Re: J.C. DAY, THE TSBD BULLET SHELLS, AND THE PALMPRINT ON THE RIFLE
David Von Pein
I think the following two affidavits filled out in May and June of
1964 by J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department are quite
interesting. And these affidavits should also be very interesting to
the crazy conspiracy theorists who keep insisting that only TWO spent
rifle shells were discovered in the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor
of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
The following affidavit was executed by Lt. J. C. Day on May 7, 1964:
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
AFFIDAVIT
When testifying before the President's Commission, I stated I did not
remember who returned the two spent 6.5 hulls and envelope to my
possession on the night of November 22, 1963. Since returning to
Dallas, Detective C. N. Dhority has called my attention to the fact he
brought the three hulls in the envelope to me and asked me to check
them again for fingerprints, even though I had checked them when they
were picked up on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
about 1:20 p.m. November 22, 1963 by Detective R. M. Sims and myself
and placed in a manila envelope.
Since talking to Dhority, I remember now that he was the one who
returned the shells to me about 10:00 p.m. and stated that his office
wanted to retain one. He left me two shells and the envelope that
Detective Sims and I had previously marked. It was then that I
scratched my name on the two shells that were released at 11:45 p.m.
[to] Agent Vince Drain along with the rifle and other evidence.
Signed this 7th day of May 1964.
(S) J. C. Day,
J. C. DAY
==============================
The following affidavit was executed by Lt. J. C. Day on June 23,
1964:
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
AFFIDAVIT
The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding the
three spent 6.5 hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, found by
the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository on November
22, 1963.
The hulls were picked up by Detective R. M. Sims and Lieutenant J. C.
Day and placed in an envelope. Detective R. L. Studebaker was also
present. The envelope was marked and dated by Sims and Day. Detective
Sims took the hulls after they were checked for fingerprints by Day.
The third hull, commission number 545, was later released directly to
the FBI by the Dallas Police Department Homicide Division. At 10:00
P.M. November 22, 1963, Detective C. N. Dhority brought the three
hulls in the marked envelope back to Lieutenant Day in the
Identification Bureau office to recheck for prints. Dhority retained
one hull, commission number 545, and left the other two, commission
numbers 543, 544 along with the envelope with me to be sent to the
FBI.
Vince Drain, FBI agent, took custody at 11:45 A.M. [sic; Day meant to
say P.M.] the same day. When I appeared before the commission April
22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as
commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been
retained by Dhority.
On June 8, 1964, the three hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and
545, were back in Dallas and were examined by Captain G. M. Doughty
and myself at the local FBI office.
Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed
that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD
for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543
and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963.
They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were
released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty
and Day.
The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark,
but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545
switched because I didn't find my name on number 543.
I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on
them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School
Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
As to the time I scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember
whether it was at the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November
22, 1963, when they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked
envelope. It had to be one or the other, because this is the only time
I had all three hulls in my possession.
Both Detective R. L. Studebaker and Detective R. M. Sims, who were
present at the window when the hulls were picked up, state I marked
them as they were found under the window.
Signed this 23d day of June 1964.
(S) J. C. Day,
J. C. DAY
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day2.htm
===================================================
J.C. DAY AND THE PALMPRINT ON RIFLE C2766:
http://www.BlackOpRadio.com/black455a.ram
http://www.BlackOpRadio.com/black455b.ram
During his appearance on "Black Op Radio" on December 31, 2009 (linked
above), conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio did everything he could to
try and convince the gullible people in the audience that Lieutenant
J.C. Day of the Identification Bureau of the Dallas Police Department
had not really lifted the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald off of
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 on the day of President Kennedy's
assassination.
DiEugenio, quite obviously, wants to believe that Lieutenant Day was
lying through his teeth when he said the following things to the
Warren Commission on April 22, 1964 [at 4H261]:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0135a.htm
DAVID BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"
J.C. DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel
of the gun after I had removed the wood."
MR. BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"
MR. DAY -- "It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written
on it in my writing, [and also written on it were:] "off the underside
gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C2766"."
COMMISSION EXHIBIT 637:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
Lieutenant Day properly marked the palmprint with his NAME, the
LOCATION on the rifle where he found the print, and THE DATE WHEN HE
LIFTED THE PRINT ("11-22-63").
I guess DiEugenio (and other conspiracy theorists like him) must think
that Lt. Day wrote the number "11-22-63" at some LATER time. In other
words, DiEugenio believes that Commission Exhibit No. 637 is nothing
but a total LIE.
To that allegation, I'll offer up a solid two-word retort -- Prove it!
The palmprint known as CE637 was positively identified as being the
right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald by fingerprint expert Sebastian
Latona of the FBI. Latona said this to the Warren Commission on April
2, 1964 [4H24]:
SEBASTIAN LATONA -- "The palmprint which appears on the lift was
identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0016b.htm
At one point during his Warren Commission testimony, Lt. Day also
stated "your number 637 is the right palm of Oswald" [4H262]. But in
another portion of his testimony [4H263], Day hesitated to say whether
CE637 was positively Oswald's print:
MR. BELIN -- "Based on your experience, I will ask you now for a
definitive statement as to whether or not you can positively identify
the print shown on Commission Exhibit No. 637 as being from the right
palm of Lee Harvey Oswald as shown on Commission Exhibit 629?"
MR. DAY -- "Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement
without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to
sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before
I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility, it is. I think it
is, but I would have to do some more work on that."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0136a.htm
However, even with a little bit of indecisiveness exhibited by Lt. Day
during his Warren Commission session, the testimony of the FBI's
Sebastian Latona provides us with solid verification that CE637 is, in
fact, the right palmprint of the owner of the gun from which the print
was lifted--Lee Harvey Oswald.
In the final analysis, Lee H. Oswald is tied irrevocably to the murder
of President John F. Kennedy seven ways to Sunday (as discussed at the
link below):
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html
Gil Jesus
Walt
>
> DAVID BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"
>
> J.C. DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel
> of the gun after I had removed the wood."
>
> MR. BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"
>
> MR. DAY -- "It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written
> on it in my writing, [and also written on it were:] "off the underside
> gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C2766"."
>
>
> Lieutenant Day properly marked the palmprint with his NAME, the
> LOCATION on the rifle where he found the print, and THE DATE WHEN HE
> LIFTED THE PRINT ("11-22-63").
>
> I guess DiEugenio (and other conspiracy theorists like him) must think
> that Lt. Day wrote the number "11-22-63" at some LATER time.
Oh no, Mr.Von Pea Brain, There's at least one CT who believes that
Lt. Day did in fact put his initials and date on that 3X 5 white card
on 11 /22 /63. Day only lied about the TIME OF DAY , and the building
he was in at the time he placed that UNIDENTIFIABLE smudge on the 3 X
5 card.
There's no doubt that Day lied about finding a "palm print" on the
5/8" diameter metal barrel of the rifle. That is an easily provable
fact....because here is a pile of evidence that verifies thaty the so
called "palm print" was nothing but a unidentifiable smudge that Day
spotted on the WOODEN foregrip od the rifle just minutes after he
lifted the rifle from the place it had been carefully hidden beneath
boxes of books on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Here is a list of the
facts......
1)...1:30pm------Day lifts the rifle from the floor, and after
checking the bolt knob for prints, he and Captain Fritz open the bolt
and see a live round in the barrel of the gun......
they dump it out onto the floor.
2) ...1:35 pm-----While doing a perfunctory check of the rifle for
finger prints Day spots a smudge on the wooden forgrip of the rifle
that he thinks might be a palm print but he wants to examine it more
closely later, so he lifts the smudge with a piece of cellophane tape
and then sticks that piece of tape onto a 3 X 5 white card. He then
makes the notation on the card...."off underside gun barrell (sic)
near the end of foregrip, C2766". Day then puts his the date and his
initials on the card, as reporter Tom Alyea watched the whole
thing .
3) ....11:00 pm---- Day prepares to turn all of the evidence over to
the FBI as ordered by Lynin Bastard Johnson. He prepares an
inventory list of the items being released to FBI agent Vince Drain.
He lists the 3 X5 card carrying the tape with the smudge on it. He
identifies the card on the inventory list by describing what is on
that card and quoting the note on the card right down to the
misspelling of the word "barrell".
4) .... When the evidence is released to FBI agent Vince Drain a shot
time later Day has Drain put his initials on the card... And Drain
places his initials VED on the card.
5) .... The next morning the smudge on the card card is examined by
the FBI's finger print specialist Sabastian Latona in the FBI labs in
Washington.... Latona pronounces the smudge to be worthless for
identification purposes.
6) ...The place on the rifle where the liar Day claimed he found the
"palm print" has a bayonet lug surrouning the barrel of the rifle.
The barrel is NOT a smooth unbroken metal tube. That baynet lug would
have prevented anybody from grabbing the barrel and depositing a palm
print.
In other
> words, DiEugenio believes that Commission Exhibit No. 637 is nothing
> but a total LIE.
Di Eugenoi is right..... And if you can get your head out of your ass
long enough to find a 5/8 inch diameter tube, (5/8"is the the diameter
of a MC rifle barrel and a shower curtain rod, or piece of tubing from
the hardware store will work) I would defy you to try to put an
identifiable palm print on that small diameter tube.
>
> To that allegation, I'll offer up a solid two-word retort -- Prove it!
>
> The palmprint known as CE637 was positively identified as being the
> right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald by fingerprint expert Sebastian
> Latona of the FBI. Latona said this to the Warren Commission on April
> 2, 1964 [4H24]:
>
> SEBASTIAN LATONA -- "The palmprint which appears on the lift was
> identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald."
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_001...
>
> At one point during his Warren Commission testimony, Lt. Day also
> stated "your number 637 is the right palm of Oswald" [4H262]. But in
> another portion of his testimony [4H263], Day hesitated to say whether
> CE637 was positively Oswald's print:
>
> MR. BELIN -- "Based on your experience, I will ask you now for a
> definitive statement as to whether or not you can positively identify
> the print shown on Commission Exhibit No. 637 as being from the right
> palm of Lee Harvey Oswald as shown on Commission Exhibit 629?"
>
> MR. DAY -- "Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement
> without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to
> sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before
> I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility, it is. I think it
> is, but I would have to do some more work on that."
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_013...
David Von Pein
>>> "[DPD Lieutenant Carl] Day only lied about the TIME OF DAY, and the building he was in at the time he placed that UNIDENTIFIABLE smudge on the 3 X 5 card. .... There's no doubt that Day lied about finding a "palm print". .... Day prepares to turn all of the evidence over to the FBI as ordered by Lyin' Bastard [Lyndon B.] Johnson. .... Liar Day claimed he found the "palm print"..." <<<
In Walt's kooky universe, it's:
The world vs. The Patsy.
>>> "5/8 [of an inch] is the diameter of a MC rifle barrel and a shower curtain rod. .... I would defy you to try to put an identifiable palm print on that small diameter tube." <<<
Oswald's ENTIRE palmprint wasn't found on the rifle barrel, you stupid
freakin' retard.
Only a small portion of Oswald's right palmprint was found on the
underside of the gun's barrel, but not the ENTIRE surface of his palm
[see the area of Oswald's right hand that is circled in Commission
Exhibit 638 linked below].
I.E., enough of LHO's palmprint was discovered on the rifle barrel for
Sebastian Latona to make a positive determination that Lee Oswald's
right hand had come in contact with Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766.
CE638 & CE639:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0159a.htm
BTW, Walt:
Was Lt. Day lying out his ass in BOTH of the affidavits that he filled
out in May and June 1964 about the fact that he handled THREE rifle
shells that were found in the Sniper's Nest?
You are surely kooky and retarded enough to buy into the myth that
only TWO shells were actually found in the Sniper's Nest, aren't you
Walter?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/13dbcf840bd10b79
Walt
> In Walt's kooky universe, it's:
>
> The world vs. The Patsy.
>
>
> Oswald's ENTIRE palmprint wasn't found on the rifle barrel, you stupid
> freakin' retard.
Who's the "stupid freakin retard"??..... The POINT is:.....a small
5/8' diameter tube will only present a surface area of about 1/4inch.
A 1/4 inch surface is not big enough to hold an identifiable palm
print. A I told you before you jumped in and made an ass out of
youreslf.....Go get a piece of tubing at the hardware store and try to
deposit an identifable palm print on that tube.
I guarantee you that it is impossible to deposit an identifiale print
on a 5/8 inch metal tube. Even as I type this I know that you won't
perform this simple experiment because you're an egotistcal snobby
Son- of- a- bitch who doesn't have the brains or the guts to face
reality.
>
> A portion of Oswald's right palmprint was found on the underside of
> the gun's barrel, but not the ENTIRE surface of his palm.
>
> I.E., enough of LHO's palmprint was discovered on the rifle barrel for
> Sebastian Latona to make a positive determination that Lee Oswald's
> right hand had come in contact with MC Rifle #C2766.
>
> CE638/639:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Walt
Het Stupid..... Get your arrogant head out of your ass and LOOK.....at
CE 637
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Can you SEE those two parallel lines on the right hand side of the so
called palm print????
Do you know what caused those parallel lines, Stupid???
Those lines were caused by the slot cut into the WOODEN foregrip of a
model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
The wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 has a groove or slot routered out
to accomodate the blade of the bayonet when the bayonet isn't being
used to stab enemy soldiers.
When the blade is folded back toward the trigger guard the tip of the
blade rests in a slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip. this slot
is about 4.5mm ( 3/16") wide.
When Day dusted that wooden forgrip just minutes after he pulled the
rifle from the place it had been carefully hidden he placed a piece of
cellophane tape on that smudge on the wooden foregrip and rubbed his
fingers across the tape to transfer the smuge to the tape....in doing
that he created pressure on the edges of the bayonet slot and
therefore he picked up the edges of the bayonet slot. They are
clearly visible at the right hand side of the smudge .
> In Walt's kooky universe, it's:
>
> The world vs. The Patsy.
>
> >>> "5/8 [of an inch] is the the diameter of a MC rifle barrel and a shower curtain rod, or piece of tubing from the hardware store will work) I would defy you to try to put an identifiable palm print on that small diameter tube." <<<
>
> Oswald's ENTIRE palmprint wasn't found on the rifle barrel, you stupid
> freakin' retard.
>
Walt
> affidavits that he filled out in May & June 1964 about the fact that
> he handled THREE rifle shells that were found in the Sniper's Nest?
>
> were actually found in the SN, aren't you Walter?
Hey asshole.....Let's stick with CE 637 and the so called "palm print"
for now..... After I shove your bullshit back down your lying
throat ..then we'll address the spent shells.
David Von Pein
WALT THE RETARD SAID [THE MANY SPELLING/GRAMMAR
ERRORS CORRECTED BY DVP]:
>>> "As I told you before you jumped in and made an ass out of yourself -- go get a piece of tubing at the hardware store and try to deposit an identifiable palm print on that tube. I guarantee you that it is impossible to deposit an identifiable print on a 5/8-inch metal tube. Even as I type this I know that you won't perform this simple experiment because you're an egotistical snobby son-of-a-bitch who doesn't have the brains or the guts to face reality." <<<
DVP SAID:
Walt apparently thinks the cops were both brilliant patsy-framers and
incompetent boobs AT THE SAME TIME, because Walt thinks the cops were
so stupid that they would attempt to fool the public by claiming that
CE637 (Oswald's palmprint) was lifted from a portion of a rifle on
which it would be physically impossible to leave even the tiniest
identifiable part of a human palmprint.
But ol' Carl Day didn't fool good ol' retard Walt Cakebread, did he?
Walt sees through the "palmprint on the rifle barrel" nonsense like a
lace curtain, don't you Walt?
Interestingly enough, however, Walt is the first person EVER (that I'm
aware of) who has suggested that a palmprint could not possibly adhere
to the portion of the rifle barrel where Lt. Day said he extracted the
print from.
I guess somebody better tell Oliver Stone to re-film the fantasy scene
in his 1991 movie that has some evil conspirators pressing a rifle
barrel to the palm of a dead Lee Harvey Oswald in the morgue. Stone
must not have talked to Walter Cakebread before he filmed that scene,
huh? Because Oliver seems to think a PALMPRINT (albeit a planted one)
was placed on the barrel of Oswald's Carcano rifle.
Now the only thing that's probably troubling retard Walt is this
logical question:
If the cops were going to plant Oswald's prints on the rifle,
why would they want to plant a PALMPRINT on a place on the rifle where
a PALMPRINT could not possibly fit? Why not plant another FINGERPRINT
(like the ones they planted on the triggerguard and on the top of the
brown paper bag)?
In summary:
The "reality" that Walt The Retarded Goof will never face is the fact
that Oswald's prints were on the barrel and the triggerguard of Rifle
C2766, verifying that Walt's favorite "patsy" had his fingers right
next to the trigger of his own rifle on November 22, 1963.*
* = The date is verified by the FACT that Oswald's rifle WAS fired
that day (11/22/63) from the Book Depository. Or would Walt now like
to offer up this oddball scenario?:
The person who fired Oswald's rifle on Nov. 22 could have easily
avoided leaving any prints on the triggerguard, thereby leaving
Oswald's prints intact on the trigger housing from a previous time
when Oswald handled the weapon.
Of course, I also realize that Walt thinks that Vincent Scalice is
full of lots of shit when Scalice determined in 1993 that the
triggerguard prints were positively the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald,
even though just plain old garden-variety logic would dictate that the
odds of ANY prints found on that gun AT ANY TIME being ANYONE ELSE'S
other than the OWNER OF THAT GUN are probably pretty slim.
Well, this post should send a retard named Cakebread off on his usual
Anybody-But-Oz conspiracy-flavored ranting and raving. I hope so.
Because it's fun to watch Walt get everything dead wrong....as
always.
And we must always keep in mind that Walt Cakebread is the same mega-
kook who thinks that JFK was shot in the throat from the front at
approximately Zapruder frame 161, with that bullet exiting Kennedy's
upper back. Walt knows this to be a fact because Walt can see a piece
of JFK's white shirt flying out of the bullet's exit hole on Kennedy's
back in the Robert Croft photograph, which is yet another photo that
Walter thinks has been "altered".
Also: Let's not forget that Walt is also the same mega-kook who thinks
that Howard Brennan was "DESCRIBING" a shooter on the WEST end of the
Book Depository, even though Brennan's Warren Commission testimony
couldn't be any clearer as to the ONE AND ONLY EAST-END window from
where he saw the gunman shooting.
And yet, incredibly, I am the one who needs to have my "bullshit"
shoved down my "lying throat".
There should be a separate insane asylum in this world reserved for
"JFK CONSPIRACY CLOWNS". If there were, Walt would be admitted
immediately--no questions asked.
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/bill-paxton-interview.html
Walt
> WALT THE RETARD SAID [THE MANY SPELLING/GRAMMAR
> ERRORS CORRECTED BY DVP]:
Hey you arrogant elitist prick...... I don't give a damn about gramma,
punctuation, or spelling..... I can make the point well enough to
show that you're a gutless, lying, asshole and that really pisses you
off doesn't it MR VON PEA BRAIN?.
> >>> "As I told you before you jumped in and made an ass out of yourself -- go get a piece of tubing at the hardware store and try to deposit an identifiable palm print on that tube. I guarantee you that it is impossible to deposit an identifiable print on a 5/8-inch metal tube. Even as I type this I know that you won't perform this simple experiment because you're an egotistical snobby son-of-a-bitch who doesn't have the brains or the guts to face reality." <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Walt apparently thinks the cops were both brilliant patsy-framers and
> incompetent boobs AT THE SAME TIME, because Walt thinks the cops were
> so stupid that they would attempt to fool the public by claiming that
> CE637 (Oswald's palmprint) was lifted from a portion of a rifle on
> which it would be physically impossible to leave even the tiniest
> identifiable part of a human palmprint.
Hey they fooled you.....What does that say?? Were they really
clever.....or are you stupid?
>
> But ol' Carl Day didn't fool good ol' retard Walt Cakebread, did he?
No he didn't.....
> Walt sees through the "palmprint on the rifle barrel" nonsense like a
> lace curtain, don't you Walt?
Certainly..... Only someone with their head up their ass couldn't see
the truth about the palm print.
>
> Interestingly enough, however, Walt is the first person EVER (that I'm
> aware of) who has suggested that a palmprint could not possibly adhere
> to the portion of the rifle barrel where Lt. Day said he extracted the
> print from.
Thank you.......
>
> I guess somebody better tell Oliver Stone to re-film the fantasy scene
> in his 1991 movie that has some evil conspirators pressing a rifle
> barrel to the palm of a dead Lee Harvey Oswald in the morgue. Stone
> must not have talked to Walter Cakebread before he filmed that scene,
> huh? Because Oliver seems to think a PALMPRINT (albeit a planted one)
> was placed on the barrel of Oswald's Carcano rifle.
There are many errors in the MOVIE.......
> Now the only thing that's probably troubling retard Walt is this
> logical question:
>
> If the cops were going to plant Oswald's prints on the rifle,
> why would they want to plant a PALMPRINT on a place on the rifle where
> a PALMPRINT could not possibly fit? Why not plant another FINGERPRINT
> (like the ones they planted on the triggerguard and on the top of the
> brown paper bag)?
They DID NOT plant a palm print ya stupid bastard..... Day found the
SMUDGE on the WOODEN foregrip .......
>
> In summary:
>
> The "reality" that Walt The Retarded Goof will never face is the fact
> that Oswald's prints were on the barrel and the triggerguard of Rifle
> C2766, verifying that Walt's favorite "patsy" had his fingers right
> next to the trigger of his own rifle on November 22, 1963.*
Danmed LIAR..... There NEVER were any identifiable prints found on
that rifle.....
>
> * = The date is verified by the FACT that Oswald's rifle WAS fired
> that day (11/22/63) from the Book Depository. Or would Walt now like
> to offer up this oddball scenario?:
The rifle was hidden under boxes of books at the time of the shooting.
>
> The person who fired Oswald's rifle on Nov. 22 could have easily
> avoided leaving any prints on the triggerguard, thereby leaving
> Oswald's prints intact on the trigger housing from a previous time
> when Oswald handled the weapon.
NOBODY fired that rifle that day...PERIOD!!
>
> Of course, I also realize that Walt thinks that Vincent Scalice is
> full of lots of shit when Scalice determined in 1993 that the
> triggerguard prints were positively the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald,
> even though just plain old garden-variety logic would dictate that the
> likelihood of ANY prints found on that gun AT ANY TIME being ANYONE
> ELSE'S other than the OWNER OF THAT GUN are probably pretty slim.
The FBI examined the gun when everything was fresh....THEY FOUND NO
IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS.
>
> Well, this post should send a retard named Cakebread off on his usual
> Anybody-But-Oz conspiracy-flavored ranting and raving. (I hope so.
> Because it's fun to watch Walt get everything dead wrong....as
> always.)
Thank you....I'm an ornery bastard who LOVES to help arrogant elitist
pricks make fools of themselves.....
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/bill-paxton-interview.html
Walt
> On Jan 1, 7:51 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Het Stupid..... Get your arrogant head out of your ass and LOOK.....at
> CE 637
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> Can you SEE those two parallel lines on the right hand side of the so
> called palm print????
>
> Do you know what caused those parallel lines, Stupid???
>
> Those lines were caused by the slot cut into the WOODEN foregrip of a
> model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> The wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 has a groove or slot routered out
> to accomodate the blade of the bayonet when the bayonet isn't being
> used to stab enemy soldiers.
>
> When the blade is folded back toward the trigger guard the tip of the
> blade rests in a slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip. this slot
> is about 4.5mm ( 3/16") wide.
> When Day dusted that wooden forgrip just minutes after he pulled the
> rifle from the place it had been carefully hidden he placed a piece of
> cellophane tape on that smudge on the wooden foregrip and rubbed his
> fingers across the tape to transfer the smuge to the tape....in doing
> that he created pressure on the edges of the bayonet slot and
> therefore he picked up the edges of the bayonet slot. They are
> clearly visible at the right hand side of the smudge .
Look at CE 637....http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/
wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Now LOOK at the photo of Lt Day carrying the rifle over his head
through the police station.... LOOK for the bayonet slot that is cut
into the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle.
Do you SEE the place where DAY lifted that smudge that he thought was
a "palm print"???
>
>
>
> > In Walt's kooky universe, it's:
>
> > The world vs. The Patsy.
>
> > >>> "5/8 [of an inch] is the the diameter of a MC rifle barrel and a shower curtain rod, or piece of tubing from the hardware store will work) I would defy you to try to put an identifiable palm print on that small diameter tube." <<<
>
> > Oswald's ENTIRE palmprint wasn't found on the rifle barrel, you stupid
> > freakin' retard.
>
> > A portion of Oswald's right palmprint was found on the underside of
> > the gun's barrel, but not the ENTIRE surface of his palm.
>
> > I.E., enough of LHO's palmprint was discovered on the rifle barrel for
> > Sebastian Latona to make a positive determination that Lee Oswald's
> > right hand had come in contact with MC Rifle #C2766.
>
> > CE638/639:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> WALT THE RETARD SAID [THE MANY SPELLING/GRAMMAR
> ERRORS CORRECTED BY DVP]:
How juvenile.
David Von Pein
>>> "How juvenile." <<<
But oh so true.
David Von Pein
>>> "The FBI examined the gun when everything was fresh....THEY FOUND NO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS." <<<
Of course they didn't, retard. That's because Lt. Day had ALREADY
LIFTED THE PALMPRINT OFF THE BARREL.
Plus: Mr. Scalice told us in 1993 that he utilized different
photographic methods to obtain the "approx. 18 points of [Oswald]
identity" on the triggerguard prints....something the FBI did not
attempt to do in '63-'64.
Walt
> >>> "Hey you arrogant elitist prick...... I don't give a damn about gramma, punctuation, or spelling..... I can make the point well enough to show that you're a gutless, lying, asshole and that really pisses you
>
> off doesn't it MR VON PEA BRAIN?.
>
> Christmas. Maybe that explains Walter's crankiness today.
This my YEAR to be "CRANKY"... you elitist prick.....
Why didn't you respond to the FACTS that I presented about the bayonet
slot that is shown at the right hand side of CE 637?? Were you too
busy looking for spelling errors you asshole?
>
> He didn't get that "deluxe" Dealey Plaza model kit that he wanted this
> year. That's the one that comes with 137 toy guns -- one for every
> sewer assassin in the Plaza. (Plus one umbrella weapon.)
David Von Pein
>>> "Hey you arrogant elitist prick...... I don't give a damn about gramma, punctuation, or spelling..... I can make the point well enough to show that you're a gutless, lying, asshole and that really pisses you off doesn't it MR VON PEA BRAIN?" <<<
My goodness, it looks like the illiterate kook named Walter received
only a stocking full of coal for Christmas. Maybe that explains his
crankiness today.
The retard didn't get that "deluxe" Dealey Plaza model kit that he
wanted this year. You know, the one that comes with 137 toy guns --
Gil Jesus
Dear Mr. Nutcase:
On November 23, 1963, the Dallas Police released to the FBI TWO empty
shells and one live round
http://i31.tinypic.com/2ex59qp.jpg
The FBI acknowledged receipt of TWO shells
http://i32.tinypic.com/4lhtu8.jpg
Which was EXACTLY what the FBI displayed in this photo taken :
http://i50.tinypic.com/2d7enas.jpg
On November 27, 1963, Lt. Day signed a document releasing TWO shells
to the FBI.
http://i31.tinypic.com/99mpfq.jpg
Robert Frazier testified that he received TWO shells on 11/23 and he
didn't receive a third shell until 11/27
( 3 H 414 )
Looks like a break in the chain of possession.....you like got some
splainin' to do, Mr. Nutcase.
David Von Pein
Gil,
That's all explained by the two affidavits filed by Lt. Carl Day in
May/June 1964 (which were obviously filled out by Day to clarify the
situation surrounding the TSBD bullet shells). Maybe you should read
them.
Are those affidavits filled with more lies, Gilbert?
Walt
Watch the elitist prick try to lie his way outta this one..... A
nickel says he tries to change the subject.. Any takers??
Gil Jesus
Those affidavits mention nothing about sending the third shell on
11/27.
I've presented evidence showing that a third shell didn't show up at
the FBI until 11/27.
Anyone looking to believe whether or not affidavits were altered need
not look beyond the testimony of William Whaley, who testified that
the DPD had him sign an affidavit saying he identified Oswald from a
police lineup before he even viewed the lineup.
( 6 H 430 )
I'll take the corroborating evidence over an affidavit any day of the
week, Mr. Nutcase.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
He's a troll. Lying, changing the subject, or running away is what they do. It
would be a fools bet to take this one!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Walt
Gil, this is a cropped photo of the ORIGINAL evidence inventory list
that was typed up on the evening of 11 /22/63
http://i32.tinypic.com/4lhtu8.jpg
Do you have an uncropped copy of that list ?
The so called "palm print" is listed on that list.
Since it is on the list that was typed up BEFORE the evidence was
releasded to the FBI at midnight it's obvious that the "palm print
WAS WAS turned over to the FBI at midnight and all other stories
about that so called pal print are lies. Those lies were created by
the FBI and the DPD.
The FBI did receive that 3 X 5 white card with the piece of cellophane
tape stuck to it that had a smudge of some kind on it. And the FBI
finger print expert Sabastian Latona DI DID examine that so called
palm print on 11 /23 /63. He reported in a memo that the "print" was
useless for identification purposes.
If you have an uncropped copy please post a link to it.
>
> Which was EXACTLY what the FBI displayed in this photo taken :
>
> http://i50.tinypic.com/2d7enas.jpg
>
> On November 27, 1963, Lt. Day signed a document releasing TWO shells
> to the FBI.
>
> http://i31.tinypic.com/99mpfq.jpg
>
> Robert Frazier testified that he received TWO shells on 11/23 and he
> didn't receive a third shell until 11/27
> ( 3 H 414 )
>
> Looks like a break in the chain of possession.....you like got some
> splainin' to do, Mr. Nutcase.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
> Het Stupid..... Get your arrogant head out of your ass and LOOK.....at
> CE 637
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> Can you SEE those two parallel lines on the right hand side of the so
> called palm print????
>
> Do you know what caused those parallel lines, Stupid???
>
> Those lines were caused by the slot cut into the WOODEN foregrip of a
> model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> The wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 has a groove or slot routered out
> to accomodate the blade of the bayonet when the bayonet isn't being
> used to stab enemy soldiers.
>
> When the blade is folded back toward the trigger guard the tip of the
> blade rests in a slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip. this slot
> is about 4.5mm ( 3/16") wide.
> When Day dusted that wooden forgrip just minutes after he pulled the
> rifle from the place it had been carefully hidden he placed a piece of
> cellophane tape on that smudge on the wooden foregrip and rubbed his
> fingers across the tape to transfer the smuge to the tape....in doing
> that he created pressure on the edges of the bayonet slot and
> therefore he picked up the edges of the bayonet slot. They are
> clearly visible at the right hand side of the smudge .
Well since the cowardly elitist prick has tucked his tail and crawled
away, I'll now point out another point that PROVES that the so called
palm print was NOT NOT lifted from the metal barrel of the rifle, and
was in FACT lifted from the WOODEN foregrip. I know for a fact that
the bayonet slot on the wooden foregrip of a model 91 /38 Mannlicher
Carcano is about 3/16 of an inch wide.
Using that information you can scale the picture. You'll find that
the width of the "barrel" is seven times the width of the bayonet
slot. Which means the "barrel" in the photo would have been
approximately 1 3/8 inches across. Of course the metal barrel of a
Carcano is only 5/8 of an inch in diameter, so it's obvious that the
smudge was NOT taken from the meatal barrel.
Incidentally.....the wooden foregrip on a Carcano
measures.....approximately 1 3/8 inches across.....
>
>
>
> > In Walt's kooky universe, it's:
>
> > The world vs. The Patsy.
>
> > >>> "5/8 [of an inch] is the the diameter of a MC rifle barrel and a shower curtain rod, or piece of tubing from the hardware store will work) I would defy you to try to put an identifiable palm print on that small diameter tube." <<<
>
> > Oswald's ENTIRE palmprint wasn't found on the rifle barrel, you stupid
> > freakin' retard.
>
> > A portion of Oswald's right palmprint was found on the underside of
> > the gun's barrel, but not the ENTIRE surface of his palm.
>
> > I.E., enough of LHO's palmprint was discovered on the rifle barrel for
> > Sebastian Latona to make a positive determination that Lee Oswald's
> > right hand had come in contact with MC Rifle #C2766.
>
> > CE638/639:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
sheeeet Walt, If I take the bet the shithead-moron will create another
troll-BLOG! I'll take your word for it :) ROTFLMFAO!
Happy New Year guy, hope the family is doing well...
David
Gil Jesus
> Those affidavits mention nothing about sending the third shell on
> 11/27.
>
> I've presented evidence showing that a third shell didn't show up at
> the FBI until 11/27.
>
> Anyone looking to believe whether or not affidavits were altered need
> not look beyond the testimony of William Whaley, who testified that
> the DPD had him sign an affidavit saying he identified Oswald from a
> police lineup before he even viewed the lineup.
> ( 6 H 430 )
>
> I'll take the corroborating evidence over an affidavit any day of the
> week, Mr. Nutcase.
Documents, photographs and now a WITNESS who claimed only two shots
were fired:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dZKuoFR8mA
"If the witness saw or heard things that are corroborated by OTHER
(harder, physical) evidence, then it's much more likely that that
witness is correct." ---David Von Pein 5/8/08
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/46449b1812fb5465
Walt
Thanks Dave....My family is healthy and doing ok..... Hope your's is
also.
The LNer's in here don't seem to notice but the noose is
tightening...... When we've got men on our team that can hammer em
with the FACTS their only recourse is ad hominem attacks. And nearly
every post from the LN contingent is nothing but a lie or an ad
hominem attack devoid of any substantial counter point. Poor dumb
bastards simply don't have a leg to stand on when the facts are laid
bare.
Best wishes for the new year....
Walt
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> In article <ea5b9fd5-dd2f-4d61-92d1-e31ee15fc...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Back to the sidelines, pussy, you have no intention of engaging on
these issues, you might get called on to support what you say.
Bud
Maybe you can explain why Roger Craig says in this video that three
shells were found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WQr4y1j4Gw
You wouldn`t call Craig a liar, would you retard?
Gil Jesus
> � Maybe you can explain why Roger Craig says in this video that three
> shells were found.
>
> � �http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WQr4y1j4Gw
>
> � You wouldn`t call Craig a liar, would you retard?-
Nope.
You got proof that the shells in evidence were marked by Craig ?
David Von Pein
>>> "Those affidavits mention nothing about sending the third shell on 11/27." <<<
We have THREE bullet shells in evidence (CE543, 544, 545), and each
one of them has J.C. Day's mark ("Day") on it.
Let's listen to Lieutenant Day once again:
"Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light
disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small
end. .... I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my
name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas
School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. As to the time I
scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember whether it was at
the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, when
they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked envelope. It had to
be one or the other, because this is the only time I had all three
hulls in my possession. Both Detective R. L. Studebaker and Detective
R. M. Sims, who were present at the window when the hulls were picked
up, state I marked them as they were found under the window." -- Lt.
J.C. Day; June 23, 1964
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day2.htm
Case closed on the shells.
aeffects
pathetic nutter-troll TWIT! "Those affidavits mention nothing about
sending the third shell on 11/27"
... tough time understanding english, moron?
Gil Jesus
Mr. Nutcase:
Day never marked CE 543.
First he told the WC he marked all of the shells at the scene, then he
told them that he didn't mark the shells. ( 4 H 253, 254 )
Maybe you should read the testimony:
Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what
Commission Exhibit 543 is?
Mr. DAY. That is a hull that does not have my marking on it.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that
was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. I think it is.
( 4 H 255 )
Your silly affidavit is nothing more than a "revision" to his
testimony. It's amazing how you nutcases have no problem when someone
changes their story. They're not liars, they're just mistaken, we
know. Day's testimony proved that there was a break in the chain of
possession of the evidence of the shells allegedly found on the sixth
floor and that break would have been enough to throw out the shells as
evidence in court.
Here's something else, Mr. Nutcase:
Repeating your silly post doesn't "close the case" on the shells. IOW,
the case isn't "closed" just because you say so. It's a lame attempt
on your part to run from the evidence that's inconvenient to you.
The documents and photographs show that the DPD possessed TWO shells,
that they sent TWO shells to the FBI and that they got TWO shells
back, not only on 11/23, but on 11/27 also.
You need to address this rather than ignore it.
And when the FBI examined those shells, they found that only one of
them had the marking of the firing pin of the depository rifle on it.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=16256&relPageId=32
You need to explain this also.
David Von Pein
>>> "[Lieutenant J.C.] Day never marked CE 543." <<<
Yes, he most certainly did mark CE543.
In his June 1964 affidavit, J.C. Day told us he positively marked ALL
THREE shells currently in evidence (CE543, 544, and 545). And the only
reason that Day filled out that affidavit was to straighten out some
of his Warren Commission testimony from April '64. In fact, the very
first words in that affidavit confirm that fact:
"The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding
the three spent 6.5 hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, found
by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository on
November 22, 1963."
Lt. Day then goes on to say this in the same affidavit:
"I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my
name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas
School Book Depository on November 22, 1963." -- Lt. J.C. Day;
06/23/64
Also:
The original DPD crime-scene photographs (CE510 and CE512) positively
show THREE spent rifle shells on the floor. And the reason CE511 only
shows two shells is because of the angle of the picture, with the
third shell being blocked from the camera's view by some of the book
cartons. (This is obvious to everyone except a retard, of course.)
CE510, CE511, and CE512:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0125a.htm
Plus:
Every bit of testimony from the various police officers who testified
in front of the Warren Commission in 1964 indicates that THREE shells
were found in the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building.
BTW, the circles that appear around the THREE SHELLS in Commission
Exhibit No. 510 are circles that were made by Deputy Sheriff Luke
Mooney when Mooney gave his Warren Commission testimony.
So, quite obviously, by circling the three shells in CE510, Mooney was
telling the Warren Commission that there were, indeed, THREE SHELLS on
the floor in the Sniper's Nest when he arrived on the sixth floor.
There's also this testimony from Mooney:
JOE BALL -- "Is [sic] that the empty shells you found?"
LUKE MOONEY -- "Yes, sir."
MR. BALL -- "Are they shown there [in CE510]?"
MR. MOONEY -- "Yes, sir."
MR. BALL -- "Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?"
MR. MOONEY -- "All right."
MR. BALL -- "Put a fairly good-sized circle around each shell. That is
the way they were when you saw them, is that right?"
MR. MOONEY -- "Yes, sir."
Mooney, btw, was the officer who first discovered the Sniper's Nest on
11/22/63. Or, to use Mooney's own language from his official 11/23/63
"Supplementary Investigation Report", instead of using the words
"sniper's nest", Mooney said he discovered a "cubby hole" on the sixth
floor of the Depository. That's a pretty good alternate description of
Oswald's shooting perch, I'd say. [hehe]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney1.htm
So, I guess conspiracy kooks like Gil Jesus must think that Luke
Mooney was a worthless, scheming liar too. Right, Gil?
How many officers and other people in "officialdom" are you ready to
call worthless liars, Gil? Is there a limit? Or is the SKY the limit?
Also:
As mentioned previously, Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police
Department clearly MARKED ALL THREE BULLET SHELLS. Lt. Day's June 1964
affidavit indicates that there were two witnesses (Detective Robert L.
Studebaker and Detective Richard M. Sims) who saw Lt. Day mark them
while he was STILL ON THE SIXTH FLOOR on 11/22/63, shortly after the
shells were discovered and photographed.
And:
The three shells in evidence today (CE543, 544, and 545) