonymous caller" implicating the
> >Patsy...right? Or is that type of detective work reserved only for the
> >CT-Kooks many years later?
>
>
> Once again, your speculation doesn't explain the facts. Why is that, Davey-boy?

Because he is applying common sense to your explaination of those
"facts".

> >Oh, shit, I forgot! The FBI was "in" on the Patsy Plot, right? Or at
> >least they were "in" on the "cover-up" operation after 11/22, right?
>
>
> Provably so.

In a court of law? Where are the convictions?

> >Right. So, naturally, they won't investigate this caller. Sorry for
> >that slip in judgement Check. Gotcha.
> >
> >It's always a good thing for the CT-Kooks that they can fall back on
> >the "Everybody In Officialdom Is In On The Plot" scenario. It makes
> >creating these dead-end, unsupportable theories everlastingly
> >open-ended for the kook population. Of course, they can never PROVE any
> >of these dead-end claims....but just the ACCUSATION itself is always
> >good enough for the CT-Kooks (naturally).
>
>
> No need for groundless "accusations". You have facts here... you've been unable
> to explain them in any non-conspiratorial way.

Ben overlooks that he is lightyears from proving the conspiracy in
these events.

> >There must, therefore, have also been some kind of fake phone call or
> >sales receipt or "Oswald Sighting" to implicate Lee Harvey for the
> >purchase of his MC bullets too, right? Surely there must have been.
>
> Actually, this is *YOUR* problem. The FBI & WC were completely unable to
> determine where LHO purchased any ammunition. And only 4 bullets... how silly!

Yah, still more than he needed.

> >That always-bored patsy-framing Dream Team couldn't pass up another
> >meaningless opportunity to add to the assorted "It Was Oswald" phony
> >evidence....could they?
>
> If they *had*, it would have been more convincing. *YOU* have the unexplainable
> problem, not I.

You present this instance as being conspiratorial without proving it
as such, not we.

> >Oh, that's right, I forgot (again)....most CT-Kooks are of the belief
> >that Oswald purchased the type of Carcano rifle in March '63 that was
> >IMPOSSIBLE to find ammunition for. Correct? Check.
>
> Wasn't impossible. But the FBI and WC couldn't locate any place that admitted
> selling someone just four bullets...

So, he didn`t really have the bullets they found in his shirt
pocket when they arrested him, eh?

> >And since there's no specific paper trail for Oz's bullets -- this
> >means he couldn't have shot JFK with C2766, because he had no bullets
> >to place into the gun's chamber. Correct? Check.
>
> You *do* have a problem, don't you?

I`m sure Ben can regale us with instance after instance where not
knowing where ammunition was bought had an impact on a trial. They took
OJ to trial without knowing for sure where he bought the knife, or
knowing what happened to it afterwards.

> >If he were to ever have purchased his first car, I wonder if Oswald
> >would have bought the type of car for which no gasoline was readily
> >available? Seems about as logical as the "Buying A Gun That Can Never
> >Be Used" line of silly thought.
> >
> >Anything else?
> >
> >Silly question indeed. For you've got hundreds more of those
> >'pulled-from-somebody's-butt', unconnected, unsupportable conspiracy
> >theories....just like the gun-shop thingy.
> >
> >Why not make a "Silly Unsupportable CT List"? And see how many miles
> >long the thing becomes.
>
> Once again, after this long ramble, I note for the record that you *STILL*
> haven't provided any explanation for this incident. How revealing...

Yah, he made point after point that you couldn`t address. I found
that very revealing.

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 12:09:17 PM7/18/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1153221910.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
> >
> >
> >Bud wrote:
> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> In article <1153181625.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> >> > says...
> >> > >
> >>> >> So the "anonymous" caller was truly that, anonymous, and most certainly a
> >> > >> part of the intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the
> >> > >> assassination.
> >> > >
> >> > >A remarkable quantum leap there -- from an "anonymous tip" about
> >> > >something completely unrelated to the actual murder of the President
> >> > >... to ... "The intelligence setup that was framing Oswald *BEFORE* the
> >> > >assassination".
> >> > >
> >> > >A leap that only a true CT-Kook would dare make.
> >> > >
> >> > >Should anyone be surprised by this silly, unsupportable leap however?
> >> > >
> >> > >Nah.
> >> >
> >>> If it truly wasn't anyone from the gun shop, then you're stuck, Davey-boy. No
> >>> amount of "common sense and logic" will get you out of the problem that is
> >>here
> >> > presented...

[Ben has me plonked, so he no longer has to read my articles, yet
keeps responding to my articles. What the fuck is wrong with this man?]

> >> No, the exact opposite is true. Common sense would tell you it
> >> doesn`t have to be an employee working at the gunshop, that it could be
> >> a customer who saw him there,
>
> No "customer" would have known his name.

Stupid ass. You think Oz`s picture might have appeared in the media
after the assassination? That someone could say "Hey, I remember seeing
that guy at the Irving Sports Shop. Let me call that information in
anonymously. Hello, media outlet, I saw Oswald at the Irving Sports
Shop."? Once again you shouldn`t even be looking into this event,
devoid of an sense whatsoever to apply to information.

> >> or someone who gave him directions to the
> >> place.
>
> LHO the loner... suddenly asking questions from his best buddy, right? How
> silly.

No, whats silly is that you respond to me without knowledge of any
previous posts that I made, ones where I name the people (Edith
Whitworth and Gertrude Hunter), and the circumstances behind their
encounter. Stupid ass.

> WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT WASN'T OSWALD!! You really have to get that
> little fact sunk into your head.

Yes, say it ten more times, repetition establishes accuracy. Then
produce Oz`s punched out timesheet from work for Nov 4th, 1963.

> >> Another fine example of why Ben should not even be looking into
> >> this case, his narrow minded "this must mean this" approach is nothing
> >> more than one assumption piled onto another.
>
> And yet, you can't provide an alternative explanation that EXPLAINS the known
> facts.

And yet, you fail to address what I just said. My ability or
inability to perform tasks you lay out doesn`t change the fact that you
are only piling one (poor) assumption on another.

> >> > For if it wasn't any gunshop employee,
> >>
> >> Who said it needed to be?
>
> If it wasn't, then it was a frameup.

You state things as fact that you haven`t established. There are
two witnesses who corroborate one another that say they gave Oz
directions to the Irving Sports Shop. Of course, being a CT, you can`t
believe the witnesses.

> For that matter, even if it was, it was still a frameup, since we *know* that it
> wasn't Oswald.

And you *know* it was the government, because it seems to you like
something they would do. Steller... stupid ass.

> >> > and it's *provably* not Oswald,
> >>
> >> Once again, Ben makes a claim he can`t support. There are strong
> >> indications, including eyewitnesses, that it was.
>
>
> There are *NO* eyewitnesses to this incident. Bud lies just for the fun of it.
> Come on, Bud... list the names of *ANY* "eyewitnesses".

Did it, Ben. Unplonk me before you demand information from me,
stupid ass. I ain`t the one hiding from you...

> Better yet, I invite lurkers to see what the WCR said about this incident...
> page 646 of the WCR. Not an eyewitness in sight.
>
> Bud simply lied.

I invite lurkers to google "Edith Whitworth" and "Gertrude Hunter "
here and at alt.assassination to see information about this event. The
two women described Oswald, his foreign wife (who appeared not to speak
English), his two children (even knowing the baby`s name was Rachel),
and even described Marina`s flowered coat.

> This is another reason that he's on my killfile list.

There is only one reason I`m on your killfiled list... fear.

> >> > then the
> >> > anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald.
> >>
> >> Ben doesn`t let anything stop him from going where he desires to
> >> go.
>
>
> Explain it in any other terms...

Prove your scenario, you produced it. You have a tag with Oz`s name,
and an anonymous call. With those two bits of information, you concoct
a fanciful tale, one sure to impress your fellow kooks, inclined as
they are to hear concocted fanciful tales.

> >> > This is a normal
> >>> sort of idea that intelligence agencies practice, but is not seen anywhere
> >>else.
> >>
> >> Ben sees this as the work of shadowy government types. What a kook.
> >
> >this is what lurkers see, you're stock-in-trade Lone Nutter answers
> >aren't cutting it anymore. You're being hounded by the very report
> >(WCR) and evidence (attending volumes) you support as being true and
> >accurate... We understand its a difficult pill (forty years in the
> >making) to swallow.
>
> Yep... how true Weisberg has ended up being when he stated that all that was
> needed to prove conspiracy was the WC's 26 volumes.

There was a straight path through the maze, but you mice decided
it was a better to scurry down all the deadends. Meanwhile, we sit at
the finish line, eating the cheese.

> >> > But, just for the fun of it, I note that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE
> >> > EXPLANATION!!!
> >>
> >> I note that you begin to prove any of the assertions you`ve made
> >> about this event. Can`t prove it wasn`t a regular civilian that made
> >> the anonymous call,
>
> It couldn't have been. It would have had to have been someone who *KNEW* that
> Oswald had had work done on a rifle at that shop - and even the shop employees
> didn't know that until they searched their paperwork. But since we *KNOW* that
> it wasn't Oswald, it could only have been a "civilian" that posed as Oswald...

Hmm... you claim to know a lot, yet I can`t seem to find you
establishing these things in your articles. Where exactlly was Oswald
at 11 o`clock on November 4th? 2 o`clock? Four? Just saying at work
doesn`t cut it, unless you have witnesses throughout the day, because I
have witnesses saying he was elsewhere, and I have a tag with his name
on it indicating he was elesewhere, and this evidence corroborates one
another (witness directs Oz to gunstore, tag with Oz`s name on it is
found at gunstore, both events occur the same day).

> >> can`t prove that it wasn`t Oswald who put his rifle
> >> in this shop,
>
> Of course I can. The WC eliminated this as a possibility. See page 646 of the
> WCR.

If you information relating to this issue, spill it, stupid ass.
Put you cards on the table, don`t refer me to the deck.

> Of course, we all know that the scope *WAS ALREADY MOUNTED* when it was sold and
> shipped. And with *two* holes, not three.

Yes, thats why I speculate that Oz only put the rifle in the shop
for boreshighting (although the women at the furniture store say he
mentioned problems with the firing pin).

> >> can`t prove that any government agency had a hand in this
> >> event.
>
> This is true. But it's also merely one of many instances that show a pattern of
> framing that could only have been done by a government agency.

I think it shows Oz getting his rifle in shape for President
shooting. But I can`t prove it.

> >> You`re batting a thousand.

> Yep... I am. I note for the record that Davey-boy lied when he said that *YOU*
> had a reasonable explanation for this incident.

God, you are a stupid ass. You have me plonked, it doesn`t appear in
this article you just responded to (well, it might now), my
explaination was contained in another article. If you want to
understand the discussions in context, you need to unplonk me, stupid
ass, or ignore what I write altogether. I know how you kook prefer
information out of context, but there is a lot less confusion when you
read information in the proper context (stupid ass).

> >> > Rather cowardly of you, wasn't it?
> >>
> >> Rather stupid of Ben to demand that people present alternatives. Why
> >> can`t he just prove his assertions
>
> I have. Your inability to present any alternative theory that explains this
> event illustrates that my explanation is the only one that people won't gag
> over.

Hell, I`m sure the kooks will swallow it whole and ask for seconds.
Stupid ass.

(Now, I must ask one of my unplonked cohorts (DVP, affects) to
respond to this article, so that Ben (stupid ass) Holmes can read my
response. I`d appreciate it, and apologize that such a childish
exercise like talking through intermediateries is necessary.)

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 3:40:20 PM7/18/06
to
It is amazing though that only two were bored instead of the instructed
three. How inept. And were these gunshop owners ever called to
testify or interviewed as who was dropping off and picking up the
weapon? Of course, Oz would just take off work on his own and Truly
would never divulge such usual things requested by a potential
Presidential Assassin. And the audacity not to just take off work on
his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly? No, he must go to the
extent of driving a car he doesn't have, and drive his whole family
there. Why would he do that and more likely get caught if he was to
return to work? If he got off work, why would he need Marina and the
kids? Of course it makes more sense when one reads the French Magazine
which reveals Marina stating that she was married to two husbands, Lee
the loving father of my children and the hateful, mean TSBD dude.

CJ

aeffects

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 4:06:32 PM7/18/06
to


Dudster, cite where have I spoken of spooks under beds! Spooks,
anywhere for that matter... your problem is, your ineptness discussing
JFK related evidence. You need another hobby, champ... you have NO
argument.

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 4:32:45 PM7/18/06
to

I`m glad you responded, Curt, because in the interim, I looked
further into this issue, and found information that seems to contradict
almost all of the basic facts as Ben laid them out. First, the tag that
was found at the gunshop says nothing about boring three holes. If this
link works, you can see the actual tag...


http://www.aarclibrary.org/public/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex1.pdf

If it doesn`t work, I`ll give the extent of the information
contained on it... the name "Oswald", "drill and tap 4.50", and
"boresight 1.50". That the extent. If this link works, you can read
what information the WC generated from this tag...

http://www.jfk assassination.de/warren/wcr/page315.php

and here...

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22_CE_1333.pdf

It`ll be a small miracle if they all work. Anyway, one of those
documents has this information about the tag... that it was written in
pencil, contained no additional information, was undated, and that Mr
Ryder (store manager) said this was the only record of the transaction.
So, from reading this information, I don`t see three holes
mentioned, I don`t see the date Nov 4th to the 8th mentioned (the tag
isn`t dated, and Ryder said it probably occurred between the 1st and
the 14th, although I don`t see how he can even guess when he says he
doesn`t remember doing the work).

> And were these gunshop owners ever called to
> testify or interviewed as who was dropping off and picking up the
> weapon?

You can find the answer to that in the links I provided, if they
work.

> Of course, Oz would just take off work on his own and Truly
> would never divulge such usual things requested by a potential
> Presidential Assassin.

Not sure what that means.

> And the audacity not to just take off work on
> his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly?

Did they punch in and out at the TSBD?

> No, he must go to the
> extent of driving a car he doesn't have, and drive his whole family
> there.

Yah, the two women said Oz came in a car, but they could have seen a
car pull up, and Oz and family entered shortly afterwards, and they
assumed he came in the car they saw pull up.They nailed too much
information correctly to discount what they said. I suppose it`s
possible Mr or Mrs Paine drove them and dropped them off.

> Why would he do that and more likely get caught if he was to
> return to work?

I offered that he left work as a possibility. I`m now inclined to
wait and see if you and Ben can support your assertion that the rifle
was put into the shop between Nov 4th to the 8th. The date isn`t on the
tag, and the employees don`t remember the job, so where this time span
comes from is a mystery to me.

> If he got off work, why would he need Marina and the
> kids?

A dual purpose trip, getting his rifle fixed and getting clothes or
whatever for the kids.

> Of course it makes more sense when one reads the French Magazine
> which reveals Marina stating that she was married to two husbands, Lee
> the loving father of my children and the hateful, mean TSBD dude.

Really, all Ben did was uncover more incriminating evidence that Oz
killed JFK. The fact that Oz put his rifle into a gunshop to get it
fixed shortly after the President`s trip to Dallas was announced speaks
of premeditation. And the fact that we have witnesses describing Oz and
his family, and directing him to this gunshop, wherein lies physical
evidence that Oz did go there and have work performed on his rifle, and
the fact that he denied even owning a rifle to Fitz and the other
interrogators wraps it up into a nice, neat incriminating bundle. And
no mysterious boogeymen framing Oz.

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 4:54:07 PM7/18/06
to


http://www.aarclibrary.org/public/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex1.pdf

> If it doesn`t work, I`ll give the extent of the information
> contained on it... the name "Oswald", "drill and tap 4.50", and
> "boresight 1.50". That the extent. If this link works, you can read
> what information the WC generated from this tag...

Wow, 0 for 3 on the links. Let me attempt the inevitable repairs...

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page315.php

> and here...

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/_CE_1333.pdf

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 5:10:21 PM7/18/06
to

Last attempt to repair the links...


http://www.aarclibrary.org/public/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf

> > If it doesn`t work, I`ll give the extent of the information
> > contained on it... the name "Oswald", "drill and tap 4.50", and
> > "boresight 1.50". That the extent. If this link works, you can read
> > what information the WC generated from this tag...
>
> Wow, 0 for 3 on the links. Let me attempt the inevitable repairs...

This one works now...

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page315.php

> > and here...

I`ll try to fix this one...


http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1333.pdf

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 5:14:53 PM7/18/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 5:24:16 PM7/18/06
to
Armstrong has 'Oswald' dropping off the MC on the 4th. and the trip of
Marina, Oz, and the kids to the Furniture Mart, where the two ladies
were in question on the 7th of Nov.


> > And were these gunshop owners ever called to
> > testify or interviewed as who was dropping off and picking up the
> > weapon?
>
> You can find the answer to that in the links I provided, if they
> work.
>
> > Of course, Oz would just take off work on his own and Truly
> > would never divulge such usual things requested by a potential
> > Presidential Assassin.
>
> Not sure what that means.
>

It means if Truly had a conversation with Oswald to let him go at the
TSBD for a little period of time it was somehow 'conveniently
forgotten'. IOW, not likely.


> > And the audacity not to just take off work on
> > his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly?
>
> Did they punch in and out at the TSBD?
>

No, but now we might have two trips and a lot of daringness to slip
away with an extended period of time and with all the kids.

> > No, he must go to the
> > extent of driving a car he doesn't have, and drive his whole family
> > there.
>
> Yah, the two women said Oz came in a car, but they could have seen a
> car pull up, and Oz and family entered shortly afterwards, and they
> assumed he came in the car they saw pull up.They nailed too much
> information correctly to discount what they said. I suppose it`s
> possible Mr or Mrs Paine drove them and dropped them off.
>

Wow, if Truly didn't allow him to go, then he must have taken a lot of
time. Of course Mrs. Paine would have to remain in the car and not be
seen.

> > Why would he do that and more likely get caught if he was to
> > return to work?
>
> I offered that he left work as a possibility. I`m now inclined to
> wait and see if you and Ben can support your assertion that the rifle
> was put into the shop between Nov 4th to the 8th. The date isn`t on the
> tag, and the employees don`t remember the job, so where this time span
> comes from is a mystery to me.
>
> > If he got off work, why would he need Marina and the
> > kids?
>
> A dual purpose trip, getting his rifle fixed and getting clothes or
> whatever for the kids.
>

Ya think one would be sneaky about it.

> > Of course it makes more sense when one reads the French Magazine
> > which reveals Marina stating that she was married to two husbands, Lee
> > the loving father of my children and the hateful, mean TSBD dude.
>
> Really, all Ben did was uncover more incriminating evidence that Oz
> killed JFK. The fact that Oz put his rifle into a gunshop to get it
> fixed shortly after the President`s trip to Dallas was announced speaks
> of premeditation. And the fact that we have witnesses describing Oz and
> his family, and directing him to this gunshop, wherein lies physical
> evidence that Oz did go there and have work performed on his rifle, and
> the fact that he denied even owning a rifle to Fitz and the other
> interrogators wraps it up into a nice, neat incriminating bundle. And
> no mysterious boogeymen framing Oz.

It's really not incriminating at all. The rifle Oz would have got from
Klein's already had a scope mounted on it. Certainly wouldn't have had
to rebore if it was already mounted. An adjustment maybe, but that
wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.

CJ

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 5:55:14 PM7/18/06
to

While I`m on this response, I`ll try to fix the links...


http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc20/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf

> > If it doesn`t work, I`ll give the extent of the information
> > contained on it... the name "Oswald", "drill and tap 4.50", and
> > "boresight 1.50". That the extent. If this link works, you can read
> > what information the WC generated from this tag...

And this one...

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page315.php

> > and here...

And this...


http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1333.pdf

> > It`ll be a small miracle if they all work. Anyway, one of those
> > documents has this information about the tag... that it was written in
> > pencil, contained no additional information, was undated, and that Mr
> > Ryder (store manager) said this was the only record of the transaction.
> > So, from reading this information, I don`t see three holes
> > mentioned, I don`t see the date Nov 4th to the 8th mentioned (the tag
> > isn`t dated, and Ryder said it probably occurred between the 1st and
> > the 14th, although I don`t see how he can even guess when he says he
> > doesn`t remember doing the work).
> >
> Armstrong has 'Oswald' dropping off the MC on the 4th. and the trip of
> Marina, Oz, and the kids to the Furniture Mart, where the two ladies
> were in question on the 7th of Nov.

Who is Armstrong, and what does he use to fix those dates?

> > > And were these gunshop owners ever called to
> > > testify or interviewed as who was dropping off and picking up the
> > > weapon?
> >
> > You can find the answer to that in the links I provided, if they
> > work.
> >
> > > Of course, Oz would just take off work on his own and Truly
> > > would never divulge such usual things requested by a potential
> > > Presidential Assassin.
> >
> > Not sure what that means.
> >
> It means if Truly had a conversation with Oswald to let him go at the
> TSBD for a little period of time it was somehow 'conveniently
> forgotten'. IOW, not likely.

Why would he remember letting an employee leave early weeks later?
But, it was only one possibility. I don`t see an exact day being
presented for the rifle being put in the shop (the tag has no date, the
employees don`t remember Oz or his rifle), so it`s unnecessary to
present windows of opportunity for Oz to do this.

> > > And the audacity not to just take off work on
> > > his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly?
> >
> > Did they punch in and out at the TSBD?
> >
> No, but now we might have two trips and a lot of daringness to slip
> away with an extended period of time and with all the kids.

The only chance he would be taking is if someone asked about him.
Because if someone is on the 5th and doesn`t see Oz, than they`s just
assume he was somewhere else in the building. Why would anyone look for
him? All he`d have to do is complete his orders, and leave, as far as I
can see.

> > > No, he must go to the
> > > extent of driving a car he doesn't have, and drive his whole family
> > > there.
> >
> > Yah, the two women said Oz came in a car, but they could have seen a
> > car pull up, and Oz and family entered shortly afterwards, and they
> > assumed he came in the car they saw pull up.They nailed too much
> > information correctly to discount what they said. I suppose it`s
> > possible Mr or Mrs Paine drove them and dropped them off.
> >
> Wow, if Truly didn't allow him to go, then he must have taken a lot of
> time. Of course Mrs. Paine would have to remain in the car and not be
> seen.

No, she may have dropped them off and left.

> > > Why would he do that and more likely get caught if he was to
> > > return to work?
> >
> > I offered that he left work as a possibility. I`m now inclined to
> > wait and see if you and Ben can support your assertion that the rifle
> > was put into the shop between Nov 4th to the 8th. The date isn`t on the
> > tag, and the employees don`t remember the job, so where this time span
> > comes from is a mystery to me.
> >
> > > If he got off work, why would he need Marina and the
> > > kids?
> >
> > A dual purpose trip, getting his rifle fixed and getting clothes or
> > whatever for the kids.
> >
> Ya think one would be sneaky about it.

The trip to buy clothes may have been the original reason for the
trip, but with the President`s trip being announced, Oz felt while in
Irving, he better get his weapon serviced.

> > > Of course it makes more sense when one reads the French Magazine
> > > which reveals Marina stating that she was married to two husbands, Lee
> > > the loving father of my children and the hateful, mean TSBD dude.
> >
> > Really, all Ben did was uncover more incriminating evidence that Oz
> > killed JFK. The fact that Oz put his rifle into a gunshop to get it
> > fixed shortly after the President`s trip to Dallas was announced speaks
> > of premeditation. And the fact that we have witnesses describing Oz and
> > his family, and directing him to this gunshop, wherein lies physical
> > evidence that Oz did go there and have work performed on his rifle, and
> > the fact that he denied even owning a rifle to Fitz and the other
> > interrogators wraps it up into a nice, neat incriminating bundle. And
> > no mysterious boogeymen framing Oz.
>
> It's really not incriminating at all. The rifle Oz would have got from
> Klein's already had a scope mounted on it. Certainly wouldn't have had
> to rebore if it was already mounted.

If the factory did a bad job boring the holes, or the holes became
buggered, this might necessitate retapping the threads.

> An adjustment maybe, but that
> wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.

<snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 7:01:56 PM7/18/06
to
So it's got on the tag for the 3 holes and the work was done, and
nobody remembered it? And it means he might have had another gun?
Well it's a little much as they say.

Can't read the small print.

> > > It`ll be a small miracle if they all work. Anyway, one of those
> > > documents has this information about the tag... that it was written in
> > > pencil, contained no additional information, was undated, and that Mr
> > > Ryder (store manager) said this was the only record of the transaction.
> > > So, from reading this information, I don`t see three holes
> > > mentioned, I don`t see the date Nov 4th to the 8th mentioned (the tag
> > > isn`t dated, and Ryder said it probably occurred between the 1st and
> > > the 14th, although I don`t see how he can even guess when he says he
> > > doesn`t remember doing the work).
> > >
> > Armstrong has 'Oswald' dropping off the MC on the 4th. and the trip of
> > Marina, Oz, and the kids to the Furniture Mart, where the two ladies
> > were in question on the 7th of Nov.
>
> Who is Armstrong, and what does he use to fix those dates?
>

He's the one that spent years and years just studying Oswald and all
his movements. Harvey and Lee are his site and book.

> > > > And were these gunshop owners ever called to
> > > > testify or interviewed as who was dropping off and picking up the
> > > > weapon?
> > >
> > > You can find the answer to that in the links I provided, if they
> > > work.
> > >
> > > > Of course, Oz would just take off work on his own and Truly
> > > > would never divulge such usual things requested by a potential
> > > > Presidential Assassin.
> > >
> > > Not sure what that means.
> > >
> > It means if Truly had a conversation with Oswald to let him go at the
> > TSBD for a little period of time it was somehow 'conveniently
> > forgotten'. IOW, not likely.
>
> Why would he remember letting an employee leave early weeks later?
> But, it was only one possibility. I don`t see an exact day being
> presented for the rifle being put in the shop (the tag has no date, the
> employees don`t remember Oz or his rifle), so it`s unnecessary to
> present windows of opportunity for Oz to do this.
>

It would just be one request. The only time he would have ever gone up
and asked him for anything out of the ordinary probably. Do you think
he had advanced alzheimers?

> > > > And the audacity not to just take off work on
> > > > his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly?
> > >
> > > Did they punch in and out at the TSBD?
> > >
> > No, but now we might have two trips and a lot of daringness to slip
> > away with an extended period of time and with all the kids.
>
> The only chance he would be taking is if someone asked about him.
> Because if someone is on the 5th and doesn`t see Oz, than they`s just
> assume he was somewhere else in the building. Why would anyone look for
> him? All he`d have to do is complete his orders, and leave, as far as I
> can see.
>

Of course, no one would summon him during the worktime. Nobody just
leaves unless they don't care about being employed anymore.

> > > > No, he must go to the
> > > > extent of driving a car he doesn't have, and drive his whole family
> > > > there.
> > >
> > > Yah, the two women said Oz came in a car, but they could have seen a
> > > car pull up, and Oz and family entered shortly afterwards, and they
> > > assumed he came in the car they saw pull up.They nailed too much
> > > information correctly to discount what they said. I suppose it`s
> > > possible Mr or Mrs Paine drove them and dropped them off.
> > >
> > Wow, if Truly didn't allow him to go, then he must have taken a lot of
> > time. Of course Mrs. Paine would have to remain in the car and not be
> > seen.
>
> No, she may have dropped them off and left.
>

Of course, and never tell about it. How convenient.

> > > > Why would he do that and more likely get caught if he was to
> > > > return to work?
> > >
> > > I offered that he left work as a possibility. I`m now inclined to
> > > wait and see if you and Ben can support your assertion that the rifle
> > > was put into the shop between Nov 4th to the 8th. The date isn`t on the
> > > tag, and the employees don`t remember the job, so where this time span
> > > comes from is a mystery to me.
> > >
> > > > If he got off work, why would he need Marina and the
> > > > kids?
> > >
> > > A dual purpose trip, getting his rifle fixed and getting clothes or
> > > whatever for the kids.
> > >
> > Ya think one would be sneaky about it.
>
> The trip to buy clothes may have been the original reason for the
> trip, but with the President`s trip being announced, Oz felt while in
> Irving, he better get his weapon serviced.
>

Bud's fantasy world. Scenario, scenarios,...anybody?

> > > > Of course it makes more sense when one reads the French Magazine
> > > > which reveals Marina stating that she was married to two husbands, Lee
> > > > the loving father of my children and the hateful, mean TSBD dude.
> > >
> > > Really, all Ben did was uncover more incriminating evidence that Oz
> > > killed JFK. The fact that Oz put his rifle into a gunshop to get it
> > > fixed shortly after the President`s trip to Dallas was announced speaks
> > > of premeditation. And the fact that we have witnesses describing Oz and
> > > his family, and directing him to this gunshop, wherein lies physical
> > > evidence that Oz did go there and have work performed on his rifle, and
> > > the fact that he denied even owning a rifle to Fitz and the other
> > > interrogators wraps it up into a nice, neat incriminating bundle. And
> > > no mysterious boogeymen framing Oz.
> >
> > It's really not incriminating at all. The rifle Oz would have got from
> > Klein's already had a scope mounted on it. Certainly wouldn't have had
> > to rebore if it was already mounted.
>
> If the factory did a bad job boring the holes, or the holes became
> buggered, this might necessitate retapping the threads.
>

And these clowns at the store don't remember any holes good holes, or
bad holes or Oz. Wonder how they even stay in business, can't even
remember filling out the tag for the repair.

> > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
>
> <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
>

She admitted so in a French magazine. Of course after the heat was
gone. She wouldn't be any candidate for anything like that with her
family KGB background and the hurried married to 'Oz' would it?

CJ

Bud

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 9:20:23 PM7/18/06
to

No, it says nothing about three holes on the tag about three holes,
only 4.50 charged for "drill and tap". It`s possible Ben derived the
three holes from something the owner said about them charging $1.50 per
hole tapped, or some such. But I haven`t seen this produced, only his
assertion about three holes. Possible Oz told the gunsmith that he
needed the holes to the scope on his rifle retapped, and the person
assumed his rifle had three holes without checking (many scopes do have
three). All in all, Ben has to explain further where he is getting this
shit from.

> > > > and here...
> >
> > And this...
> >
> >
> > http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1333.pdf
> >
> Can't read the small print.

You ain`t lying. I had a manifying glass up to the screen, and my
vision still hasn`t recovered. What I could make out is what I related
to you.

> > > > It`ll be a small miracle if they all work. Anyway, one of those
> > > > documents has this information about the tag... that it was written in
> > > > pencil, contained no additional information, was undated, and that Mr
> > > > Ryder (store manager) said this was the only record of the transaction.
> > > > So, from reading this information, I don`t see three holes
> > > > mentioned, I don`t see the date Nov 4th to the 8th mentioned (the tag
> > > > isn`t dated, and Ryder said it probably occurred between the 1st and
> > > > the 14th, although I don`t see how he can even guess when he says he
> > > > doesn`t remember doing the work).
> > > >
> > > Armstrong has 'Oswald' dropping off the MC on the 4th. and the trip of
> > > Marina, Oz, and the kids to the Furniture Mart, where the two ladies
> > > were in question on the 7th of Nov.
> >
> > Who is Armstrong, and what does he use to fix those dates?
> >
> He's the one that spent years and years just studying Oswald and all
> his movements. Harvey and Lee are his site and book.

Well, thats half an answer. You name the person who fixes these
times, but you don`t say what he used to fix them (the more important
information for this discussion).

> > > > > And were these gunshop owners ever called to
> > > > > testify or interviewed as who was dropping off and picking up the
> > > > > weapon?
> > > >
> > > > You can find the answer to that in the links I provided, if they
> > > > work.
> > > >
> > > > > Of course, Oz would just take off work on his own and Truly
> > > > > would never divulge such usual things requested by a potential
> > > > > Presidential Assassin.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what that means.
> > > >
> > > It means if Truly had a conversation with Oswald to let him go at the
> > > TSBD for a little period of time it was somehow 'conveniently
> > > forgotten'. IOW, not likely.
> >
> > Why would he remember letting an employee leave early weeks later?
> > But, it was only one possibility. I don`t see an exact day being
> > presented for the rifle being put in the shop (the tag has no date, the
> > employees don`t remember Oz or his rifle), so it`s unnecessary to
> > present windows of opportunity for Oz to do this.
> >
> It would just be one request. The only time he would have ever gone up
> and asked him for anything out of the ordinary probably. Do you think
> he had advanced alzheimers?

People don`t recall trivial events for weeks, is all. Whether Oz is
in the building or not means what to Truly, really? If the books on his
worksheet were picked, what difference would it make? But this is only
spitballing, because I haven`t seen the "4th to the 8th" timeframe
supported. I`ve seen information from the store manager, where he puts
the spread at November 1st to the 14th. This includes weekends to have
this event of Oz taking the rifle into the shop to occur.

> > > > > And the audacity not to just take off work on
> > > > > his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly?
> > > >
> > > > Did they punch in and out at the TSBD?
> > > >
> > > No, but now we might have two trips and a lot of daringness to slip
> > > away with an extended period of time and with all the kids.
> >
> > The only chance he would be taking is if someone asked about him.
> > Because if someone is on the 5th and doesn`t see Oz, than they`s just
> > assume he was somewhere else in the building. Why would anyone look for
> > him? All he`d have to do is complete his orders, and leave, as far as I
> > can see.
> >
> Of course, no one would summon him during the worktime. Nobody just
> leaves unless they don't care about being employed anymore.

People will do things they if they think it`s unlikely they will
get caught. It`s not like Oz had any friends who were going to ask
around for him. Oz was likely the most invisible person in that
building, even when he was there.

> > > > > No, he must go to the
> > > > > extent of driving a car he doesn't have, and drive his whole family
> > > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > Yah, the two women said Oz came in a car, but they could have seen a
> > > > car pull up, and Oz and family entered shortly afterwards, and they
> > > > assumed he came in the car they saw pull up.They nailed too much
> > > > information correctly to discount what they said. I suppose it`s
> > > > possible Mr or Mrs Paine drove them and dropped them off.
> > > >
> > > Wow, if Truly didn't allow him to go, then he must have taken a lot of
> > > time. Of course Mrs. Paine would have to remain in the car and not be
> > > seen.
> >
> > No, she may have dropped them off and left.
> >
> Of course, and never tell about it. How convenient.

You think the record actually reflects all the trivial interactions
that occurred for all the weeks leading up to the assassination? Who
went where with who, on which days. Who could remember what day
something happened. If it rained last week, could you always remember
exactly what day it did? How long ago can you track rain days back?
What planet do you CT come from? You think every movement of every
person should have been tracked, precisely and positively, to dispel
your doubts? You folks are kooks, theres no amount of information to
satisfy you, answering one question inevitably leads to five more.
You`re going to swim in the direction of conspiracy regardless of the
prevailing current.

> > > > > Why would he do that and more likely get caught if he was to
> > > > > return to work?
> > > >
> > > > I offered that he left work as a possibility. I`m now inclined to
> > > > wait and see if you and Ben can support your assertion that the rifle
> > > > was put into the shop between Nov 4th to the 8th. The date isn`t on the
> > > > tag, and the employees don`t remember the job, so where this time span
> > > > comes from is a mystery to me.
> > > >
> > > > > If he got off work, why would he need Marina and the
> > > > > kids?
> > > >
> > > > A dual purpose trip, getting his rifle fixed and getting clothes or
> > > > whatever for the kids.
> > > >
> > > Ya think one would be sneaky about it.
> >
> > The trip to buy clothes may have been the original reason for the
> > trip, but with the President`s trip being announced, Oz felt while in
> > Irving, he better get his weapon serviced.
> >
> Bud's fantasy world. Scenario, scenarios,...anybody?

<snicker> This is Ben`s post. He said "this tag" plus "this
anonymous call" equals conspiracy. He says it`s the work of faceless,
nameless government operatives, with no support whatsoever. I say, hey,
since a person did see Oz shoot the President, and others related how
they referred him to this gunshop to have his rifle repaired, and a tag
exists under Oswald`s name at that gunshop with Oz`s name on it, then
these things might have a bearing on one another, seeing as these
events occurred around the time that the President`s visit to Dallas
was announced. They make more sense in the context of a guilty,
preplanning Oz, than the totally fabricated yarn Ben was proposing.

> > > > > Of course it makes more sense when one reads the French Magazine
> > > > > which reveals Marina stating that she was married to two husbands, Lee
> > > > > the loving father of my children and the hateful, mean TSBD dude.
> > > >
> > > > Really, all Ben did was uncover more incriminating evidence that Oz
> > > > killed JFK. The fact that Oz put his rifle into a gunshop to get it
> > > > fixed shortly after the President`s trip to Dallas was announced speaks
> > > > of premeditation. And the fact that we have witnesses describing Oz and
> > > > his family, and directing him to this gunshop, wherein lies physical
> > > > evidence that Oz did go there and have work performed on his rifle, and
> > > > the fact that he denied even owning a rifle to Fitz and the other
> > > > interrogators wraps it up into a nice, neat incriminating bundle. And
> > > > no mysterious boogeymen framing Oz.
> > >
> > > It's really not incriminating at all. The rifle Oz would have got from
> > > Klein's already had a scope mounted on it. Certainly wouldn't have had
> > > to rebore if it was already mounted.
> >
> > If the factory did a bad job boring the holes, or the holes became
> > buggered, this might necessitate retapping the threads.
> >
> And these clowns at the store don't remember any holes good holes, or
> bad holes or Oz. Wonder how they even stay in business, can't even
> remember filling out the tag for the repair.

Well, they`re probably in on the conspiracy, Curt, they are denying
you the answers you demand. Kook.

> > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> >
> > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> >
> She admitted so in a French magazine.

Le Nationale Enquirer?

> Of course after the heat was
> gone. She wouldn't be any candidate for anything like that with her
> family KGB background and the hurried married to 'Oz' would it?

If you are going to regurgitate and spew kookshit, give me warning,
I`ll step back.

<snip>

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 9:32:49 PM7/18/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>
>
> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>

Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
the 90%.

> http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>

Looks like a fake Web site to me. Maybe something that YOU cooked up.

> Of course, if I'd wanted to, I could have honed that 70%-75% figure to
> an even more-favorable LN argument of "58%-75%", based on the one poll
> I cited in detail, which has just 58% of those polled believing in a
> conspiracy.

Or you could have been honest and cited the 81%.

>
> But we'll just ignore that very close to "50-50" poll and concentrate
> on Ben-Kook's inflated (and non-existent) "90%" figure instead. Looks
> better in Kooksville anyway.
>
>

Well, you pick and choose which poll to cite.

>>>> "He (Mr. V.T. Bugliosi of Los Angeles, CA. USA} has WC issued blinders on." <<<
>
>
> Yeah? Cool beans! Didn't realize that.
>
> Was it Gerry Ford or Arlen Specter who personally issued them to Vince?

I think it was David Belin.

> And does Vince have to share his commission with "The Commission"?
> After all, Tony Marsh The Great oughta know. Right?
>


How much is the cover-up paying nowadays? Ask Gerald Posner. $4M advance
over 20 years. Doesn't add up to much per year.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 18, 2006, 9:43:47 PM7/18/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>>> "Your imagination is running wild." <<<
>
>
> This comment coming from a kook who seconds earlier spouted this
> gem.....
>
> "Baxter rounded them up and threatened them".
>
> Any proof re. that one, Tony-Kook? Or is it just something to be "taken
> on faith", as per usual with "all things CT"?
>

You wouldn't know because you never do any actual research. On a TV
special several years ago Baxter admitted this in an interview. Charles
Crenshaw also wrote about it in his book. But of course you can dismiss
Baxter's admission as being made up by the kooks. Maybe an actor
impersonating him, eh?

>
>>>> "You can also claim there were thousands of shots fired, but I am not impressed." <<<
>
>
> Nor am I. I'm not even impressed by 4.
>
>

You would be if the Warren Commission had said that there were 4 shots
fired. And if the conspiracy crowd disagreed with that and said there
were only three shots, you'd be calling them kooks.

>>>> "The WC used Harry Houdini to explain their SBT." <<<
>
>
> That must have been shortly after Harry spent months trying to figure
> out how he was going to make that THREE-SHOT portion of the
> assassination attempt funnel down to just the SBT.*
>
> * = In a PRE-11/22 context, keep in mind. Or did those bonehead
> conspirators who gave the green light to that spectacularly-absurd
> multi-shooter Patsy scheme just toss up the ol' hands and rely on
> garden-variety luck when their three bullets that went into JFK & JBC
> came out looking like it could be explained via just a ONE-shot
> scenario?
>

They relied on cover-up artists like you.

> Surely, Harry helped the CT-Patsy architects with that little snafu
> prior to 11/22. Didn't he?
>

Bud

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 3:26:44 AM7/19/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD that
> Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop.

He probably did.

> Interestingly, no one
> at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the plate
> to admit that they had called.

They probably didn`t.

> However, in checking their records, they came up
> with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer
> named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th.

This contains a few untruths. They didn`t "check their records" and
come up with paperwork, they happened to find this undated tag laying
on a table...


http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf

The manager of the shop said that he didn`t remember the work, but
thought it likely the work was performed between Nov 1st and Nov 14th.
Note that this tag is the only record of the transaction, and if it had
been discarded after removing it when returning the rifle, nothing
would exist to show this frame-up Ben alleges occurred.

> And even though no-one remembered the
> specific person,

No one in the store did. Edith Whitworth remembered directing Oz to
the Irving Sports Store when he inquired about having work on his rifle
done. Gertrude Hunter corroborates her account.

> the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's
> rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
> telescopic sight.

If the link I provided worked, anyone should be able to see that is
just a lie. There is nothing on that tag (the only evidence of the
transaction) about drilling 3 holes. It merely says "drill and tap
$4.50". It says nothing about the holes being drilled to mount a scope.
They could have been holes drilled and tapped for a variety of reasons,
maybe to attach a sling. The MC can be broken down and re-assembled,
perhaps he had the screws that perform this function drilled out and
re-tapped. Oz told Marina that he buried the MC after his attempt to
kill Walker, this may have contributed to some damage that needed work.
In any case, there is no mention specifically what the "drill and tap"
was, and no mention of mounting a telescopic sight. This seems to be a
total fabrication.

> The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
> this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
> *not* have referenced Oswald's MC.

I see nothing on that tag that would indicate it wasn`t work
performed on Oz`s MC.

> The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
> attempting to frame LHO?

Nobody. The most obvious conclusion is that Oz put the rifle in the
shop himself.

> There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
> him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
> his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
> name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...

Not really, there is a simple explaination. You folks are kooks.

<SNIP>

David VP

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 4:32:45 AM7/19/06
to
>>> "Looks like a fake Web site to me. Maybe something that YOU cooked up." <<<


Big LOL!

A perfect kook-statement there. The CT motto rears its ass-like
features once more, i.e., If you can't explain it, it MUST be "fake".

LOL.


>>> "Or you could have been honest and cited the 81%." <<<


Why would I have done that? The "81%" was from the older (2001) version
of the poll. My citings were from the MOST-RECENT version (2003).

Wanna try again, Tony The Tiger?


>>> "How much is the cover-up paying nowadays? Ask Gerald Posner. $4M advance over 20 years. Doesn't add up to much per year." <<<


Yeah, if you think $200,000 a year isn't very much.

(Gee, I'm only getting half that for all my work as a Bugliosi/Govt.
Disinfo Agent.)

~Note to self -- Contact Poz~

David VP

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 4:38:13 AM7/19/06
to
>>> "You can dismiss Baxter's admission as being made up by the kooks. Maybe an actor impersonating him, eh?" <<<

Yeah, prob'ly so.


>>> "And if the conspiracy crowd disagreed with that and said there were only three shots, you'd be calling them kooks." <<<

Yeah, prob'ly so.


>>> "They relied on cover-up artists like you." <<<

Yeah, prob'ly so.

David VP

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 4:43:05 AM7/19/06
to
Oh yeah -- that MAJOR differential of "Lee Oswald" and "Lee Harvey
Oswald" definitely shows conspiratorial intent! No doubt.

Kooky shit there.

Oswald also referred to himself as "O.H. Lee", "A.J. Hidell", "Alek J.
Hidell", "Alek James Hidell", and "D.F. Drittal", too.

Was he trying to frame himself by using all these aliases?

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 6:35:10 AM7/19/06
to
Funny how you, Bud and the other pathological lone nutters are
always100% certain of your opinions and MISTAKE them for facts.

Bud

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 9:05:41 AM7/19/06
to

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> >>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
> >
> >
> > Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
> > preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
> >
>
> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
> the 90%.

Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?

Bud

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 9:40:00 AM7/19/06
to

lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Funny how you, Bud and the other pathological lone nutters are
> always100% certain of your opinions and MISTAKE them for facts.

It has something to do with being capable of rational thought. In
fact, this instance shows why you kooks should shut up about the
evidence. Ben creates this cock and bull story, by totally
misrepresenting the evidence. He says its something LN hate, and he
might be right there, we do hate yarns based on lies, that much is
true. To recap, he claimed that there was a tag representing work done
on a rifle with Oz`s name at it found in the Irving Sports Shop. That
much is true, here is that tag once more...


http://ww.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pdf/WH20_Greener_ex_1.pdf

But, on almost every particular about the information that tag
contained (the work done, the dates he gave), he demonstratably lied.
Theres nothing about a telescopic sight, or three holes, or a date of
Nov 4th to the 8th. Since no one in the store remembers the person,
rifle or work, that leaves this tag as the sole evidence of the
transaction. If anything, you should be upset at Ben for lying about
this evidence you kooks call on us to discuss. I spent an hour or so on
this, and an hour or so looking into a witness Ben brought up, Richard
Randolf Carr. In that instance, I found that the claims Carr was making
were totally false, and that from where he was during the assassination
he couldn`t possibly see the things he was claiming to have seen (it`s
unlikely he could see the TSBD at all from the new courthouse, let
alone see people inside well enough to describe a hat). So I spend time
showing these two things (the only two things I decided to look into in
depth) that LN supposedly hate to be outright misrepresentations of the
evidence, and what have I done? Nothing but waste my time. Why
shouldn`t I just call you folks kooks, and stop wasting my time trying
to correct your lies, and unspin your spin? Because it really isn`t
within my power to stop you from being a kook.
As far as being 100% certain of my opinions, there isn`t a kook here
that would question Ben`s totally unsupported allegation that this
event was an instance of the government framing Oz. I offered a
completely different scenario, one which is corroborated by witnesses
who say they directed Oz to this gunshop (and who are uncannily
accurate about details of the encounter, even getting the day Oz baby
Rachel was born correct), physical evidence (a tag for work on a rifle
with Oz`s name on it), and even explains the anonymous call (if Oz was
there, why wouldn`t someone tip police that he was?). But you kooks
will find my version, based on the facts that we know, to be wanting in
comparison to Ben`s totally fabricated scenario, because mine doesn`t
have shadowy government types actively working to frame the patsy.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 11:15:35 AM7/19/06
to
So, they couldn't go to the National Archives and get the gun and see
if the work was done? If I read this right, they need to see rebored
holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.

Well, just don't stop there. Buy his book and see where the references
come from. He also has a quote from where Oz told Fritz weeks in
advance about a conspiracy to kill JFK and told Fritz of it.

Well, I was hoping those who have studied this a little more would
supply that.

> > > > > > And the audacity not to just take off work on
> > > > > > his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly?
> > > > >
> > > > > Did they punch in and out at the TSBD?
> > > > >
> > > > No, but now we might have two trips and a lot of daringness to slip
> > > > away with an extended period of time and with all the kids.
> > >
> > > The only chance he would be taking is if someone asked about him.
> > > Because if someone is on the 5th and doesn`t see Oz, than they`s just
> > > assume he was somewhere else in the building. Why would anyone look for
> > > him? All he`d have to do is complete his orders, and leave, as far as I
> > > can see.
> > >
> > Of course, no one would summon him during the worktime. Nobody just
> > leaves unless they don't care about being employed anymore.
>
> People will do things they if they think it`s unlikely they will
> get caught. It`s not like Oz had any friends who were going to ask
> around for him. Oz was likely the most invisible person in that
> building, even when he was there.
>

If you leave you take a chance. To take a chance and make a bigger
chance of getting caught by taking all the time to get the family to
meet him somewhere and pick him up and drive to who know's where, is
like assuming that nobody would see or care....and they had all those
supervisors there...Shelley, Truly...O. Campbell.

> > > > > > No, he must go to the
> > > > > > extent of driving a car he doesn't have, and drive his whole family
> > > > > > there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yah, the two women said Oz came in a car, but they could have seen a
> > > > > car pull up, and Oz and family entered shortly afterwards, and they
> > > > > assumed he came in the car they saw pull up.They nailed too much
> > > > > information correctly to discount what they said. I suppose it`s
> > > > > possible Mr or Mrs Paine drove them and dropped them off.
> > > > >
> > > > Wow, if Truly didn't allow him to go, then he must have taken a lot of
> > > > time. Of course Mrs. Paine would have to remain in the car and not be
> > > > seen.
> > >
> > > No, she may have dropped them off and left.
> > >
> > Of course, and never tell about it. How convenient.
>
> You think the record actually reflects all the trivial interactions
> that occurred for all the weeks leading up to the assassination? Who
> went where with who, on which days. Who could remember what day
> something happened. If it rained last week, could you always remember
> exactly what day it did? How long ago can you track rain days back?
> What planet do you CT come from? You think every movement of every
> person should have been tracked, precisely and positively, to dispel
> your doubts? You folks are kooks, theres no amount of information to
> satisfy you, answering one question inevitably leads to five more.
> You`re going to swim in the direction of conspiracy regardless of the
> prevailing current.
>

If you are a witness called to testify, you are going to be asked
everything you remember about Oz to a great extent. They start off by
asking your background, your duties. All were asked what interaction
they ever had with Oz, what type of responses they got..etc...etc..Also
I am sure Truly was interviewed by interested folk too. Geez, it was
only a few weeks before the assassination. For LNT'ers it's as usual,
a case of selective amnesia, as a way out.

Well, have you proved that the anonymous callers were the furniture
mart women?

> > > > > > Of course it makes more sense when one reads the French Magazine
> > > > > > which reveals Marina stating that she was married to two husbands, Lee
> > > > > > the loving father of my children and the hateful, mean TSBD dude.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really, all Ben did was uncover more incriminating evidence that Oz
> > > > > killed JFK. The fact that Oz put his rifle into a gunshop to get it
> > > > > fixed shortly after the President`s trip to Dallas was announced speaks
> > > > > of premeditation. And the fact that we have witnesses describing Oz and
> > > > > his family, and directing him to this gunshop, wherein lies physical
> > > > > evidence that Oz did go there and have work performed on his rifle, and
> > > > > the fact that he denied even owning a rifle to Fitz and the other
> > > > > interrogators wraps it up into a nice, neat incriminating bundle. And
> > > > > no mysterious boogeymen framing Oz.
> > > >
> > > > It's really not incriminating at all. The rifle Oz would have got from
> > > > Klein's already had a scope mounted on it. Certainly wouldn't have had
> > > > to rebore if it was already mounted.
> > >
> > > If the factory did a bad job boring the holes, or the holes became
> > > buggered, this might necessitate retapping the threads.
> > >
> > And these clowns at the store don't remember any holes good holes, or
> > bad holes or Oz. Wonder how they even stay in business, can't even
> > remember filling out the tag for the repair.
>
> Well, they`re probably in on the conspiracy, Curt, they are denying
> you the answers you demand. Kook.
>

The most famous weapon in American History arguably, and they have no
clue. Da which way did they go George....?

> > > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> > >
> > > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> > >
> > She admitted so in a French magazine.
>
> Le Nationale Enquirer?
>

It was something like that, but the key was she was ez and free to
talk. No American Authorities.

> > Of course after the heat was
> > gone. She wouldn't be any candidate for anything like that with her
> > family KGB background and the hurried married to 'Oz' would it?
>
> If you are going to regurgitate and spew kookshit, give me warning,
> I`ll step back.
>

I am sorry, but there is too much research territory that you won't
have the guts to venture into. You'll always 'step back', and let
somebody else do the research and just have a kook line awaitin.

CJ


>
> <snip>

Bud

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 1:07:24 PM7/19/06
to

Kooks are also in a hurry to find some fault somewhere? This is the
evidence that Ben presented (and lied about), and represented it
showing something it does not. Thats the issue here.

> If I read this right, they need to see rebored
> holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.

To "drill and tap" means to drill holes, usually using a drill press,
and then using a hard metal "tap" to cut threads into the hole that was
drilled, so it can accept threads from objects like screws. You can do
this on just about any metal surface of a rifle, for a variety of
reasons. The rifle itself can be assembled and disassembled by screws.
These could become buggered, and necessitate reboring, perhaps to the
next size larger screw. You might also wish to have threaded holes with
which to affix metal swivels, to put a rifle strap on. Also possible
that the threads on Oz`s scope were buggered, necessitating retapping
to properly set the scope for boresighting.

In other words, you read this information from a kooksite, and it
didn`t occur to you to ask one basic question about what you were
reading, opting instead to accept it as gospel. The fact is, the tag
didn`t have the date on it. Nobody in the store could remember Oz, or
working on this rifle, so it would be impossible for them to put a date
on when it was done.

I supplied a bunch of leads for you to follow up on.

> > > > > > > And the audacity not to just take off work on
> > > > > > > his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did they punch in and out at the TSBD?
> > > > > >
> > > > > No, but now we might have two trips and a lot of daringness to slip
> > > > > away with an extended period of time and with all the kids.
> > > >
> > > > The only chance he would be taking is if someone asked about him.
> > > > Because if someone is on the 5th and doesn`t see Oz, than they`s just
> > > > assume he was somewhere else in the building. Why would anyone look for
> > > > him? All he`d have to do is complete his orders, and leave, as far as I
> > > > can see.
> > > >
> > > Of course, no one would summon him during the worktime. Nobody just
> > > leaves unless they don't care about being employed anymore.
> >
> > People will do things they if they think it`s unlikely they will
> > get caught. It`s not like Oz had any friends who were going to ask
> > around for him. Oz was likely the most invisible person in that
> > building, even when he was there.
> >
> If you leave you take a chance. To take a chance and make a bigger
> chance of getting caught by taking all the time to get the family to
> meet him somewhere and pick him up and drive to who know's where, is
> like assuming that nobody would see or care....and they had all those
> supervisors there...Shelley, Truly...O. Campbell.

Again, it isn`t necessary to prove Oz left work, because no precise
time period forwhen the rifle was put in the shop is available. I
offered as a possibility that Oz could have left unnoticed. As long as
his orders were filled, I don`t see him being missed.

No, accepting the reality that people don`t retain the trivial
occurances in their life very long or very well. You need to view
things with an eye towards reality, and you seem to be blind in that
eye.

Anonymous means they are unidentified, Curt. Ben represented that
only workers in the store could possibly know about Oz`s visit there. I
showed where that was not so, and offered these women in support of
that concept. I also offered other unknown customers in the store when
Oz was there as possible sources for the anonymous call. Now you make
it out to be that I need to identify the caller. I only need point out
that Ben lied when he said the source had to be shadowy figures framing
Oz.

> > > > > > > Of course it makes more sense when one reads the French Magazine
> > > > > > > which reveals Marina stating that she was married to two husbands, Lee
> > > > > > > the loving father of my children and the hateful, mean TSBD dude.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really, all Ben did was uncover more incriminating evidence that Oz
> > > > > > killed JFK. The fact that Oz put his rifle into a gunshop to get it
> > > > > > fixed shortly after the President`s trip to Dallas was announced speaks
> > > > > > of premeditation. And the fact that we have witnesses describing Oz and
> > > > > > his family, and directing him to this gunshop, wherein lies physical
> > > > > > evidence that Oz did go there and have work performed on his rifle, and
> > > > > > the fact that he denied even owning a rifle to Fitz and the other
> > > > > > interrogators wraps it up into a nice, neat incriminating bundle. And
> > > > > > no mysterious boogeymen framing Oz.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's really not incriminating at all. The rifle Oz would have got from
> > > > > Klein's already had a scope mounted on it. Certainly wouldn't have had
> > > > > to rebore if it was already mounted.
> > > >
> > > > If the factory did a bad job boring the holes, or the holes became
> > > > buggered, this might necessitate retapping the threads.
> > > >
> > > And these clowns at the store don't remember any holes good holes, or
> > > bad holes or Oz. Wonder how they even stay in business, can't even
> > > remember filling out the tag for the repair.
> >
> > Well, they`re probably in on the conspiracy, Curt, they are denying
> > you the answers you demand. Kook.
> >
> The most famous weapon in American History arguably, and they have no
> clue. Da which way did they go George....?

It`s likely the people who worked on the rifle didn`t know it was
going to be used to assassinate President Kennedy. Had they known that,
they might have recalled working on the weapon better. Kook.

> > > > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> > > >
> > > > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> > > >
> > > She admitted so in a French magazine.
> >
> > Le Nationale Enquirer?
> >
> It was something like that, but the key was she was ez and free to
> talk. No American Authorities.

<snicker> A Frog tabloid? Theres not enough stupid shit generated
here, you need to go overseas?

> > > Of course after the heat was
> > > gone. She wouldn't be any candidate for anything like that with her
> > > family KGB background and the hurried married to 'Oz' would it?
> >
> > If you are going to regurgitate and spew kookshit, give me warning,
> > I`ll step back.
> >
> I am sorry, but there is too much research territory that you won't
> have the guts to venture into. You'll always 'step back', and let
> somebody else do the research and just have a kook line awaitin.

<snicker> Your idea of "reasearch" is to visit one kook site, and
accept without critical analysis everything you read on it. I supplied
links to a lot of relevant information about this incident, told you
how to find information on the two women, supplied a photo of the
actual tag in question, linked you to WC information about the event,
ect, and you still blame me not researching claims *you* made. And did
three quarters of your legwork, and you haven`t shown signs you`ve read
or understood what I referred you to. Yet, you wonder why I usually
won`t bother even looking into the issues you kooks bring up. Because
it`s always the same, kooks misrepresenting the evidence, viewing it in
the wrong context, ect. Thanks for reminding me that the problem isn`t
with the evidence, its with the kooks, so examining the evidence can
never address the real problem, which is kooks.

> CJ
>
>
> >
> > <snip>

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 1:54:37 PM7/19/06
to
An LNTer will say do not look anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Looking is
not in the dictionary and if it is, do not look there either. The red
flag should be gun has scope mounted, why bring in gun at all? And why
not follow up when somebody calls something in?

> > If I read this right, they need to see rebored
> > holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.
>
> To "drill and tap" means to drill holes, usually using a drill press,
> and then using a hard metal "tap" to cut threads into the hole that was
> drilled, so it can accept threads from objects like screws. You can do
> this on just about any metal surface of a rifle, for a variety of
> reasons. The rifle itself can be assembled and disassembled by screws.
> These could become buggered, and necessitate reboring, perhaps to the
> next size larger screw. You might also wish to have threaded holes with
> which to affix metal swivels, to put a rifle strap on. Also possible
> that the threads on Oz`s scope were buggered, necessitating retapping
> to properly set the scope for boresighting.
>

All fine and dandy, and if you want proof of that work being done and
prove that the work on the gun was done with the same rifle found in
the TSBD, what would one do to find out about it? National Archives
must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
LNTdom.

I just want to get some facts out in the open. I don't ultimately care
about tags, except what they might have to do with a person(s) who
might have dropped the gun off.

Where would the leads lead? I have in another thread just posted where
Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
showed people. Leads are there for the asking.

Just something one has to put on the back burner. It doesn't mean more
information might come up sooner or later. I would start with the 4th
since Armstrong went out on a limb and set a date for it. Where is the
store, and how far is it away from the TSBD?

I forgot, looking is a sin. Truly can't look there because all his
looking was at Oz on the second floor. Typical.

Anonymous until found out. Are you saying it couldn't have been
shadowy figures, absolutely?

How many MC's do they get in that shop? How many rifles do they work
on in a day? Look and Kook rhyme...get it?

> > > > > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > > > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > > > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > > > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > > > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> > > > >
> > > > She admitted so in a French magazine.
> > >
> > > Le Nationale Enquirer?
> > >
> > It was something like that, but the key was she was ez and free to
> > talk. No American Authorities.
>
> <snicker> A Frog tabloid? Theres not enough stupid shit generated
> here, you need to go overseas?
>

Maybe you should go to Ft. Worth and have some DNA pulled from the
gravesite instead of shooting from the hip...i mean lip.

> > > > Of course after the heat was
> > > > gone. She wouldn't be any candidate for anything like that with her
> > > > family KGB background and the hurried married to 'Oz' would it?
> > >
> > > If you are going to regurgitate and spew kookshit, give me warning,
> > > I`ll step back.
> > >
> > I am sorry, but there is too much research territory that you won't
> > have the guts to venture into. You'll always 'step back', and let
> > somebody else do the research and just have a kook line awaitin.
>
> <snicker> Your idea of "reasearch" is to visit one kook site, and
> accept without critical analysis everything you read on it. I supplied
> links to a lot of relevant information about this incident, told you
> how to find information on the two women, supplied a photo of the
> actual tag in question, linked you to WC information about the event,
> ect, and you still blame me not researching claims *you* made. And did
> three quarters of your legwork, and you haven`t shown signs you`ve read
> or understood what I referred you to. Yet, you wonder why I usually
> won`t bother even looking into the issues you kooks bring up. Because
> it`s always the same, kooks misrepresenting the evidence, viewing it in
> the wrong context, ect. Thanks for reminding me that the problem isn`t
> with the evidence, its with the kooks, so examining the evidence can
> never address the real problem, which is kooks.
>

Bud still doesn't believe that JFK died. Not enough evidence.

CJ

> > CJ
> >
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 5:46:33 PM7/19/06
to
In article <1153331674....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
curtj...@webtv.net says...

And yet, strangely enough, not ONE SINGLE TIME has any LNT'er who makes this
assertion bothered to *quote* my "lie", and the citation that makes it a "lie".

Considering that I do so quite often, surely it can't be difficult to "cut &
paste" any such "lie"... yet Bud can't do it. How strange!


>> and represented it
>> showing something it does not. Thats the issue here.
>>
>An LNTer will say do not look anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Looking is
>not in the dictionary and if it is, do not look there either. The red
>flag should be gun has scope mounted, why bring in gun at all? And why
>not follow up when somebody calls something in?


It was *NOT* Oswald's gun... that is a given. This is what the WC decided, and
for once, their opinion coincided with the evidence.

I saw in the National Examiner that he was in a wheelchair in France.

It was printed, and they showed a photograph (!! - Shades of the Autopsy photos)
... so it must be real... right, Bud?

>CJ
>
>> > CJ
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > <snip>
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 6:51:23 PM7/19/06
to
Bud wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>>>
>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>>>
>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
>> the 90%.
>
> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
>

I was not the one who brought up 90%. I said that was a mistake. It was
only 89%. I cited the poll and uploaded the press release of the poll.

Bud

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 9:17:36 PM7/19/06
to

To have hole tapped and have the scope boresighted. Didn`t you look
at the tag I gave a link to?

> And why
> not follow up when somebody calls something in?

They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
taken his rifle there to have work done.

> > > If I read this right, they need to see rebored
> > > holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.
> >
> > To "drill and tap" means to drill holes, usually using a drill press,
> > and then using a hard metal "tap" to cut threads into the hole that was
> > drilled, so it can accept threads from objects like screws. You can do
> > this on just about any metal surface of a rifle, for a variety of
> > reasons. The rifle itself can be assembled and disassembled by screws.
> > These could become buggered, and necessitate reboring, perhaps to the
> > next size larger screw. You might also wish to have threaded holes with
> > which to affix metal swivels, to put a rifle strap on. Also possible
> > that the threads on Oz`s scope were buggered, necessitating retapping
> > to properly set the scope for boresighting.
> >
> All fine and dandy, and if you want proof of that work being done and
> prove that the work on the gun was done with the same rifle found in
> the TSBD, what would one do to find out about it?

What they did, ask the people who worked at the shop the rifle was
worked on.

> National Archives
> must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> LNTdom.

Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
these.

<snicker> Unless the evidence indicates that person is Oz.

Certainly not where Ben was taking them in the submittal that
started this thread.

> I have in another thread just posted where
> Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> showed people. Leads are there for the asking.

Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
eagerly ignores good information.

> > > > > > > > > And the audacity not to just take off work on
> > > > > > > > > his own quiet self and sneak back very quickly?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Did they punch in and out at the TSBD?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, but now we might have two trips and a lot of daringness to slip
> > > > > > > away with an extended period of time and with all the kids.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only chance he would be taking is if someone asked about him.
> > > > > > Because if someone is on the 5th and doesn`t see Oz, than they`s just
> > > > > > assume he was somewhere else in the building. Why would anyone look for
> > > > > > him? All he`d have to do is complete his orders, and leave, as far as I
> > > > > > can see.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Of course, no one would summon him during the worktime. Nobody just
> > > > > leaves unless they don't care about being employed anymore.
> > > >
> > > > People will do things they if they think it`s unlikely they will
> > > > get caught. It`s not like Oz had any friends who were going to ask
> > > > around for him. Oz was likely the most invisible person in that
> > > > building, even when he was there.
> > > >
> > > If you leave you take a chance. To take a chance and make a bigger
> > > chance of getting caught by taking all the time to get the family to
> > > meet him somewhere and pick him up and drive to who know's where, is
> > > like assuming that nobody would see or care....and they had all those
> > > supervisors there...Shelley, Truly...O. Campbell.
> >
> > Again, it isn`t necessary to prove Oz left work, because no precise

> > time period for when the rifle was put in the shop is available. I


> > offered as a possibility that Oz could have left unnoticed. As long as
> > his orders were filled, I don`t see him being missed.
> >
> Just something one has to put on the back burner. It doesn't mean more
> information might come up sooner or later. I would start with the 4th
> since Armstrong went out on a limb and set a date for it.

Even though you have no idea how Armstrong fixed that date.

> Where is the
> store, and how far is it away from the TSBD?

My guess is that it`s in Irving.

Kook stupidity is a sin.

> Truly can't look there because all his
> looking was at Oz on the second floor. Typical.

Stamping you feet and demanding information that isn`t available
isn`t really going to accomplish anything. And for some reason you
think that when information isn`t available, that opens the door for
you to imagine some and insert it.

<snicker> I haven`t ruled out Martians. Nor do I see the need to
imagine their involvement.

It isn`t the lack of information that is preventing you from
figuring much of this stuff out, only your inability to process the
available information in a constructive manner. As much as you`d like
to affix the blame on others, the real problem is you, Curt. You
shouldn`t be looking into this, or anything else that requires even a
basic ability to reason.

> > > > > > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > > > > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > > > > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > > > > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > > > > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> > > > > >
> > > > > She admitted so in a French magazine.
> > > >
> > > > Le Nationale Enquirer?
> > > >
> > > It was something like that, but the key was she was ez and free to
> > > talk. No American Authorities.
> >
> > <snicker> A Frog tabloid? Theres not enough stupid shit generated
> > here, you need to go overseas?
> >
> Maybe you should go to Ft. Worth and have some DNA pulled from the
> gravesite instead of shooting from the hip...i mean lip.

Dig up Oz again? Did you kooks miss some part you part of him you
wanted to multilate the first time? Hell yes, dig him up again, chop
his legs off this time. What do you have to lose, credibility?

> > > > > Of course after the heat was
> > > > > gone. She wouldn't be any candidate for anything like that with her
> > > > > family KGB background and the hurried married to 'Oz' would it?
> > > >
> > > > If you are going to regurgitate and spew kookshit, give me warning,
> > > > I`ll step back.
> > > >
> > > I am sorry, but there is too much research territory that you won't
> > > have the guts to venture into. You'll always 'step back', and let
> > > somebody else do the research and just have a kook line awaitin.
> >
> > <snicker> Your idea of "reasearch" is to visit one kook site, and
> > accept without critical analysis everything you read on it. I supplied
> > links to a lot of relevant information about this incident, told you
> > how to find information on the two women, supplied a photo of the
> > actual tag in question, linked you to WC information about the event,
> > ect, and you still blame me not researching claims *you* made. And did
> > three quarters of your legwork, and you haven`t shown signs you`ve read
> > or understood what I referred you to. Yet, you wonder why I usually
> > won`t bother even looking into the issues you kooks bring up. Because
> > it`s always the same, kooks misrepresenting the evidence, viewing it in
> > the wrong context, ect. Thanks for reminding me that the problem isn`t
> > with the evidence, its with the kooks, so examining the evidence can
> > never address the real problem, which is kooks.
> >
> Bud still doesn't believe that JFK died. Not enough evidence.

What I want to know is if there where two Oswalds, which one was
boning Judyth?
Did they engage in threesomes?

> CJ
>
> > > CJ
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>

Bud

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 9:31:36 PM7/19/06
to

Ben even lies about not being caught in lies.

> Considering that I do so quite often, surely it can't be difficult to "cut &
> paste" any such "lie"... yet Bud can't do it. How strange!

I`ve documented your lies in my responses to you. You can`t read
them because you killfiled me, stupid ass.

> >> and represented it
> >> showing something it does not. Thats the issue here.
> >>
> >An LNTer will say do not look anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Looking is
> >not in the dictionary and if it is, do not look there either. The red
> >flag should be gun has scope mounted, why bring in gun at all? And why
> >not follow up when somebody calls something in?
>
>
> It was *NOT* Oswald's gun... that is a given.

<snicker> I haven`t given it. In fact, I`ve given a lot of reasons
to believe it was Oz`s gun. His name was on the tag. He was directed to
that gunshop by two witnesses that corrobborate one another. He did own
a rifle.

> This is what the WC decided, and
> for once, their opinion coincided with the evidence.

Ben Holmes, WC defender.

> >> > If I read this right, they need to see rebored
> >> > holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.

Even though Ben read this article, he failed to respond to any of my
challenges to his assertions that appear within. A coward and a stupid
ass.

Don`t try to be clever, Ben, you`re not good at it.

> >CJ
> >
> >> > CJ
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > <snip>
> >

Bud

unread,
Jul 19, 2006, 9:36:01 PM7/19/06
to

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> David VP wrote:
> >>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
> >>>
> >>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
> >>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
> >>>
> >> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
> >> the 90%.
> >
> > Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
> > people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
> > people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
> >
>
> I was not the one who brought up 90%. I said that was a mistake. It was
> only 89%. I cited the poll and uploaded the press release of the poll.

The press release that contained the information that 100% of the
people who ressponded to the poll felt that Oz participated in the
assassination? The press release that contained none of the questions
that were asked, which makes it impossible to interpret the answers?
That one?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 20, 2006, 9:50:58 AM7/20/06
to
In article <OfOdnQpaD5n0KiPZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>Bud wrote:
>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>>>>
>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>>>>
>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
>>> the 90%.
>>
>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?


No one does. The correct phrase is "as much as 90%", or "up to 90%". That *IS*
accurate. Citations provided long ago...

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 20, 2006, 2:10:11 PM7/20/06
to
But it is unusual in the least when there are already holes bored and a
scope already mounted. Why not just have it adjusted or adjust it
yourself?

> > And why
> > not follow up when somebody calls something in?
>
> They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
> them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
> taken his rifle there to have work done.
>

But Oz already had work done on a scoped rifle from the interviews at
the Sports Drome Firing Range. And who was the caller that you have
pulled out of a hat?

> > > > If I read this right, they need to see rebored
> > > > holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.
> > >
> > > To "drill and tap" means to drill holes, usually using a drill press,
> > > and then using a hard metal "tap" to cut threads into the hole that was
> > > drilled, so it can accept threads from objects like screws. You can do
> > > this on just about any metal surface of a rifle, for a variety of
> > > reasons. The rifle itself can be assembled and disassembled by screws.
> > > These could become buggered, and necessitate reboring, perhaps to the
> > > next size larger screw. You might also wish to have threaded holes with
> > > which to affix metal swivels, to put a rifle strap on. Also possible
> > > that the threads on Oz`s scope were buggered, necessitating retapping
> > > to properly set the scope for boresighting.
> > >
> > All fine and dandy, and if you want proof of that work being done and
> > prove that the work on the gun was done with the same rifle found in
> > the TSBD, what would one do to find out about it?
>
> What they did, ask the people who worked at the shop the rifle was
> worked on.
>

That, and if they didn't know, go to the NA and look and see if the
work was done.

> > National Archives
> > must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> > LNTdom.
>
> Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
> these.
>

Any expert or layman must be able to discern what was previously holed
and what was rebored.

Oh, it could have been Oz, the real Oz...<snick snick>

Well Ben has surmized well, that it probably was not Oz that dropped
the weapon off. One must go out of the way to provide alternative ways
to get Oz there. No fair 'looking' when Oz had no missing days at
work.

> > I have in another thread just posted where
> > Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> > showed people. Leads are there for the asking.
>
> Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
> eagerly ignores good information.
>

Bad, because it goes against what you are trying to prove and what
other's have emphatically said in their experiences and interviews.

Not yet, or how he has Oz at a Marshall's buying ammo on Nov. 1.

> > Where is the
> > store, and how far is it away from the TSBD?
>
> My guess is that it`s in Irving.
>

I have no idea. There is one that is not in Dallas that you might be
worried about though.

Look the Kook, better put those blinders on before he stumbles out the
gate.

> > Truly can't look there because all his
> > looking was at Oz on the second floor. Typical.
>
> Stamping you feet and demanding information that isn`t available
> isn`t really going to accomplish anything. And for some reason you
> think that when information isn`t available, that opens the door for
> you to imagine some and insert it.
>

He was so eloquent with that testimony. Must he become a total doofus,
for a potential date a few weeks prior?

When the case doesn't suit you, that's where you have to go to get
supportive witnesses.

There is no reason to put Oswald in that shop because of what is now
known. You will not attempt to reason on it because of your kook
pride.

> > > > > > > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > > > > > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > > > > > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > > > > > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > > > > > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > She admitted so in a French magazine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Le Nationale Enquirer?
> > > > >
> > > > It was something like that, but the key was she was ez and free to
> > > > talk. No American Authorities.
> > >
> > > <snicker> A Frog tabloid? Theres not enough stupid shit generated
> > > here, you need to go overseas?
> > >
> > Maybe you should go to Ft. Worth and have some DNA pulled from the
> > gravesite instead of shooting from the hip...i mean lip.
>
> Dig up Oz again? Did you kooks miss some part you part of him you
> wanted to multilate the first time? Hell yes, dig him up again, chop
> his legs off this time. What do you have to lose, credibility?
>

Probably could get a tube bored down there and draw a lil DNA
out....Might be a good night time ploy.

My money is on the N.O. born one, that didn't get done in by Ruby.

CJ

> > CJ
> >
> > > > CJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>

Bud

unread,
Jul 20, 2006, 4:17:23 PM7/20/06
to

It requires a devise to boresight a rifle. A devise gunshops have.

> > > And why
> > > not follow up when somebody calls something in?
> >
> > They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
> > them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
> > taken his rifle there to have work done.
> >
> But Oz already had work done on a scoped rifle from the interviews at
> the Sports Drome Firing Range.

Do you have a tag?

> And who was the caller that you have
> pulled out of a hat?

Ann Onymous.

> > > > > If I read this right, they need to see rebored
> > > > > holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.
> > > >
> > > > To "drill and tap" means to drill holes, usually using a drill press,
> > > > and then using a hard metal "tap" to cut threads into the hole that was
> > > > drilled, so it can accept threads from objects like screws. You can do
> > > > this on just about any metal surface of a rifle, for a variety of
> > > > reasons. The rifle itself can be assembled and disassembled by screws.
> > > > These could become buggered, and necessitate reboring, perhaps to the
> > > > next size larger screw. You might also wish to have threaded holes with
> > > > which to affix metal swivels, to put a rifle strap on. Also possible
> > > > that the threads on Oz`s scope were buggered, necessitating retapping
> > > > to properly set the scope for boresighting.
> > > >
> > > All fine and dandy, and if you want proof of that work being done and
> > > prove that the work on the gun was done with the same rifle found in
> > > the TSBD, what would one do to find out about it?
> >
> > What they did, ask the people who worked at the shop the rifle was
> > worked on.
> >
> That, and if they didn't know, go to the NA and look and see if the
> work was done.

The work nobody remembered doing. Where would you look?

> > > National Archives
> > > must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> > > LNTdom.
> >
> > Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
> > these.
> >
> Any expert or layman must be able to discern what was previously holed
> and what was rebored.

Then feel free to produce what this expert or layman found, because
I didn`t find anything on it.

Yah, Ruby`s double could have shoot Oz`s double for shooting JFK`s
double. Now, you`re getting somewhere, the tail just has a little lead,
but I think you`re gaining on it.

Yah, the tag having Oz`s name on it, and the witneses who said they
referred him to that gunshop cinched that it hadda be a shadowy
government type.

> One must go out of the way to provide alternative ways
> to get Oz there.

Yah, it`s in Iriving, where his wife lived, that rules out Oz going
there.

> No fair 'looking' when Oz had no missing days at
> work.

What days? The store manager said it was likely between the 1st and
the 14th. That gives two Saturdays, which Oz didn`t work.

> > > I have in another thread just posted where
> > > Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> > > showed people. Leads are there for the asking.
> >
> > Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
> > eagerly ignores good information.
> >
> Bad, because it goes against what you are trying to prove and what
> other's have emphatically said in their experiences and interviews.

Bad, in that it is usually ridiculous, and contradicted by either
what is known, or common sense.

Well, I think if he wrote it on a kook web site, that should be good
enough, don`t you?

> > > Where is the
> > > store, and how far is it away from the TSBD?
> >
> > My guess is that it`s in Irving.
> >
> I have no idea.

Perhaps you can derive a clue from the name "Irving Sports Shop".
Help you any?

> There is one that is not in Dallas that you might be
> worried about though.

An Irving?

He may be eloquent with information he remembered. That doesn`t mean
that he must remember all information. Try holding your breath, that
should help.

I have no idea what that means. I don`t need this event at all to
conclude that Oz shot JFK. It indicates Oz had his rifle fixed just
after Kennedy`s trip was announced, but I`m willing to give Oz the
benefit of the doubt that this was just coincidence. <snicker>

Only two corroborating witnesses, an anonymous caller saying he saw
him there, and the physical evidence of a repair tag with the name
"Oswald" on it.

> You will not attempt to reason on it because of your kook
> pride.

Is that what Ben was doing, reasoning when he was fabricating
shadowy figures planting evidence to frame Oz?

> > > > > > > > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > > > > > > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > > > > > > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > > > > > > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > > > > > > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > She admitted so in a French magazine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le Nationale Enquirer?
> > > > > >
> > > > > It was something like that, but the key was she was ez and free to
> > > > > talk. No American Authorities.
> > > >
> > > > <snicker> A Frog tabloid? Theres not enough stupid shit generated
> > > > here, you need to go overseas?
> > > >
> > > Maybe you should go to Ft. Worth and have some DNA pulled from the
> > > gravesite instead of shooting from the hip...i mean lip.
> >
> > Dig up Oz again? Did you kooks miss some part you part of him you
> > wanted to multilate the first time? Hell yes, dig him up again, chop
> > his legs off this time. What do you have to lose, credibility?
> >
> Probably could get a tube bored down there and draw a lil DNA
> out....Might be a good night time ploy.

I think they removed the headstone so his grave can`t be easily
found (although I do recall seeing a picture of it online somewhere).
Get your tube, and if you get caught and feel the need to invoke an
insanity defense, I`ll vouch for ya.

And he didn`t try to get back with Judyth? I can`t believe that,
shes a babe.

> CJ
>
> > > CJ
> > >
> > > > > CJ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>

Bud

unread,
Jul 20, 2006, 6:58:41 PM7/20/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <OfOdnQpaD5n0KiPZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >
> >Bud wrote:
> >> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>> David VP wrote:
> >>>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
> >>>>
> >>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
> >>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
> >>>>
> >>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
> >>> the 90%.
> >>
> >> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
> >> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
> >> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
>
>
> No one does. The correct phrase is "as much as 90%", or "up to 90%". That *IS*
> accurate. Citations provided long ago...

Just the same tired old lie. The truth is, I pressed Ben to support
this percentage he was giving, and he referred me to information that
didn`t support his claims. I pressed him some more, and he supplied a
completely different source, once again one that didn`t support his
claims. His last source was nothing more than a press release that had
some data, but the questions that were asked in the poll to derive that
data was not included, rendering that data useless.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 12:47:40 AM7/21/06
to
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <OfOdnQpaD5n0KiPZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> Bud wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>>>>>
>>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
>>>> the 90%.
>>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
>>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
>>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
>
>
> No one does. The correct phrase is "as much as 90%", or "up to 90%". That *IS*
> accurate. Citations provided long ago...
>

For there to even be an "up to 90%" there must be one example somewhere
citing 90%.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 12:54:28 AM7/21/06
to
Bud wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>>>>>
>>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
>>>> the 90%.
>>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
>>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
>>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
>>>
>> I was not the one who brought up 90%. I said that was a mistake. It was
>> only 89%. I cited the poll and uploaded the press release of the poll.
>
> The press release that contained the information that 100% of the
> people who ressponded to the poll felt that Oz participated in the

It said no such thing. That is YOUR misinterpretation.

> assassination? The press release that contained none of the questions
> that were asked, which makes it impossible to interpret the answers?
> That one?
>

Like yours it only breaks down categories. It does not list the
questions and the way the questions were phrased.

Bud

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 8:47:08 AM7/21/06
to

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> David VP wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
> >>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
> >>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
> >>>> the 90%.
> >>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
> >>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
> >>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
> >>>
> >> I was not the one who brought up 90%. I said that was a mistake. It was
> >> only 89%. I cited the poll and uploaded the press release of the poll.
> >
> > The press release that contained the information that 100% of the
> > people who ressponded to the poll felt that Oz participated in the
>
> It said no such thing. That is YOUR misinterpretation.

That press release contained the information that 11% of the people
thing Oz acted alone, and 89% said he didn`t act alone. So in all
cases, Oz is acting, in this case, towards JFK`s demise.

> > assassination? The press release that contained none of the questions
> > that were asked, which makes it impossible to interpret the answers?
> > That one?
> >
>
> Like yours it only breaks down categories. It does not list the
> questions and the way the questions were phrased.

It`s simple, Tony. You don`t really know what the "89%" figure
reflects, because you don`t know what question was asked. Therefore,
the "89%" is worthless data, useless to make claims about. Of course, I
wouldn`t expect a little thing like that to stop you and Ben from
making claims using this data as support. But those claims are
meaningless.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 9:58:26 AM7/21/06
to
In article <BKednY1OT7PxwV3Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <OfOdnQpaD5n0KiPZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> Bud wrote:
>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>>>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>>>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
>>>>> the 90%.
>>>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
>>>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
>>>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
>>
>>
>>No one does. The correct phrase is "as much as 90%", or "up to 90%". That *IS*
>> accurate. Citations provided long ago...
>>
>
>For there to even be an "up to 90%" there must be one example somewhere
>citing 90%.


There is. The poll I cited asserting that 10% believed the WCR. But don't let
the facts get in the way of your support for the WCR, Tony.

Bud

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 1:45:50 PM7/21/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <BKednY1OT7PxwV3Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <OfOdnQpaD5n0KiPZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>> Bud wrote:
> >>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>> David VP wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>"And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
> >>>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
> >>>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
> >>>>> the 90%.
> >>>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
> >>>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
> >>>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
> >>
> >>
> >>No one does. The correct phrase is "as much as 90%", or "up to 90%". That *IS*
> >> accurate. Citations provided long ago...
> >>
> >
> >For there to even be an "up to 90%" there must be one example somewhere
> >citing 90%.
>
>
> There is. The poll I cited asserting that 10% believed the WCR. But don't let
> the facts get in the way of your support for the WCR, Tony.

<snicker> Ben is still trying this dishonest representation of poll
figures. If 10% say one thing, that doesn`t traslate the 90% believe
the converse. There is no opinion, don`t know, fuck off amongst that
remainder. What a stupid ass. No, I take that back, this isn`t
stupidity, this is purposeful dishonesty. Ben is a sneaky snake in the
grass
who is only interested in discussions with people who he can play his
crooked games on.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 4:10:52 PM7/21/06
to
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <BKednY1OT7PxwV3Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <OfOdnQpaD5n0KiPZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>> Bud wrote:
>>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>>>>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>>>>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
>>>>>> the 90%.
>>>>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
>>>>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
>>>>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
>>>
>>> No one does. The correct phrase is "as much as 90%", or "up to 90%". That *IS*
>>> accurate. Citations provided long ago...
>>>
>> For there to even be an "up to 90%" there must be one example somewhere
>> citing 90%.
>
>
> There is. The poll I cited asserting that 10% believed the WCR. But don't let
> the facts get in the way of your support for the WCR, Tony.
>

Not the same thing. Just because only 10% believed it was Oswald alone
does not mean that 90% said it was a conspiracy.
There will always be a small percentage of Don't Know in any survey.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 4:30:47 PM7/21/06
to
Bud wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> Bud wrote:
>>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>>>>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>>>>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
>>>>>> the 90%.
>>>>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
>>>>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
>>>>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
>>>>>
>>>> I was not the one who brought up 90%. I said that was a mistake. It was
>>>> only 89%. I cited the poll and uploaded the press release of the poll.
>>> The press release that contained the information that 100% of the
>>> people who ressponded to the poll felt that Oz participated in the
>> It said no such thing. That is YOUR misinterpretation.
>
> That press release contained the information that 11% of the people
> thing Oz acted alone, and 89% said he didn`t act alone. So in all
> cases, Oz is acting, in this case, towards JFK`s demise.
>

No, you can't add the two numbers like that.

>>> assassination? The press release that contained none of the questions
>>> that were asked, which makes it impossible to interpret the answers?
>>> That one?
>>>
>> Like yours it only breaks down categories. It does not list the
>> questions and the way the questions were phrased.
>
> It`s simple, Tony. You don`t really know what the "89%" figure
> reflects, because you don`t know what question was asked. Therefore,
> the "89%" is worthless data, useless to make claims about. Of course, I
> wouldn`t expect a little thing like that to stop you and Ben from
> making claims using this data as support. But those claims are
> meaningless.

Of course I do. The question was stated in the report:


>>>>> I found the news item on the CBS poll on the assassination (thanks, Duke)
>>>>> which reported the 90% number for those believing Oswald did not act
>>>>> alone. I'll post it below, but in summary here is the breakdown:
>
>>>>> "Believe LHO did not act alone":
>
>>>>> overall 89%
>>>>> age 18-29 86%
>>>>> age 45-64 77%
>
>>>>> margin of error 3%

Blackbel...@aol.com

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 4:56:24 PM7/21/06
to
The tag is a non-issue at this point. I could have been left by
anybody. Sometimes people drop stuff off for other people. Usually
somebody will sign for their work to be done. I guess there was no
'LHO' sig on this one? Anyway, whatever was done to the gun, to have
any impact, on IDing, would be to have what was done workwise to be
examined. I am sure if there was work done, it could be segregated
from what was just a 'plain mount' from the manufacturer. Only one
that would have been concerned would have already looked into it, or as
I mentioned, it could be looked at now, if the NA would let someone
look at it.

> > > > And why
> > > > not follow up when somebody calls something in?
> > >
> > > They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
> > > them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
> > > taken his rifle there to have work done.
> > >
> > But Oz already had work done on a scoped rifle from the interviews at
> > the Sports Drome Firing Range.
>
> Do you have a tag?
>

Tags could be important, but I don't know if anyone has investigated
the statement taken by the witnesses at the Sport's Drome. Here is
what was said, according to research:


http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html

> > And who was the caller that you have
> > pulled out of a hat?
>
> Ann Onymous.
>

Maybe it was Ann Archy for all who knows. One thing though, it's not
the ladies at the furniture store as they were interviewed by the WC
and that had to be eons later than the call-in. If it wasn't the
people at the gunshop who seem to know nothing, then it must be
somebody else. Maybe it was 'LHO', Marina, or the other lady that was
with them? If it's not sinister, who else could it be?

> > > > > > If I read this right, they need to see rebored
> > > > > > holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.
> > > > >
> > > > > To "drill and tap" means to drill holes, usually using a drill press,
> > > > > and then using a hard metal "tap" to cut threads into the hole that was
> > > > > drilled, so it can accept threads from objects like screws. You can do
> > > > > this on just about any metal surface of a rifle, for a variety of
> > > > > reasons. The rifle itself can be assembled and disassembled by screws.
> > > > > These could become buggered, and necessitate reboring, perhaps to the
> > > > > next size larger screw. You might also wish to have threaded holes with
> > > > > which to affix metal swivels, to put a rifle strap on. Also possible
> > > > > that the threads on Oz`s scope were buggered, necessitating retapping
> > > > > to properly set the scope for boresighting.
> > > > >
> > > > All fine and dandy, and if you want proof of that work being done and
> > > > prove that the work on the gun was done with the same rifle found in
> > > > the TSBD, what would one do to find out about it?
> > >
> > > What they did, ask the people who worked at the shop the rifle was
> > > worked on.
> > >
> > That, and if they didn't know, go to the NA and look and see if the
> > work was done.
>
> The work nobody remembered doing. Where would you look?
>

At the craftsmanship, I would guess.

> > > > National Archives
> > > > must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> > > > LNTdom.
> > >
> > > Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
> > > these.
> > >
> > Any expert or layman must be able to discern what was previously holed
> > and what was rebored.
>
> Then feel free to produce what this expert or layman found, because
> I didn`t find anything on it.
>

Since you are sounding like an expert, why don't you go?...<snick>

Well since Oz already had at least one other gun mounted
professionally, and the guy that was at the furniture store drove off,
not the other's, and Oz supposedly didn't drive and had no vehicle, and
was supposedly most likely at work......

More than likely with all the unusual facts coming afore.


> > One must go out of the way to provide alternative ways
> > to get Oz there.
>
> Yah, it`s in Iriving, where his wife lived, that rules out Oz going
> there.
>

And the ladies knew Marina because they shopped at the same grocery,
etc...so we know one thing, Marina lied, as those ladies remembered
everything, and Marina knew that it would lead to the real Lee if she
spilled the beans.

> > No fair 'looking' when Oz had no missing days at
> > work.
>
> What days? The store manager said it was likely between the 1st and
> the 14th. That gives two Saturdays, which Oz didn`t work.
>

Well, I guess it's possible, but Oz leaving work to go through all this
is not probable.

> > > > I have in another thread just posted where
> > > > Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> > > > showed people. Leads are there for the asking.
> > >
> > > Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
> > > eagerly ignores good information.
> > >
> > Bad, because it goes against what you are trying to prove and what
> > other's have emphatically said in their experiences and interviews.
>
> Bad, in that it is usually ridiculous, and contradicted by either
> what is known, or common sense.
>

What is known, is facts that don't add up for Oz to have that gun
worked on and taken to the TSBD when all the information is sorted
through. It's obvious that he was being very careless if he was
planning to do the JFK deed, and well if he was being set up, necessary
to have incidents like this where people could assume his involvement
and guilt.

Good enough to look into it further. Not good enough for you to look
into it further.

> > > > Where is the
> > > > store, and how far is it away from the TSBD?
> > >
> > > My guess is that it`s in Irving.
> > >
> > I have no idea.
>
> Perhaps you can derive a clue from the name "Irving Sports Shop".
> Help you any?
>

Well, now how far is Irving from the TSBD?

> > There is one that is not in Dallas that you might be
> > worried about though.
>
> An Irving?
>

No, from that other shop in that other town in the article I posted up
above.

That probably besides hiring him, was the only run-in he would have
ever had. It's not like he had so many that it would be 'natural' for
him to forget.

But not that he was set up.

I thought they couldn't remember even the gun being worked on? Now
they know he was there?

> > You will not attempt to reason on it because of your kook
> > pride.
>
> Is that what Ben was doing, reasoning when he was fabricating
> shadowy figures planting evidence to frame Oz?
>

Because the evidence indicates that.

> > > > > > > > > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > > > > > > > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > > > > > > > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > > > > > > > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > > > > > > > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > She admitted so in a French magazine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Le Nationale Enquirer?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > It was something like that, but the key was she was ez and free to
> > > > > > talk. No American Authorities.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker> A Frog tabloid? Theres not enough stupid shit generated
> > > > > here, you need to go overseas?
> > > > >
> > > > Maybe you should go to Ft. Worth and have some DNA pulled from the
> > > > gravesite instead of shooting from the hip...i mean lip.
> > >
> > > Dig up Oz again? Did you kooks miss some part you part of him you
> > > wanted to multilate the first time? Hell yes, dig him up again, chop
> > > his legs off this time. What do you have to lose, credibility?
> > >
> > Probably could get a tube bored down there and draw a lil DNA
> > out....Might be a good night time ploy.
>
> I think they removed the headstone so his grave can`t be easily
> found (although I do recall seeing a picture of it online somewhere).
> Get your tube, and if you get caught and feel the need to invoke an
> insanity defense, I`ll vouch for ya.
>

Oh har.

Not when he was offered a place in the CIA retirement community in Fla.

CJ

> > CJ
> >
> > > > CJ
> > > >
> > > > > > CJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>

tomnln

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 5:19:08 PM7/21/06
to
MIDDLE POST;

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eO6dnf3uZJJRqVzZ...@comcast.com...

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


> Not the same thing. Just because only 10% believed it was Oswald alone
> does not mean that 90% said it was a conspiracy.
> There will always be a small percentage of Don't Know in any survey.

Not the same thing. Just because only 90% believed it was a Conspiracy does
NOT mean that
ALL 10% said it was Oswald Alone.
There will always be a small percentage of Don't Know in any survey. (From
BOTH Sides.)
============================================================================

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 5:08:12 PM7/21/06
to
In article <eO6dnf3uZJJRqVzZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <BKednY1OT7PxwV3Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <OfOdnQpaD5n0KiPZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>> Bud wrote:
>>>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>>> David VP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"And where the Hell do you get your 70-75% of the American people?" <<<
>>>>>>>> Only via the Gallup Poll people. That's all. Is there something
>>>>>>>> preventing you from clicking on a link (like this one....)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice try, but I can use the same tactics that you used for dismissing
>>>>>>> the 90%.
>>>>>> Tony, do you think all this nonsense will be enough to distract
>>>>>> people from that fact that you kooks can`t support the "90% of the
>>>>>> people believe in conspiracy" figure you toss around here?
>>>>
>>>>No one does. The correct phrase is "as much as 90%", or "up to 90%". That *IS*
>>>> accurate. Citations provided long ago...
>>>>
>>> For there to even be an "up to 90%" there must be one example somewhere
>>> citing 90%.
>>
>>
>>There is. The poll I cited asserting that 10% believed the WCR. But don't let
>> the facts get in the way of your support for the WCR, Tony.
>>
>
>Not the same thing. Just because only 10% believed it was Oswald alone
>does not mean that 90% said it was a conspiracy.
>There will always be a small percentage of Don't Know in any survey.


There is also a little thing known as a margin of error. And if you're truly a
nutcase, you can locate polls showing *exactly* 90%. But you keep doing what
you're doing, Tony. Support the WCR to the extent of your ability.

Bud

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 8:44:19 PM7/21/06
to

<SNIP>

> > It requires a devise to boresight a rifle. A devise gunshops have.
> >
> The tag is a non-issue at this point.

Sure, after Ruby killed the person who had the work done.

> I could have been left by
> anybody.

But the indication are is was Oswald. And since their are stong
indications he killed JFK, and this work was performed shortly after
JFK`s trip to Dallas was announced, it is possible to surmise why Oz
had work on his rifle done.

> Sometimes people drop stuff off for other people.

Unlikely. Guns are like cars, the owner know the machine, and the
problems with it
best.

> Usually
> somebody will sign for their work to be done.

Sure, the whole thing seems sloppy. How can they pay taxes on income
derived from work performed if they don`t keep records?

> I guess there was no
> 'LHO' sig on this one?

Only the name "Oswald" on the tag.

> Anyway, whatever was done to the gun, to have
> any impact, on IDing, would be to have what was done workwise to be
> examined.

The most help would have come from the person who did the work
remembering both the work, the customer, and the rifle.

> I am sure if there was work done, it could be segregated
> from what was just a 'plain mount' from the manufacturer. Only one
> that would have been concerned would have already looked into it, or as
> I mentioned, it could be looked at now, if the NA would let someone
> look at it.

I don`t see what could be determined at this point.

> > > > > And why
> > > > > not follow up when somebody calls something in?
> > > >
> > > > They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
> > > > them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
> > > > taken his rifle there to have work done.
> > > >
> > > But Oz already had work done on a scoped rifle from the interviews at
> > > the Sports Drome Firing Range.
> >
> > Do you have a tag?
> >
> Tags could be important, but I don't know if anyone has investigated
> the statement taken by the witnesses at the Sport's Drome. Here is
> what was said, according to research:
>
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html

I`m not interested in Oz sightings, thats kook fodder. Impossible to
determine if they are red herrings or not, especially now.

> > > And who was the caller that you have
> > > pulled out of a hat?
> >
> > Ann Onymous.
> >
> Maybe it was Ann Archy for all who knows. One thing though, it's not
> the ladies at the furniture store as they were interviewed by the WC
> and that had to be eons later than the call-in. If it wasn't the
> people at the gunshop who seem to know nothing, then it must be
> somebody else. Maybe it was 'LHO', Marina, or the other lady that was
> with them? If it's not sinister, who else could it be?

Another customer who was in the store when Oz brought his rifle in.
This person could have seeen pictures of Oz on TV after the
assassination, and said "Hey, I saw that guy, at the Irving Sports
Shop", and called it in anonymously to the media outlet (either radio
or newspaper, I forget which). I realize is much too mundane to suit
the average kook, but there it is.

> > > > > > > If I read this right, they need to see rebored
> > > > > > > holes or new holes...whatever bore and tap means.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To "drill and tap" means to drill holes, usually using a drill press,
> > > > > > and then using a hard metal "tap" to cut threads into the hole that was
> > > > > > drilled, so it can accept threads from objects like screws. You can do
> > > > > > this on just about any metal surface of a rifle, for a variety of
> > > > > > reasons. The rifle itself can be assembled and disassembled by screws.
> > > > > > These could become buggered, and necessitate reboring, perhaps to the
> > > > > > next size larger screw. You might also wish to have threaded holes with
> > > > > > which to affix metal swivels, to put a rifle strap on. Also possible
> > > > > > that the threads on Oz`s scope were buggered, necessitating retapping
> > > > > > to properly set the scope for boresighting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > All fine and dandy, and if you want proof of that work being done and
> > > > > prove that the work on the gun was done with the same rifle found in
> > > > > the TSBD, what would one do to find out about it?
> > > >
> > > > What they did, ask the people who worked at the shop the rifle was
> > > > worked on.
> > > >
> > > That, and if they didn't know, go to the NA and look and see if the
> > > work was done.
> >
> > The work nobody remembered doing. Where would you look?
> >
> At the craftsmanship, I would guess.

It seems the did show the rifle to the people who worked there, and
noone remembered it, and it didn`t jog any memories. Boresighting a
rifle is like balancing a tire, not the kind of work that`s going to
stand out in your memory. I tend to think the "drill and tap" was
merely running a tap through existing threads to unbugger them, this
might explain nobody remembering the work, it was pretty
straightforward, uninteresting work.

> > > > > National Archives
> > > > > must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> > > > > LNTdom.
> > > >
> > > > Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
> > > > these.
> > > >
> > > Any expert or layman must be able to discern what was previously holed
> > > and what was rebored.
> >
> > Then feel free to produce what this expert or layman found, because
> > I didn`t find anything on it.
> >
> Since you are sounding like an expert, why don't you go?...<snick>

I`ve looked into this enough to suit me. Just far enough to
determine where Ben was misrepresenting this evidence.

Likely untrue.

> and the guy that was at the furniture store drove off,

Who said he "drove off"?

> not the other's, and Oz supposedly didn't drive and had no vehicle, and
> was supposedly most likely at work......

On what day, Curt?

Methinks you`re a poor candidate for determining the "unusual".

> > > One must go out of the way to provide alternative ways
> > > to get Oz there.
> >
> > Yah, it`s in Iriving, where his wife lived, that rules out Oz going
> > there.
> >
> And the ladies knew Marina because they shopped at the same grocery,
> etc...so we know one thing, Marina lied, as those ladies remembered
> everything, and Marina knew that it would lead to the real Lee if she
> spilled the beans.

Oh, I think Marina lied about not remembering the encounter in the
furniture store with these ladies. I suspect she had more of an inkling
of what Oz was up to than she let on, hoping for the best. She played
the hand she was dealt perfectly, getting the best outcome she could
for herself and her family. A crafty, cunning cunt there, in my
opinion.

> > > No fair 'looking' when Oz had no missing days at
> > > work.
> >
> > What days? The store manager said it was likely between the 1st and
> > the 14th. That gives two Saturdays, which Oz didn`t work.
> >
> Well, I guess it's possible, but Oz leaving work to go through all this
> is not probable.

For many people it would be. If Norman leaves, Jarman might ask
around for him, being his friend. I can`t anyone looking for Oz for any
reason, most said they never talked to him. In fact, slipping out might
be something that would appeal to Oz.

> > > > > I have in another thread just posted where
> > > > > Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> > > > > showed people. Leads are there for the asking.
> > > >
> > > > Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
> > > > eagerly ignores good information.
> > > >
> > > Bad, because it goes against what you are trying to prove and what
> > > other's have emphatically said in their experiences and interviews.
> >
> > Bad, in that it is usually ridiculous, and contradicted by either
> > what is known, or common sense.
> >
> What is known, is facts that don't add up for Oz to have that gun
> worked on and taken to the TSBD when all the information is sorted
> through.

<snicker>

> It's obvious that he was being very careless if he was
> planning to do the JFK deed, and well if he was being set up, necessary
> to have incidents like this where people could assume his involvement
> and guilt.

So, as I understand it, you mean it`s suspicious when evidence does
turn up indicating his guilt, and you are suspicious when it doesn`t.

A good place to begin looking is by getting information from the
person makibg the claim. If he doesn`t provide it where he makes the
claim, it`s probably because he doesn`t have it to supply.

> > > > > Where is the
> > > > > store, and how far is it away from the TSBD?
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that it`s in Irving.
> > > >
> > > I have no idea.
> >
> > Perhaps you can derive a clue from the name "Irving Sports Shop".
> > Help you any?
> >
> Well, now how far is Irving from the TSBD?

Dunno. Try google maps.

> > > There is one that is not in Dallas that you might be
> > > worried about though.
> >
> > An Irving?
> >
> No, from that other shop in that other town in the article I posted up
> above.

You chase your tail alone on that one. I only looked into this one
to see how Ben was misrepresenting this evidence. I`ve determined that
to my satisfaction.

Yah, he should have treasured every moment he spent with this lowly
order-filler. You have ridiculous expectations.

No, thats stupid crackpot shit. Ben tried to float the idea, but
with no support, it sunk like a rock.

Where do you see that I mentioned the people who work in the
gunshop?

> > > You will not attempt to reason on it because of your kook
> > > pride.
> >
> > Is that what Ben was doing, reasoning when he was fabricating
> > shadowy figures planting evidence to frame Oz?
> >
> Because the evidence indicates that.

No, that silliness is just the usual result of feverish kook
imagination

> > > > > > > > > > > An adjustment maybe, but that
> > > > > > > > > > > wasn't in the order was it? What it means, is just as surmized, that
> > > > > > > > > > > somebody went there just like a lot of other places around that time,
> > > > > > > > > > > while Oz was at work, and tried to incriminate him prior to the
> > > > > > > > > > > assassination of JFK. Obviously Marina was in on it as well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <snicker> Marina and family and the imposter, eh? Kooky.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > She admitted so in a French magazine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Le Nationale Enquirer?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was something like that, but the key was she was ez and free to
> > > > > > > talk. No American Authorities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snicker> A Frog tabloid? Theres not enough stupid shit generated
> > > > > > here, you need to go overseas?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Maybe you should go to Ft. Worth and have some DNA pulled from the
> > > > > gravesite instead of shooting from the hip...i mean lip.
> > > >
> > > > Dig up Oz again? Did you kooks miss some part you part of him you
> > > > wanted to multilate the first time? Hell yes, dig him up again, chop
> > > > his legs off this time. What do you have to lose, credibility?
> > > >
> > > Probably could get a tube bored down there and draw a lil DNA
> > > out....Might be a good night time ploy.
> >
> > I think they removed the headstone so his grave can`t be easily
> > found (although I do recall seeing a picture of it online somewhere).
> > Get your tube, and if you get caught and feel the need to invoke an
> > insanity defense, I`ll vouch for ya.
> >
> Oh har.

Just trying to help.

Yah, Elvis does two shows daily. Oswald and Ruby play gin against
the Roswell aliens. A crowded facility.

Bud

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 8:52:32 PM7/21/06
to

<SNIP>

> > That press release contained the information that 11% of the people
> > thing Oz acted alone, and 89% said he didn`t act alone. So in all
> > cases, Oz is acting, in this case, towards JFK`s demise.
> >
>
> No, you can't add the two numbers like that.

Why not? The members of one catagory can`t be members of the other.
There can`t be overlap, one group believes Oz acted alone, the other
believes Oz acted in concert with others. Why can`t these two groups be
combined by thier commonality, the belief that Oz participated in the
assassination?

> >>> assassination? The press release that contained none of the questions
> >>> that were asked, which makes it impossible to interpret the answers?
> >>> That one?
> >>>
> >> Like yours it only breaks down categories. It does not list the
> >> questions and the way the questions were phrased.
> >
> > It`s simple, Tony. You don`t really know what the "89%" figure
> > reflects, because you don`t know what question was asked. Therefore,
> > the "89%" is worthless data, useless to make claims about. Of course, I
> > wouldn`t expect a little thing like that to stop you and Ben from
> > making claims using this data as support. But those claims are
> > meaningless.
>
> Of course I do. The question was stated in the report:

No, it wasn`t. The quetion that the respondants were asked was not
included. Why try that blatent lie, Tony? Whoever wrote the press
release represented what the percentages meant.

<SNIP>

Bud

unread,
Jul 21, 2006, 8:58:39 PM7/21/06
to

Un-fucking-believable. Ben is now adding the margin of error to the
poll figures. What a piece of work...

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 11:03:38 AM7/22/06
to
Bud wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > > It requires a devise to boresight a rifle. A devise gunshops have.
> > >
> > The tag is a non-issue at this point.
>
> Sure, after Ruby killed the person who had the work done.
>
No, because there is nothing compelling about the tag, that ID's Oswald
as the one who brought the gun in.

> > I could have been left by
> > anybody.
>
> But the indication are is was Oswald. And since their are stong
> indications he killed JFK, and this work was performed shortly after
> JFK`s trip to Dallas was announced, it is possible to surmise why Oz
> had work on his rifle done.
>

You let your own emotion and prejudice of the other aspect of the case
influence the instance were talking about. There is no indication that
Oswald brought in that rifle, especially with what has been uncovered.


> > Sometimes people drop stuff off for other people.
>
> Unlikely. Guns are like cars, the owner know the machine, and the
> problems with it
> best.
>

'He' even told the problem to the lady at the furniture store. Said
something about a plumber for his gun. A good indication that if he
was on the prowl to kill a President, he would not be so outgoing and
non-chalant about divulging anything about the gun in that type of
manner.

> > Usually
> > somebody will sign for their work to be done.
>
> Sure, the whole thing seems sloppy. How can they pay taxes on income
> derived from work performed if they don`t keep records?
>

I mean for the estimate of repairs. A signature would have been nice
to trace.

> > I guess there was no
> > 'LHO' sig on this one?
>
> Only the name "Oswald" on the tag.
>

Which was somebody probably announcing the name, and it being written
by an employee.

> > Anyway, whatever was done to the gun, to have
> > any impact, on IDing, would be to have what was done workwise to be
> > examined.
>
> The most help would have come from the person who did the work
> remembering both the work, the customer, and the rifle.
>

That might be ideal, but not absolutely necessary to show what is a
very typical piece of work.

> > I am sure if there was work done, it could be segregated
> > from what was just a 'plain mount' from the manufacturer. Only one
> > that would have been concerned would have already looked into it, or as
> > I mentioned, it could be looked at now, if the NA would let someone
> > look at it.
>
> I don`t see what could be determined at this point.
>

If there was any work done that could be concluded as extra or beyond
what would already come with a gun, namely extra holes or holes that
are tampered with to modify something.

> > > > > > And why
> > > > > > not follow up when somebody calls something in?
> > > > >
> > > > > They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
> > > > > them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
> > > > > taken his rifle there to have work done.
> > > > >
> > > > But Oz already had work done on a scoped rifle from the interviews at
> > > > the Sports Drome Firing Range.
> > >
> > > Do you have a tag?
> > >
> > Tags could be important, but I don't know if anyone has investigated
> > the statement taken by the witnesses at the Sport's Drome. Here is
> > what was said, according to research:
> >
> >
> > http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html
>
> I`m not interested in Oz sightings, thats kook fodder. Impossible to
> determine if they are red herrings or not, especially now.
>

LOL, don't let the cooties bite ya. Of course, these are real people
that like to shoot guns for a hobby that frequent those places. I
think even one gave Oz a ride home, and looked in his scope, and
watched him shoot. If that doesn't interest you, then I guess the
whole JFK case doesn't interest you that much.

> > > > And who was the caller that you have
> > > > pulled out of a hat?
> > >
> > > Ann Onymous.
> > >
> > Maybe it was Ann Archy for all who knows. One thing though, it's not
> > the ladies at the furniture store as they were interviewed by the WC
> > and that had to be eons later than the call-in. If it wasn't the
> > people at the gunshop who seem to know nothing, then it must be
> > somebody else. Maybe it was 'LHO', Marina, or the other lady that was
> > with them? If it's not sinister, who else could it be?
>
> Another customer who was in the store when Oz brought his rifle in.
> This person could have seeen pictures of Oz on TV after the
> assassination, and said "Hey, I saw that guy, at the Irving Sports
> Shop", and called it in anonymously to the media outlet (either radio
> or newspaper, I forget which). I realize is much too mundane to suit
> the average kook, but there it is.
>

That is a stretch if there was even one there. And why would he notice
over what the person that would deal with him face to face? What
particulars was given about this call? Did they say anything
provocative?

Maybe since it was not the weapon, they didn't see any work that was
done.

> > > > > > National Archives
> > > > > > must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> > > > > > LNTdom.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
> > > > > these.
> > > > >
> > > > Any expert or layman must be able to discern what was previously holed
> > > > and what was rebored.
> > >
> > > Then feel free to produce what this expert or layman found, because
> > > I didn`t find anything on it.
> > >
> > Since you are sounding like an expert, why don't you go?...<snick>
>
> I`ve looked into this enough to suit me. Just far enough to
> determine where Ben was misrepresenting this evidence.
>

But not far enough to do any real investigating.

Likely very true. Witnesses commented on the pristineness of the scope
sight.

> > and the guy that was at the furniture store drove off,
>
> Who said he "drove off"?
>
> > not the other's, and Oz supposedly didn't drive and had no vehicle, and
> > was supposedly most likely at work......
>
> On what day, Curt?
>

On the day they were at the Furniture Store for one.

When you don't face the evidence your crutch crystal ball comes in
handy.

> > > > One must go out of the way to provide alternative ways
> > > > to get Oz there.
> > >
> > > Yah, it`s in Iriving, where his wife lived, that rules out Oz going
> > > there.
> > >
> > And the ladies knew Marina because they shopped at the same grocery,
> > etc...so we know one thing, Marina lied, as those ladies remembered
> > everything, and Marina knew that it would lead to the real Lee if she
> > spilled the beans.
>
> Oh, I think Marina lied about not remembering the encounter in the
> furniture store with these ladies. I suspect she had more of an inkling
> of what Oz was up to than she let on, hoping for the best. She played
> the hand she was dealt perfectly, getting the best outcome she could
> for herself and her family. A crafty, cunning cunt there, in my
> opinion.
>

Or she was up to. Or what the whole assassination operation was up to.

> > > > No fair 'looking' when Oz had no missing days at
> > > > work.
> > >
> > > What days? The store manager said it was likely between the 1st and
> > > the 14th. That gives two Saturdays, which Oz didn`t work.
> > >
> > Well, I guess it's possible, but Oz leaving work to go through all this
> > is not probable.
>
> For many people it would be. If Norman leaves, Jarman might ask
> around for him, being his friend. I can`t anyone looking for Oz for any
> reason, most said they never talked to him. In fact, slipping out might
> be something that would appeal to Oz.
>

Of course, it's the new fad.

> > > > > > I have in another thread just posted where
> > > > > > Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> > > > > > showed people. Leads are there for the asking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
> > > > > eagerly ignores good information.
> > > > >
> > > > Bad, because it goes against what you are trying to prove and what
> > > > other's have emphatically said in their experiences and interviews.
> > >
> > > Bad, in that it is usually ridiculous, and contradicted by either
> > > what is known, or common sense.
> > >
> > What is known, is facts that don't add up for Oz to have that gun
> > worked on and taken to the TSBD when all the information is sorted
> > through.
>
> <snicker>
>
> > It's obvious that he was being very careless if he was
> > planning to do the JFK deed, and well if he was being set up, necessary
> > to have incidents like this where people could assume his involvement
> > and guilt.
>
> So, as I understand it, you mean it`s suspicious when evidence does
> turn up indicating his guilt, and you are suspicious when it doesn`t.
>

Nothing in this thread indicates his guilt. That's something you
assumed already and tie into any thread you wander in.

And you would know about this claim because?

> > > > > > Where is the
> > > > > > store, and how far is it away from the TSBD?
> > > > >
> > > > > My guess is that it`s in Irving.
> > > > >
> > > > I have no idea.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can derive a clue from the name "Irving Sports Shop".
> > > Help you any?
> > >
> > Well, now how far is Irving from the TSBD?
>
> Dunno. Try google maps.
>

Probably not near, since he had to get a ride there.

> > > > There is one that is not in Dallas that you might be
> > > > worried about though.
> > >
> > > An Irving?
> > >
> > No, from that other shop in that other town in the article I posted up
> > above.
>
> You chase your tail alone on that one. I only looked into this one
> to see how Ben was misrepresenting this evidence. I`ve determined that
> to my satisfaction.
>

Your motivation speaks well. I rather put a researcher down in my own
mind than care about the case overall.

If somebody kills a President, and you were next to the accused
assassin, anyone would try to remember as much about that person as
possible. Truly wouldn't have had to go down that far of a list of
things to remember.

And assassins go around town broadcasting how their going to do in the
President before they attempt their deed.

You mentioned somebody in the gunshop saw Oz and called it in
anonymously.

> > > > You will not attempt to reason on it because of your kook
> > > > pride.
> > >
> > > Is that what Ben was doing, reasoning when he was fabricating
> > > shadowy figures planting evidence to frame Oz?
> > >
> > Because the evidence indicates that.
>
> No, that silliness is just the usual result of feverish kook
> imagination
>

Because you have a set scenario that can't be proved and avoid all
other evidence.

And Bud is really Bin Laden.

CJ

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 12:41:48 PM7/22/06
to
In article <1153580618.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
curtj...@webtv.net says...


And yet, Bud can't quote a single statement of mine, and show otherwise. I
pulled my information *DIRECTLY* from the WCR, and Bud is upset that he can't
defend the WCR. How sad!


The "idea" is still there, and is still the only logical way to explain what
happened. Your 'explanations' have fallen flat.

There was a pattern of impersonating LHO that you simply have no explanation
for.

Bud

unread,
Jul 22, 2006, 1:30:41 PM7/22/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > > It requires a devise to boresight a rifle. A devise gunshops have.
> > > >
> > > The tag is a non-issue at this point.
> >
> > Sure, after Ruby killed the person who had the work done.
> >
> No, because there is nothing compelling about the tag, that ID's Oswald
> as the one who brought the gun in.

Compelling is in the eye of the beholder. There is information that
indicates it was. There is not information that indicates Ben version
of the event is true.

> > > I could have been left by
> > > anybody.
> >

> > But the indication are is was Oswald. And since there are strong


> > indications he killed JFK, and this work was performed shortly after
> > JFK`s trip to Dallas was announced, it is possible to surmise why Oz
> > had work on his rifle done.
> >
> You let your own emotion and prejudice of the other aspect of the case
> influence the instance were talking about.

Of course other aspects of the case impact on my considerations. You
kooks like to isolate and microanalyze events, as if things occur in a
vacuum. If Mrs Markum says she saw a man with a handgun kill a cop, and
the Dallas police pick up a man who happens to be carrying a handgun,
and she picks out that same man as the person she saw, without
knowledge of him being caught with a gun in his possession, those are
corroborating pieces of information.

> There is no indication that
> Oswald brought in that rifle,

Except carrying a long, paper covered package into work that day,
and denying to the police that he had done so.

> especially with what has been uncovered.
>
>
> > > Sometimes people drop stuff off for other people.
> >
> > Unlikely. Guns are like cars, the owner know the machine, and the
> > problems with it
> > best.
> >
> 'He' even told the problem to the lady at the furniture store. Said
> something about a plumber for his gun. A good indication that if he
> was on the prowl to kill a President, he would not be so outgoing and
> non-chalant about divulging anything about the gun in that type of
> manner.

Well, thats how criminals are caught. They stay at motels close to
the crime under their own names. Three things to consider... one, the
store he walked into had a sign that said "Guns" outside of it. If he
thought it was a gunshop, wouldn`t he need to tell the people there why
he was there? Secondly, Oz may have thought he was likely to be caught
red-handed at the scene of the crime, making subterfuge unnecessay, and
thirdly, if Oz dropped his drawers on the third floor of the TSBD, and
mooned everyone in Dealey Plaza, would it be required that I explain
this behavior to conclude that he shot JFK?

> > > Usually
> > > somebody will sign for their work to be done.
> >
> > Sure, the whole thing seems sloppy. How can they pay taxes on income
> > derived from work performed if they don`t keep records?
> >
> I mean for the estimate of repairs. A signature would have been nice
> to trace.

Like the Alex Hidel signature that is in Oz`s handwriting? Isn`t
that claimed to be faked by kooks?

> > > I guess there was no
> > > 'LHO' sig on this one?
> >
> > Only the name "Oswald" on the tag.
> >
> Which was somebody probably announcing the name, and it being written
> by an employee.

Brilliant.

> > > Anyway, whatever was done to the gun, to have
> > > any impact, on IDing, would be to have what was done workwise to be
> > > examined.
> >
> > The most help would have come from the person who did the work
> > remembering both the work, the customer, and the rifle.
> >
> That might be ideal, but not absolutely necessary to show what is a
> very typical piece of work.

?

> > > I am sure if there was work done, it could be segregated
> > > from what was just a 'plain mount' from the manufacturer. Only one
> > > that would have been concerned would have already looked into it, or as
> > > I mentioned, it could be looked at now, if the NA would let someone
> > > look at it.
> >
> > I don`t see what could be determined at this point.
> >
> If there was any work done that could be concluded as extra or beyond
> what would already come with a gun, namely extra holes or holes that
> are tampered with to modify something.

I suspect that many of these rifles had previous owners, who could
have altered them.

> > > > > > > And why
> > > > > > > not follow up when somebody calls something in?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
> > > > > > them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
> > > > > > taken his rifle there to have work done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > But Oz already had work done on a scoped rifle from the interviews at
> > > > > the Sports Drome Firing Range.
> > > >
> > > > Do you have a tag?
> > > >
> > > Tags could be important, but I don't know if anyone has investigated
> > > the statement taken by the witnesses at the Sport's Drome. Here is
> > > what was said, according to research:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html
> >
> > I`m not interested in Oz sightings, thats kook fodder. Impossible to
> > determine if they are red herrings or not, especially now.
> >
> LOL, don't let the cooties bite ya.

It`s your tale, you chase it. It doesn`t have anything to do with
the scenario Ben concocted using misrepresentations of the evidence
which I chose to address.

> Of course, these are real people
> that like to shoot guns for a hobby that frequent those places. I
> think even one gave Oz a ride home, and looked in his scope, and
> watched him shoot. If that doesn't interest you, then I guess the
> whole JFK case doesn't interest you that much.

Like I mentioned to you before, if you would have taken a picture of
Chapman (the Lennon killer), and showed his picture around New York to
a few thousand people, I`d expect dozens of people saying they saw
Chapman doing things he never did, and being at places he never was.
The more extraordinary the information the witneses relate, the higher
the hurdle is for taking it at face value. Like with the scenario Ben
presented compared to the one I did using the same information. Ben was
pushing an incredible and extraordinary scenario, and I presented a
ordinary, resonable one (and you can`t tell which is which). I said
that the best explaination is that Oz, known rifle owner, took his
rifle to a gunshop for work to be done on it. I know it is a lot less
interesting than Ben`s version, but reality often is.

> > > > > And who was the caller that you have
> > > > > pulled out of a hat?
> > > >
> > > > Ann Onymous.
> > > >
> > > Maybe it was Ann Archy for all who knows. One thing though, it's not
> > > the ladies at the furniture store as they were interviewed by the WC
> > > and that had to be eons later than the call-in. If it wasn't the
> > > people at the gunshop who seem to know nothing, then it must be
> > > somebody else. Maybe it was 'LHO', Marina, or the other lady that was
> > > with them? If it's not sinister, who else could it be?
> >
> > Another customer who was in the store when Oz brought his rifle in.
> > This person could have seeen pictures of Oz on TV after the
> > assassination, and said "Hey, I saw that guy, at the Irving Sports
> > Shop", and called it in anonymously to the media outlet (either radio
> > or newspaper, I forget which). I realize is much too mundane to suit
> > the average kook, but there it is.
> >
> That is a stretch if there was even one there.

It`s a stretch for someone who was in the store and saw Oz to say
they saw Oz in the store? A stretch that other people were in the store
besides people who worked there?

> And why would he notice
> over what the person that would deal with him face to face? What
> particulars was given about this call? Did they say anything
> provocative?

Not sure, just the information that they saw Oz at this gunshop, I
think. Interesting you took the anonymous tip by the woman claiming she
had a fender bender with Tippit at face value. That couldn`t have been
some early CT trying to inject some mystery into the case?

<SNIP>

> Maybe since it was not the weapon, they didn't see any work that was
> done.

True. But my point was that it wasn`t the kind of intense, involved
work that would stick in a person`s mind. Would an auto mechanic
remember the particulars of some car he changed the oil on a month
later, or the customer who brought it in? It`s not suspicious that they
would forget is the point, although you find anytime the record doesn`t
give you instant satisfaction suspicious.

> > > > > > > National Archives
> > > > > > > must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> > > > > > > LNTdom.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
> > > > > > these.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Any expert or layman must be able to discern what was previously holed
> > > > > and what was rebored.
> > > >
> > > > Then feel free to produce what this expert or layman found, because
> > > > I didn`t find anything on it.
> > > >
> > > Since you are sounding like an expert, why don't you go?...<snick>
> >
> > I`ve looked into this enough to suit me. Just far enough to
> > determine where Ben was misrepresenting this evidence.
> >
> But not far enough to do any real investigating.

Showing Ben to be lying about the evidence he was presenting was my
intended destination, not explaining this event to your satisfaction.


I`m gonna pare some old content out here <SNIP>


> > Likely untrue.
> >
> Likely very true. Witnesses commented on the pristineness of the scope
> sight.

You`re making that word up.

> > > and the guy that was at the furniture store drove off,
> >
> > Who said he "drove off"?
> >
> > > not the other's, and Oz supposedly didn't drive and had no vehicle, and
> > > was supposedly most likely at work......
> >
> > On what day, Curt?
> >
> On the day they were at the Furniture Store for one.

Which was?

<SNIP>

> > Methinks you`re a poor candidate for determining the "unusual".
> >
> When you don't face the evidence your crutch crystal ball comes in
> handy.

Just pointing out once again that you don`t have the necessities to
be even looking at this case. You have no critical thinking skills,
some kooksite can make any ridiculous claim, and you consider it
gospel, just the total "unfit for the task at hand" package.

> > > > > One must go out of the way to provide alternative ways
> > > > > to get Oz there.
> > > >
> > > > Yah, it`s in Iriving, where his wife lived, that rules out Oz going
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > > And the ladies knew Marina because they shopped at the same grocery,
> > > etc...so we know one thing, Marina lied, as those ladies remembered
> > > everything, and Marina knew that it would lead to the real Lee if she
> > > spilled the beans.
> >
> > Oh, I think Marina lied about not remembering the encounter in the
> > furniture store with these ladies. I suspect she had more of an inkling
> > of what Oz was up to than she let on, hoping for the best. She played
> > the hand she was dealt perfectly, getting the best outcome she could
> > for herself and her family. A crafty, cunning cunt there, in my
> > opinion.
> >
> Or she was up to. Or what the whole assassination operation was up to.

Thousands of participants. All silent. But, Marina played her hand
masterfully, even invoked sympathy and support from strangers. Likely
she had more of an inkling of Oz`s plots and plans then she let on to
the authorities.

> > > > > No fair 'looking' when Oz had no missing days at
> > > > > work.
> > > >
> > > > What days? The store manager said it was likely between the 1st and
> > > > the 14th. That gives two Saturdays, which Oz didn`t work.
> > > >
> > > Well, I guess it's possible, but Oz leaving work to go through all this
> > > is not probable.
> >
> > For many people it would be. If Norman leaves, Jarman might ask
> > around for him, being his friend. I can`t anyone looking for Oz for any
> > reason, most said they never talked to him. In fact, slipping out might
> > be something that would appeal to Oz.
> >
> Of course, it's the new fad.

Just fits in with what other people said about him. Liked to fool
people, made him feel superior, that kind of thing.

> > > > > > > I have in another thread just posted where
> > > > > > > Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> > > > > > > showed people. Leads are there for the asking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
> > > > > > eagerly ignores good information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Bad, because it goes against what you are trying to prove and what
> > > > > other's have emphatically said in their experiences and interviews.
> > > >
> > > > Bad, in that it is usually ridiculous, and contradicted by either
> > > > what is known, or common sense.
> > > >
> > > What is known, is facts that don't add up for Oz to have that gun
> > > worked on and taken to the TSBD when all the information is sorted
> > > through.
> >
> > <snicker>
> >
> > > It's obvious that he was being very careless if he was
> > > planning to do the JFK deed, and well if he was being set up, necessary
> > > to have incidents like this where people could assume his involvement
> > > and guilt.
> >
> > So, as I understand it, you mean it`s suspicious when evidence does
> > turn up indicating his guilt, and you are suspicious when it doesn`t.
> >
> Nothing in this thread indicates his guilt.

Sure it does. It just doesn`t show on kook radar.

> That's something you
> assumed already and tie into any thread you wander in.

No, it isn`t assumed, it`s supported. Look at the major components,
rifle and Oz, here, and on 11-22.

<SNIP>

> > > > An Irving?
> > > >
> > > No, from that other shop in that other town in the article I posted up
> > > above.
> >
> > You chase your tail alone on that one. I only looked into this one
> > to see how Ben was misrepresenting this evidence. I`ve determined that
> > to my satisfaction.
> >
> Your motivation speaks well. I rather put a researcher down in my own
> mind than care about the case overall.

So I was wrong to point out that Ben (no researcher, just a
regurgitator of kook factoids he reads in crackpot conspiracy book)
lied several times about the evidence he was presenting to concoct this
kooky conspiracy scenario? Read the post title, he represents this as
something LN fins disturbing, which is true, we find kooks lying about
the evidence to be disturbing. Can you admit that Ben misrepresented
the facts in his orignal post?

<SNIP>

> If somebody kills a President, and you were next to the accused
> assassin, anyone would try to remember as much about that person as
> possible. Truly wouldn't have had to go down that far of a list of
> things to remember.

So, this is what it comes down to, you asserting what Truly should
or shouldn`t remember?

<SNIP>


> > Where do you see that I mentioned the people who work in the
> > gunshop?
> >
> You mentioned somebody in the gunshop saw Oz and called it in
> anonymously.

Yah, in stores and shops there are often people who work there, and
sometimes these other people, who are called customers. Just because
you rule out the one group of people who might be in a store or shop,
that doesn`t mean you have ruled out the other.

> > > > > You will not attempt to reason on it because of your kook
> > > > > pride.
> > > >
> > > > Is that what Ben was doing, reasoning when he was fabricating
> > > > shadowy figures planting evidence to frame Oz?
> > > >
> > > Because the evidence indicates that.
> >
> > No, that silliness is just the usual result of feverish kook
> > imagination
> >
> Because you have a set scenario that can't be proved and avoid all
> other evidence.

The evidence Ben lied about, and I corrected? I`m nor
misrepresenting the evidence to lead in a certain direction, it goes
that way on it`s own. People said they told Oz about this shop to get
his rifle repaired, anonymous person said he was at this shop, at the
shop was physical evidence in the form of a tag with the name "Oswald"
on it.

Time for a <SNIP>

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 24, 2006, 10:14:07 AM7/24/06
to
Bud wrote:
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Bud wrote:
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > > > It requires a devise to boresight a rifle. A devise gunshops have.
> > > > >
> > > > The tag is a non-issue at this point.
> > >
> > > Sure, after Ruby killed the person who had the work done.
> > >
> > No, because there is nothing compelling about the tag, that ID's Oswald
> > as the one who brought the gun in.
>
> Compelling is in the eye of the beholder. There is information that
> indicates it was. There is not information that indicates Ben version
> of the event is true.
>
It's not compelling that TSBD Oswald was connected with 'the tag'.

> > > > I could have been left by
> > > > anybody.
> > >
> > > But the indication are is was Oswald. And since there are strong
> > > indications he killed JFK, and this work was performed shortly after
> > > JFK`s trip to Dallas was announced, it is possible to surmise why Oz
> > > had work on his rifle done.
> > >
> > You let your own emotion and prejudice of the other aspect of the case
> > influence the instance were talking about.
>
> Of course other aspects of the case impact on my considerations. You
> kooks like to isolate and microanalyze events, as if things occur in a
> vacuum. If Mrs Markum says she saw a man with a handgun kill a cop, and
> the Dallas police pick up a man who happens to be carrying a handgun,
> and she picks out that same man as the person she saw, without
> knowledge of him being caught with a gun in his possession, those are
> corroborating pieces of information.
>

Your all too revealing in how you 'decide'.

> > There is no indication that
> > Oswald brought in that rifle,
>
> Except carrying a long, paper covered package into work that day,
> and denying to the police that he had done so.
>

One that wouldnt' fit a weapon that was supposedly the murder weapon.
No gun oil on it. Not long enough to be a gun when he carried it in
the manner he did. Curtain rods were found at DPD later...yadda,
yadda, yadda.

> > especially with what has been uncovered.
> >
> >
> > > > Sometimes people drop stuff off for other people.
> > >
> > > Unlikely. Guns are like cars, the owner know the machine, and the
> > > problems with it
> > > best.
> > >
> > 'He' even told the problem to the lady at the furniture store. Said
> > something about a plumber for his gun. A good indication that if he
> > was on the prowl to kill a President, he would not be so outgoing and
> > non-chalant about divulging anything about the gun in that type of
> > manner.
>
> Well, thats how criminals are caught. They stay at motels close to
> the crime under their own names. Three things to consider... one, the
> store he walked into had a sign that said "Guns" outside of it. If he
> thought it was a gunshop, wouldn`t he need to tell the people there why
> he was there? Secondly, Oz may have thought he was likely to be caught
> red-handed at the scene of the crime, making subterfuge unnecessay, and
> thirdly, if Oz dropped his drawers on the third floor of the TSBD, and
> mooned everyone in Dealey Plaza, would it be required that I explain
> this behavior to conclude that he shot JFK?
>

But there at least is no need for him to bring others along and to go
on about the gun. Of course people do make clumsy mistakes. In this
case clumsiness would go into another category.


> > > > Usually
> > > > somebody will sign for their work to be done.
> > >
> > > Sure, the whole thing seems sloppy. How can they pay taxes on income
> > > derived from work performed if they don`t keep records?
> > >
> > I mean for the estimate of repairs. A signature would have been nice
> > to trace.
>
> Like the Alex Hidel signature that is in Oz`s handwriting? Isn`t
> that claimed to be faked by kooks?
>

Supposedly used by aliases.

> > > > I guess there was no
> > > > 'LHO' sig on this one?
> > >
> > > Only the name "Oswald" on the tag.
> > >
> > Which was somebody probably announcing the name, and it being written
> > by an employee.
>
> Brilliant.
>

Well not brilliant enough for good record keeping. At least Klein's
wrote down the serial number of the gun. Most people get a phone
number or something the client, instead of just dropping off something
without nothing other than a name.

> > > > Anyway, whatever was done to the gun, to have
> > > > any impact, on IDing, would be to have what was done workwise to be
> > > > examined.
> > >
> > > The most help would have come from the person who did the work
> > > remembering both the work, the customer, and the rifle.
> > >
> > That might be ideal, but not absolutely necessary to show what is a
> > very typical piece of work.
>
> ?
>

You don't need the person who did the work to make an intelligent
decision concerning the work.


> > > > I am sure if there was work done, it could be segregated
> > > > from what was just a 'plain mount' from the manufacturer. Only one
> > > > that would have been concerned would have already looked into it, or as
> > > > I mentioned, it could be looked at now, if the NA would let someone
> > > > look at it.
> > >
> > > I don`t see what could be determined at this point.
> > >
> > If there was any work done that could be concluded as extra or beyond
> > what would already come with a gun, namely extra holes or holes that
> > are tampered with to modify something.
>
> I suspect that many of these rifles had previous owners, who could
> have altered them.
>

So the weapon from Klein's was a used weapon?

> > > > > > > > And why
> > > > > > > > not follow up when somebody calls something in?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
> > > > > > > them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
> > > > > > > taken his rifle there to have work done.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > But Oz already had work done on a scoped rifle from the interviews at
> > > > > > the Sports Drome Firing Range.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have a tag?
> > > > >
> > > > Tags could be important, but I don't know if anyone has investigated
> > > > the statement taken by the witnesses at the Sport's Drome. Here is
> > > > what was said, according to research:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html
> > >
> > > I`m not interested in Oz sightings, thats kook fodder. Impossible to
> > > determine if they are red herrings or not, especially now.
> > >
> > LOL, don't let the cooties bite ya.
>
> It`s your tale, you chase it. It doesn`t have anything to do with
> the scenario Ben concocted using misrepresentations of the evidence
> which I chose to address.
>

The tale is by people who were contacted by the FBI and WC, but I don't
blame you for not making them 'all conclusive' and 'worthy of
merit'....<snick>

> > Of course, these are real people
> > that like to shoot guns for a hobby that frequent those places. I
> > think even one gave Oz a ride home, and looked in his scope, and
> > watched him shoot. If that doesn't interest you, then I guess the
> > whole JFK case doesn't interest you that much.
>
> Like I mentioned to you before, if you would have taken a picture of
> Chapman (the Lennon killer), and showed his picture around New York to
> a few thousand people, I`d expect dozens of people saying they saw
> Chapman doing things he never did, and being at places he never was.
> The more extraordinary the information the witneses relate, the higher
> the hurdle is for taking it at face value. Like with the scenario Ben
> presented compared to the one I did using the same information. Ben was
> pushing an incredible and extraordinary scenario, and I presented a
> ordinary, resonable one (and you can`t tell which is which). I said
> that the best explaination is that Oz, known rifle owner, took his
> rifle to a gunshop for work to be done on it. I know it is a lot less
> interesting than Ben`s version, but reality often is.
>

'Oz' was at the Sports Drome so many times that many knew him by name.

> > > > > > And who was the caller that you have
> > > > > > pulled out of a hat?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ann Onymous.
> > > > >
> > > > Maybe it was Ann Archy for all who knows. One thing though, it's not
> > > > the ladies at the furniture store as they were interviewed by the WC
> > > > and that had to be eons later than the call-in. If it wasn't the
> > > > people at the gunshop who seem to know nothing, then it must be
> > > > somebody else. Maybe it was 'LHO', Marina, or the other lady that was
> > > > with them? If it's not sinister, who else could it be?
> > >
> > > Another customer who was in the store when Oz brought his rifle in.
> > > This person could have seeen pictures of Oz on TV after the
> > > assassination, and said "Hey, I saw that guy, at the Irving Sports
> > > Shop", and called it in anonymously to the media outlet (either radio
> > > or newspaper, I forget which). I realize is much too mundane to suit
> > > the average kook, but there it is.
> > >
> > That is a stretch if there was even one there.
>
> It`s a stretch for someone who was in the store and saw Oz to say
> they saw Oz in the store? A stretch that other people were in the store
> besides people who worked there?
>

It is when they can't remember the work on the gun. If they can't
remember the gun, you expect them to remember the person? And did
they?

> > And why would he notice
> > over what the person that would deal with him face to face? What
> > particulars was given about this call? Did they say anything
> > provocative?
>
> Not sure, just the information that they saw Oz at this gunshop, I
> think. Interesting you took the anonymous tip by the woman claiming she
> had a fender bender with Tippit at face value. That couldn`t have been
> some early CT trying to inject some mystery into the case?
>

She called it in without any provocation. There was nothing sinister
that was applied other than the weird behavior.

> <SNIP>
>
> > Maybe since it was not the weapon, they didn't see any work that was
> > done.
>
> True. But my point was that it wasn`t the kind of intense, involved
> work that would stick in a person`s mind. Would an auto mechanic
> remember the particulars of some car he changed the oil on a month
> later, or the customer who brought it in? It`s not suspicious that they
> would forget is the point, although you find anytime the record doesn`t
> give you instant satisfaction suspicious.
>

Well if they remember fine. Bud what did they remember?

> > > > > > > > National Archives
> > > > > > > > must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> > > > > > > > LNTdom.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
> > > > > > > these.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Any expert or layman must be able to discern what was previously holed
> > > > > > and what was rebored.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then feel free to produce what this expert or layman found, because
> > > > > I didn`t find anything on it.
> > > > >
> > > > Since you are sounding like an expert, why don't you go?...<snick>
> > >
> > > I`ve looked into this enough to suit me. Just far enough to
> > > determine where Ben was misrepresenting this evidence.
> > >
> > But not far enough to do any real investigating.
>
> Showing Ben to be lying about the evidence he was presenting was my
> intended destination, not explaining this event to your satisfaction.
>

If you don't think their is complete absolutism, then it is unworthy in
your opinion.

>
> I`m gonna pare some old content out here <SNIP>
>
>
> > > Likely untrue.
> > >
> > Likely very true. Witnesses commented on the pristineness of the scope
> > sight.
>
> You`re making that word up.
>

Nope, said it was a real dandy. Read the article. You didn't snip
that out.

> > > > and the guy that was at the furniture store drove off,
> > >
> > > Who said he "drove off"?
> > >
> > > > not the other's, and Oz supposedly didn't drive and had no vehicle, and
> > > > was supposedly most likely at work......
> > >
> > > On what day, Curt?
> > >
> > On the day they were at the Furniture Store for one.
>
> Which was?
>

Well the 4th thru the 8th is during the week.

> <SNIP>
>
> > > Methinks you`re a poor candidate for determining the "unusual".
> > >
> > When you don't face the evidence your crutch crystal ball comes in
> > handy.
>
> Just pointing out once again that you don`t have the necessities to
> be even looking at this case. You have no critical thinking skills,
> some kooksite can make any ridiculous claim, and you consider it
> gospel, just the total "unfit for the task at hand" package.
>

This aspect doesn't even seem to difficult for anybody...<snick>

> > > > > > One must go out of the way to provide alternative ways
> > > > > > to get Oz there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yah, it`s in Iriving, where his wife lived, that rules out Oz going
> > > > > there.
> > > > >
> > > > And the ladies knew Marina because they shopped at the same grocery,
> > > > etc...so we know one thing, Marina lied, as those ladies remembered
> > > > everything, and Marina knew that it would lead to the real Lee if she
> > > > spilled the beans.
> > >
> > > Oh, I think Marina lied about not remembering the encounter in the
> > > furniture store with these ladies. I suspect she had more of an inkling
> > > of what Oz was up to than she let on, hoping for the best. She played
> > > the hand she was dealt perfectly, getting the best outcome she could
> > > for herself and her family. A crafty, cunning cunt there, in my
> > > opinion.
> > >
> > Or she was up to. Or what the whole assassination operation was up to.
>
> Thousands of participants. All silent. But, Marina played her hand
> masterfully, even invoked sympathy and support from strangers. Likely
> she had more of an inkling of Oz`s plots and plans then she let on to
> the authorities.
>

I think so, and I think the FBI let her, and even goaded her.

> > > > > > No fair 'looking' when Oz had no missing days at
> > > > > > work.
> > > > >
> > > > > What days? The store manager said it was likely between the 1st and
> > > > > the 14th. That gives two Saturdays, which Oz didn`t work.
> > > > >
> > > > Well, I guess it's possible, but Oz leaving work to go through all this
> > > > is not probable.
> > >
> > > For many people it would be. If Norman leaves, Jarman might ask
> > > around for him, being his friend. I can`t anyone looking for Oz for any
> > > reason, most said they never talked to him. In fact, slipping out might
> > > be something that would appeal to Oz.
> > >
> > Of course, it's the new fad.
>
> Just fits in with what other people said about him. Liked to fool
> people, made him feel superior, that kind of thing.
>

Yet, nobody in all their testimony said that Oz left his work site.

> > > > > > > > I have in another thread just posted where
> > > > > > > > Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> > > > > > > > showed people. Leads are there for the asking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
> > > > > > > eagerly ignores good information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Bad, because it goes against what you are trying to prove and what
> > > > > > other's have emphatically said in their experiences and interviews.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bad, in that it is usually ridiculous, and contradicted by either
> > > > > what is known, or common sense.
> > > > >
> > > > What is known, is facts that don't add up for Oz to have that gun
> > > > worked on and taken to the TSBD when all the information is sorted
> > > > through.
> > >
> > > <snicker>
> > >
> > > > It's obvious that he was being very careless if he was
> > > > planning to do the JFK deed, and well if he was being set up, necessary
> > > > to have incidents like this where people could assume his involvement
> > > > and guilt.
> > >
> > > So, as I understand it, you mean it`s suspicious when evidence does
> > > turn up indicating his guilt, and you are suspicious when it doesn`t.
> > >
> > Nothing in this thread indicates his guilt.
>
> Sure it does. It just doesn`t show on kook radar.
>

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

> > That's something you
> > assumed already and tie into any thread you wander in.
>
> No, it isn`t assumed, it`s supported. Look at the major components,
> rifle and Oz, here, and on 11-22.
>

If that's 'all' you need, then why bother going further?

> <SNIP>
>
> > > > > An Irving?
> > > > >
> > > > No, from that other shop in that other town in the article I posted up
> > > > above.
> > >
> > > You chase your tail alone on that one. I only looked into this one
> > > to see how Ben was misrepresenting this evidence. I`ve determined that
> > > to my satisfaction.
> > >
> > Your motivation speaks well. I rather put a researcher down in my own
> > mind than care about the case overall.
>
> So I was wrong to point out that Ben (no researcher, just a
> regurgitator of kook factoids he reads in crackpot conspiracy book)
> lied several times about the evidence he was presenting to concoct this
> kooky conspiracy scenario? Read the post title, he represents this as
> something LN fins disturbing, which is true, we find kooks lying about
> the evidence to be disturbing. Can you admit that Ben misrepresented
> the facts in his orignal post?
>

Actually he could have gone much further, and much of what he said
comes from the WC, without the aid of researchers which even
corroborate more, which you refuse to look or acknowledge.

> <SNIP>
>
> > If somebody kills a President, and you were next to the accused
> > assassin, anyone would try to remember as much about that person as
> > possible. Truly wouldn't have had to go down that far of a list of
> > things to remember.
>
> So, this is what it comes down to, you asserting what Truly should
> or shouldn`t remember?
>

Should have, no doubt.

> <SNIP>
>
>
> > > Where do you see that I mentioned the people who work in the
> > > gunshop?
> > >
> > You mentioned somebody in the gunshop saw Oz and called it in
> > anonymously.
>
> Yah, in stores and shops there are often people who work there, and
> sometimes these other people, who are called customers. Just because
> you rule out the one group of people who might be in a store or shop,
> that doesn`t mean you have ruled out the other.
>

It's hard when it's anonymous, but of all the people that had closer
contact than that potential scenario and didn't call in a tip.

> > > > > > You will not attempt to reason on it because of your kook
> > > > > > pride.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that what Ben was doing, reasoning when he was fabricating
> > > > > shadowy figures planting evidence to frame Oz?
> > > > >
> > > > Because the evidence indicates that.
> > >
> > > No, that silliness is just the usual result of feverish kook
> > > imagination
> > >
> > Because you have a set scenario that can't be proved and avoid all
> > other evidence.
>
> The evidence Ben lied about, and I corrected? I`m nor
> misrepresenting the evidence to lead in a certain direction, it goes
> that way on it`s own. People said they told Oz about this shop to get
> his rifle repaired, anonymous person said he was at this shop, at the
> shop was physical evidence in the form of a tag with the name "Oswald"
> on it.

All you did is claim, and since he killifiled you, and doesn't respond
directly, then you blubber about how you did this and that and how you
reduced his topic. I don't think so.

CJ
>
> Time for a <SNIP>

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jul 24, 2006, 10:56:30 AM7/24/06
to
In article <1153750447.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
curtj...@webtv.net says...

>
>Bud wrote:
>> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
>> > Bud wrote:
>> > > <SNIP>
>> > >
>>> > > > It requires a devise to boresight a rifle. A devise gunshops have.
>> > > > >
>> > > > The tag is a non-issue at this point.
>> > >
>> > > Sure, after Ruby killed the person who had the work done.
>> > >
>> > No, because there is nothing compelling about the tag, that ID's Oswald
>> > as the one who brought the gun in.
>>
>> Compelling is in the eye of the beholder. There is information that
>> indicates it was. There is not information that indicates Ben version
>> of the event is true.


Of course there is. The simple fact that the rifle COULD NOT HAVE HAD THE WORK
PERFORMED ON IT.

It's just that simple.


Yes, it was, as I recall.

But Bud's problem is *STILL* the same. The rifle has *NONE* of the work
allegedly performed on it.

Based *ENTIRELY* on the WCR. (How embarrassing this must be to a WCR
supporter!)


>> and I presented a
>> ordinary, resonable one (and you can`t tell which is which). I said
>> that the best explaination is that Oz, known rifle owner, took his
>> rifle to a gunshop for work to be done on it. I know it is a lot less
>> interesting than Ben`s version, but reality often is.

The proof of *MY* version is in the lack of work done to the rifle. Your
version is not only speculative, but entirely *lacking* in evidence.


Rather weak compared to the fact that the rifle *HAD NOT HAD THE WORK PERFORMED
ON IT.

And yet, Bud can't quote the alleged "lie" and cite the relevant citations that
make it so.

Strange, is it not?


>> Read the post title, he represents this as
>> something LN fins disturbing, which is true, we find kooks lying about
>> the evidence to be disturbing. Can you admit that Ben misrepresented
>> the facts in his orignal post?

How can *anyone*? You can't quote any such "misrepresentation"... it came
directly from the WCR.

What did you correct? I can't seem to find it. Oh, perhaps you're "correcting"
that Oswald really *did* go there and have the work performed on the rifle?

Then all you need to provide is the cite to the FBI examination of the rifle
that shows that the work was done.

I won't be holding my breath...


>> I`m nor
>> misrepresenting the evidence to lead in a certain direction,


Are you truly admitting that the WCR "misrepresented" the evidence???


>> it goes
>> that way on it`s own. People said they told Oz about this shop to get
>> his rifle repaired, anonymous person said he was at this shop, at the
>> shop was physical evidence in the form of a tag with the name "Oswald"
>> on it.
>
>All you did is claim, and since he killifiled you, and doesn't respond
>directly, then you blubber about how you did this and that and how you
>reduced his topic. I don't think so.
>
>CJ

Bud often likes to play the clown... and life is too short to deal with clowns.


>> Time for a <SNIP>

Bud

unread,
Jul 24, 2006, 12:24:34 PM7/24/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Bud wrote:
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > > > It requires a devise to boresight a rifle. A devise gunshops have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > The tag is a non-issue at this point.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, after Ruby killed the person who had the work done.
> > > >
> > > No, because there is nothing compelling about the tag, that ID's Oswald
> > > as the one who brought the gun in.
> >
> > Compelling is in the eye of the beholder. There is information that
> > indicates it was. There is not information that indicates Ben version
> > of the event is true.
> >
> It's not compelling that TSBD Oswald was connected with 'the tag'.

If there was a picyure of Oswald posing with the tag it wouldn`t be
compelling to you, Curt. You`re a kook, what can I tell you?

> > > > > I could have been left by
> > > > > anybody.
> > > >
> > > > But the indication are is was Oswald. And since there are strong
> > > > indications he killed JFK, and this work was performed shortly after
> > > > JFK`s trip to Dallas was announced, it is possible to surmise why Oz
> > > > had work on his rifle done.
> > > >
> > > You let your own emotion and prejudice of the other aspect of the case
> > > influence the instance were talking about.
> >
> > Of course other aspects of the case impact on my considerations. You
> > kooks like to isolate and microanalyze events, as if things occur in a
> > vacuum. If Mrs Markum says she saw a man with a handgun kill a cop, and
> > the Dallas police pick up a man who happens to be carrying a handgun,
> > and she picks out that same man as the person she saw, without
> > knowledge of him being caught with a gun in his possession, those are
> > corroborating pieces of information.
> >
> Your all too revealing in how you 'decide'.

I decide that ordinary citizens honestly (and probably imperfectly)
told the police what they witnessed because there is no good reason not
to.

> > > There is no indication that
> > > Oswald brought in that rifle,
> >
> > Except carrying a long, paper covered package into work that day,
> > and denying to the police that he had done so.
> >
> One that wouldnt' fit a weapon that was supposedly the murder weapon.

You know of someone who measured the bag Oz was carrying.

> No gun oil on it. Not long enough to be a gun when he carried it in
> the manner he did. Curtain rods were found at DPD later...yadda,
> yadda, yadda.

Yah, that is all the silly kook excuses the Oswald defense team has
come up with. Not a one compelling enough to disregard the amazing and
extraordinary coincidence of Oz carrying a long package into work the
day his rifle was used to commit murder from there.

> > > especially with what has been uncovered.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Sometimes people drop stuff off for other people.
> > > >
> > > > Unlikely. Guns are like cars, the owner know the machine, and the
> > > > problems with it
> > > > best.
> > > >
> > > 'He' even told the problem to the lady at the furniture store. Said
> > > something about a plumber for his gun. A good indication that if he
> > > was on the prowl to kill a President, he would not be so outgoing and
> > > non-chalant about divulging anything about the gun in that type of
> > > manner.
> >
> > Well, thats how criminals are caught. They stay at motels close to
> > the crime under their own names. Three things to consider... one, the
> > store he walked into had a sign that said "Guns" outside of it. If he
> > thought it was a gunshop, wouldn`t he need to tell the people there why
> > he was there? Secondly, Oz may have thought he was likely to be caught
> > red-handed at the scene of the crime, making subterfuge unnecessay, and
> > thirdly, if Oz dropped his drawers on the third floor of the TSBD, and
> > mooned everyone in Dealey Plaza, would it be required that I explain
> > this behavior to conclude that he shot JFK?
> >
> But there at least is no need for him to bring others along and to go
> on about the gun. Of course people do make clumsy mistakes. In this
> case clumsiness would go into another category.

The kook alternative category. Shadowy nameless kook boogiemen.

> > > > > Usually
> > > > > somebody will sign for their work to be done.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, the whole thing seems sloppy. How can they pay taxes on income
> > > > derived from work performed if they don`t keep records?
> > > >
> > > I mean for the estimate of repairs. A signature would have been nice
> > > to trace.
> >
> > Like the Alex Hidel signature that is in Oz`s handwriting? Isn`t
> > that claimed to be faked by kooks?
> >
> Supposedly used by aliases.

Merely pointing out that when thatsignature evidence does exist,
kooks disregard it anyway.

> > > > > I guess there was no
> > > > > 'LHO' sig on this one?
> > > >
> > > > Only the name "Oswald" on the tag.
> > > >
> > > Which was somebody probably announcing the name, and it being written
> > > by an employee.
> >
> > Brilliant.
> >
> Well not brilliant enough for good record keeping. At least Klein's
> wrote down the serial number of the gun. Most people get a phone
> number or something the client, instead of just dropping off something
> without nothing other than a name.

Obviously, the good people at the Irving Sports Shop are hiding
something. Likely they knew this phony "Oswald" wasn`t the man that
dropped off the rifle that day, but just wanted to join the thousands
of other peopleactively working against the poor pitiful patsy.

> > > > > Anyway, whatever was done to the gun, to have
> > > > > any impact, on IDing, would be to have what was done workwise to be
> > > > > examined.
> > > >
> > > > The most help would have come from the person who did the work
> > > > remembering both the work, the customer, and the rifle.
> > > >
> > > That might be ideal, but not absolutely necessary to show what is a
> > > very typical piece of work.
> >
> > ?
> >
> You don't need the person who did the work to make an intelligent
> decision concerning the work.

Like I suggested before, try holding your breath, and maybe the
information you desire will appear.

> > > > > I am sure if there was work done, it could be segregated
> > > > > from what was just a 'plain mount' from the manufacturer. Only one
> > > > > that would have been concerned would have already looked into it, or as
> > > > > I mentioned, it could be looked at now, if the NA would let someone
> > > > > look at it.
> > > >
> > > > I don`t see what could be determined at this point.
> > > >
> > > If there was any work done that could be concluded as extra or beyond
> > > what would already come with a gun, namely extra holes or holes that
> > > are tampered with to modify something.
> >
> > I suspect that many of these rifles had previous owners, who could
> > have altered them.
> >
> So the weapon from Klein's was a used weapon?

Likely army surplus from the Italian Army. Never fired, only dropped
once.

> > > > > > > > > And why
> > > > > > > > > not follow up when somebody calls something in?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They did follow it up. They went to the gunshop the caller referred
> > > > > > > > them to, and physical evidence was discovered there indicating Oz had
> > > > > > > > taken his rifle there to have work done.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But Oz already had work done on a scoped rifle from the interviews at
> > > > > > > the Sports Drome Firing Range.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have a tag?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Tags could be important, but I don't know if anyone has investigated
> > > > > the statement taken by the witnesses at the Sport's Drome. Here is
> > > > > what was said, according to research:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html
> > > >
> > > > I`m not interested in Oz sightings, thats kook fodder. Impossible to
> > > > determine if they are red herrings or not, especially now.
> > > >
> > > LOL, don't let the cooties bite ya.
> >
> > It`s your tale, you chase it. It doesn`t have anything to do with
> > the scenario Ben concocted using misrepresentations of the evidence
> > which I chose to address.
> >
> The tale is by people who were contacted by the FBI and WC, but I don't
> blame you for not making them 'all conclusive' and 'worthy of
> merit'....<snick>

And I don`t blame you for accepting any sighting across the country
of Oz. You don`t possess the tools necessary to seperate wheat from
chafe.

> > > Of course, these are real people
> > > that like to shoot guns for a hobby that frequent those places. I
> > > think even one gave Oz a ride home, and looked in his scope, and
> > > watched him shoot. If that doesn't interest you, then I guess the
> > > whole JFK case doesn't interest you that much.
> >
> > Like I mentioned to you before, if you would have taken a picture of
> > Chapman (the Lennon killer), and showed his picture around New York to
> > a few thousand people, I`d expect dozens of people saying they saw
> > Chapman doing things he never did, and being at places he never was.
> > The more extraordinary the information the witneses relate, the higher
> > the hurdle is for taking it at face value. Like with the scenario Ben
> > presented compared to the one I did using the same information. Ben was
> > pushing an incredible and extraordinary scenario, and I presented a
> > ordinary, resonable one (and you can`t tell which is which). I said
> > that the best explaination is that Oz, known rifle owner, took his
> > rifle to a gunshop for work to be done on it. I know it is a lot less
> > interesting than Ben`s version, but reality often is.
> >
>
> 'Oz' was at the Sports Drome so many times that many knew him by name.

They may have broadcast that name over the television once or twice
after the assassination.

> > > > > > > And who was the caller that you have
> > > > > > > pulled out of a hat?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ann Onymous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Maybe it was Ann Archy for all who knows. One thing though, it's not
> > > > > the ladies at the furniture store as they were interviewed by the WC
> > > > > and that had to be eons later than the call-in. If it wasn't the
> > > > > people at the gunshop who seem to know nothing, then it must be
> > > > > somebody else. Maybe it was 'LHO', Marina, or the other lady that was
> > > > > with them? If it's not sinister, who else could it be?
> > > >
> > > > Another customer who was in the store when Oz brought his rifle in.
> > > > This person could have seeen pictures of Oz on TV after the
> > > > assassination, and said "Hey, I saw that guy, at the Irving Sports
> > > > Shop", and called it in anonymously to the media outlet (either radio
> > > > or newspaper, I forget which). I realize is much too mundane to suit
> > > > the average kook, but there it is.
> > > >
> > > That is a stretch if there was even one there.
> >
> > It`s a stretch for someone who was in the store and saw Oz to say
> > they saw Oz in the store? A stretch that other people were in the store
> > besides people who worked there?
> >
> It is when they can't remember the work on the gun.

Remember when I explained about the two groups of people, customers
and the people who worked in the shop? Just because the people who work
in the shop don`t remember does not rule out the possibility that some
customer who was in the shop when Oz was there did.

> If they can't
> remember the gun, you expect them to remember the person? And did
> they?

No, the people who work there did not. The person who called in the
anonymous tip apparently did.

> > > And why would he notice
> > > over what the person that would deal with him face to face? What
> > > particulars was given about this call? Did they say anything
> > > provocative?
> >
> > Not sure, just the information that they saw Oz at this gunshop, I
> > think. Interesting you took the anonymous tip by the woman claiming she
> > had a fender bender with Tippit at face value. That couldn`t have been
> > some early CT trying to inject some mystery into the case?
> >
>
> She called it in without any provocation. There was nothing sinister
> that was applied other than the weird behavior.

In both cases there is an anonymous call relating information. In
the case of the gunshop, corroborating physical evidence (the tag with
Oz`s name) was found. Do you have evidence of fender damage to Tippit`s
patrol car?

> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > Maybe since it was not the weapon, they didn't see any work that was
> > > done.
> >
> > True. But my point was that it wasn`t the kind of intense, involved
> > work that would stick in a person`s mind. Would an auto mechanic
> > remember the particulars of some car he changed the oil on a month
> > later, or the customer who brought it in? It`s not suspicious that they
> > would forget is the point, although you find anytime the record doesn`t
> > give you instant satisfaction suspicious.
> >
> Well if they remember fine. Bud what did they remember?

The people in the gunshop? Nothing about the work, rifle, or timethe
work may have been performed (except a rough guess of Nov 1st to the
14th, based on what I have little idea). This is possibly "come back in
an hour" work, which could explain why the tag didn`t have more
detailed information, and also why no one remembered the transaction.

> > > > > > > > > National Archives
> > > > > > > > > must be in looking category, not established by rules of evidence in
> > > > > > > > > LNTdom.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looking for what, drilled and tapped holes? Every rifle has many of
> > > > > > > > these.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any expert or layman must be able to discern what was previously holed
> > > > > > > and what was rebored.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then feel free to produce what this expert or layman found, because
> > > > > > I didn`t find anything on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Since you are sounding like an expert, why don't you go?...<snick>
> > > >
> > > > I`ve looked into this enough to suit me. Just far enough to
> > > > determine where Ben was misrepresenting this evidence.
> > > >
> > > But not far enough to do any real investigating.
> >
> > Showing Ben to be lying about the evidence he was presenting was my
> > intended destination, not explaining this event to your satisfaction.
> >
> If you don't think their is complete absolutism, then it is unworthy in
> your opinion.

?

> > I`m gonna pare some old content out here <SNIP>
> >
> >
> > > > Likely untrue.
> > > >
> > > Likely very true. Witnesses commented on the pristineness of the scope
> > > sight.
> >
> > You`re making that word up.
> >
> Nope, said it was a real dandy. Read the article. You didn't snip
> that out.

Like I said, thats your tail to chase. I looked into the issue Ben
raised for reasons which have been satisfied.

> > > > > and the guy that was at the furniture store drove off,
> > > >
> > > > Who said he "drove off"?
> > > >
> > > > > not the other's, and Oz supposedly didn't drive and had no vehicle, and
> > > > > was supposedly most likely at work......
> > > >
> > > > On what day, Curt?
> > > >
> > > On the day they were at the Furniture Store for one.
> >
> > Which was?
> >
> Well the 4th thru the 8th is during the week.

A time frame thus far unsupported by you.

> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > > Methinks you`re a poor candidate for determining the "unusual".
> > > >
> > > When you don't face the evidence your crutch crystal ball comes in
> > > handy.
> >
> > Just pointing out once again that you don`t have the necessities to
> > be even looking at this case. You have no critical thinking skills,
> > some kooksite can make any ridiculous claim, and you consider it
> > gospel, just the total "unfit for the task at hand" package.
> >
> This aspect doesn't even seem to difficult for anybody...<snick>

I can think of one person.

> > > > > > > One must go out of the way to provide alternative ways
> > > > > > > to get Oz there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yah, it`s in Iriving, where his wife lived, that rules out Oz going
> > > > > > there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > And the ladies knew Marina because they shopped at the same grocery,
> > > > > etc...so we know one thing, Marina lied, as those ladies remembered
> > > > > everything, and Marina knew that it would lead to the real Lee if she
> > > > > spilled the beans.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I think Marina lied about not remembering the encounter in the
> > > > furniture store with these ladies. I suspect she had more of an inkling
> > > > of what Oz was up to than she let on, hoping for the best. She played
> > > > the hand she was dealt perfectly, getting the best outcome she could
> > > > for herself and her family. A crafty, cunning cunt there, in my
> > > > opinion.
> > > >
> > > Or she was up to. Or what the whole assassination operation was up to.
> >
> > Thousands of participants. All silent. But, Marina played her hand
> > masterfully, even invoked sympathy and support from strangers. Likely
> > she had more of an inkling of Oz`s plots and plans then she let on to
> > the authorities.
> >
> I think so, and I think the FBI let her, and even goaded her.

"goaded"? Many of the things Marina relates, there is only her word,
because it was only her and Oz involved. Which leaves her to include
and omit information as she sees fit. I personally believe she omitted
some things that would have lost the public`s sympathy for her, such as
this excursion looking for gunshops (likely mixed with more domestic
activity as well).

> > > > > > > No fair 'looking' when Oz had no missing days at
> > > > > > > work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What days? The store manager said it was likely between the 1st and
> > > > > > the 14th. That gives two Saturdays, which Oz didn`t work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well, I guess it's possible, but Oz leaving work to go through all this
> > > > > is not probable.
> > > >
> > > > For many people it would be. If Norman leaves, Jarman might ask
> > > > around for him, being his friend. I can`t anyone looking for Oz for any
> > > > reason, most said they never talked to him. In fact, slipping out might
> > > > be something that would appeal to Oz.
> > > >
> > > Of course, it's the new fad.
> >
> > Just fits in with what other people said about him. Liked to fool
> > people, made him feel superior, that kind of thing.
> >
> Yet, nobody in all their testimony said that Oz left his work site.

Who saw him leave after the assasination?

> > > > > > > > > I have in another thread just posted where
> > > > > > > > > Oz went somewhere else and got a scope mounted in another city, and
> > > > > > > > > showed people. Leads are there for the asking.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yah, but you are a kook who readily accepts bad information, and
> > > > > > > > eagerly ignores good information.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bad, because it goes against what you are trying to prove and what
> > > > > > > other's have emphatically said in their experiences and interviews.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bad, in that it is usually ridiculous, and contradicted by either
> > > > > > what is known, or common sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > What is known, is facts that don't add up for Oz to have that gun
> > > > > worked on and taken to the TSBD when all the information is sorted
> > > > > through.
> > > >
> > > > <snicker>
> > > >
> > > > > It's obvious that he was being very careless if he was
> > > > > planning to do the JFK deed, and well if he was being set up, necessary
> > > > > to have incidents like this where people could assume his involvement
> > > > > and guilt.
> > > >
> > > > So, as I understand it, you mean it`s suspicious when evidence does
> > > > turn up indicating his guilt, and you are suspicious when it doesn`t.
> > > >
> > > Nothing in this thread indicates his guilt.
> >
> > Sure it does. It just doesn`t show on kook radar.
> >
> Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Fingers firmly in ears, LALALALA...

> > > That's something you
> > > assumed already and tie into any thread you wander in.
> >
> > No, it isn`t assumed, it`s supported. Look at the major components,
> > rifle and Oz, here, and on 11-22.
> >
> If that's 'all' you need, then why bother going further?

I haven`t gone anywhere. I made the case that Ben lied about this
evidence, and I`ve made the case that Oz actually did put his rifle in
this shop to have work done on it.

> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > > > > An Irving?
> > > > > >
> > > > > No, from that other shop in that other town in the article I posted up
> > > > > above.
> > > >
> > > > You chase your tail alone on that one. I only looked into this one
> > > > to see how Ben was misrepresenting this evidence. I`ve determined that
> > > > to my satisfaction.
> > > >
> > > Your motivation speaks well. I rather put a researcher down in my own
> > > mind than care about the case overall.
> >
> > So I was wrong to point out that Ben (no researcher, just a

> > regurgitator of kook factoids he reads in crackpot conspiracy books)


> > lied several times about the evidence he was presenting to concoct this
> > kooky conspiracy scenario? Read the post title, he represents this as

> > something LN find disturbing, which is true, we find kooks lying about


> > the evidence to be disturbing. Can you admit that Ben misrepresented
> > the facts in his orignal post?
> >
> Actually he could have gone much further,

I`m sure he could have went further misrepresenting the facts.

> and much of what he said
> comes from the WC,

These are his claims, about three holes for mounting a telescopic
site. He didn`t mention the WC when he made the claims, and only
attempted to seek cover behind them after I challenged his
misrepresentations.

> without the aid of researchers which even
> corroborate more, which you refuse to look or acknowledge.

Nobody is stopping you from corroborating anything you like about
this event. You threw a date out, and when I asked you where it came
from, you couldn`t say, only that you read in on a kook site, or in a
kook book. That does me no good, I need the source in order to weigh
the information.

> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > If somebody kills a President, and you were next to the accused
> > > assassin, anyone would try to remember as much about that person as
> > > possible. Truly wouldn't have had to go down that far of a list of
> > > things to remember.
> >
> > So, this is what it comes down to, you asserting what Truly should
> > or shouldn`t remember?
> >
> Should have, no doubt.

You sound like you have yourself firmly convinced of what Truly
should or should not remember. Of course, you claim expertise in all
kinds of areas, when waitresses leave for work, and how well
housekeeper are at estimating time, or how accurate the guesses of
cabbies are when they write times down in their manifests.

> > <SNIP>
> >
> >
> > > > Where do you see that I mentioned the people who work in the
> > > > gunshop?
> > > >
> > > You mentioned somebody in the gunshop saw Oz and called it in
> > > anonymously.
> >
> > Yah, in stores and shops there are often people who work there, and
> > sometimes these other people, who are called customers. Just because
> > you rule out the one group of people who might be in a store or shop,
> > that doesn`t mean you have ruled out the other.
> >
> It's hard when it's anonymous, but of all the people that had closer
> contact than that potential scenario and didn't call in a tip.

Then all we know is that an unknown person called in a tip, and that
tip yielded physical evidence, and that other witnesses supplied
information indicating it was Oz also.

> > > > > > > You will not attempt to reason on it because of your kook
> > > > > > > pride.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is that what Ben was doing, reasoning when he was fabricating
> > > > > > shadowy figures planting evidence to frame Oz?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Because the evidence indicates that.
> > > >
> > > > No, that silliness is just the usual result of feverish kook
> > > > imagination
> > > >
> > > Because you have a set scenario that can't be proved and avoid all
> > > other evidence.
> >
> > The evidence Ben lied about, and I corrected? I`m nor
> > misrepresenting the evidence to lead in a certain direction, it goes
> > that way on it`s own. People said they told Oz about this shop to get
> > his rifle repaired, anonymous person said he was at this shop, at the
> > shop was physical evidence in the form of a tag with the name "Oswald"
> > on it.
>
> All you did is claim,

No, I demonstrated, but it requires reading comprehension. Ben
represented certain information. That information is not to be found on
the only physical evidence of this transaction, a tag I provided a link
to. Therefore Ben misrepresented the information on that tag.

> and since he killifiled you,

He doesn`t have you killfiled, so he has access to everything I`ve
written to you. He has already responded to my charges, through someone
elses posts. He just doesn`t address why *he* wrote that the work that
was done was the drilling of three holes for mounting a telescopic
sight. The WC did not write the post that started this thread.

> and doesn't respond
> directly, then you blubber about how you did this and that and how you
> reduced his topic. I don't think so.

You don`t think. Like I said, valid points don`t show up on your
radar. Unsupported tales of mystery framers in what you want, and Ben
delivers.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Jul 24, 2006, 12:32:52 PM7/24/06
to
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1153750447.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> curtj...@webtv.net says...
> >
> >Bud wrote:
> >> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> > Bud wrote:
> >> > > <SNIP>
> >> > >
> >>> > > > It requires a devise to boresight a rifle. A devise gunshops have.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > The tag is a non-issue at this point.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sure, after Ruby killed the person who had the work done.
> >> > >
> >> > No, because there is nothing compelling about the tag, that ID's Oswald
> >> > as the one who brought the gun in.
> >>
> >> Compelling is in the eye of the beholder. There is information that
> >> indicates it was. There is not information that indicates Ben version
> >> of the event is true.
>
>
> Of course there is. The simple fact that the rifle COULD NOT HAVE HAD THE WORK
> PERFORMED ON IT.
>
> It's just that simple.
>
You mentioned in your first thread that A. Summers had other reasons?
Do you know what they were?

Are you saying the work could not have been done it because of the
number of holes on the order? I would venture to say the work could
have been done and brought in by a set up person and picked up. If it
was the real Oz, and somehow it was the same weapon as was in the TSBD
that day of Nov. 22, then why couldn't they have checked to see if the
work was actually done by what was physically done to the gun? I also
mentioned, too that the work if done, should have been remembered by
the person who did the work.

Also what happened to the gun, if there was a gun that had a tag on it,
with the name 'Oswald'?

I also mentioned that whoever might have brought in a gun, would have
by their estimation of a gun brought in on Nov. 4 - 8, that those days
were Sun - Thurs, and the only day that Oswald could only have left his
work which noone has ever talked about ever happening, and had to be
picked up by Marina and kids, which had them in a Furniture Store prior
to them even possibly going to the Sports Shop....which would seem like
a lot of work..to be sneaky.

Well the rifle found in the TSBD had a sight. The rifle that Oswald
supposedly ordered already had a sight on it. It would have had to be
adjusted if he were to take it in. 'Oswald' was already seen many
times at a shooting range with a perfectly mounted scope on a rifle in
September and beyond. If it by chance was performed and they just
couldn't remember, it seems it would be easy to check out if they did.

This is just supportive, and not contrary.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages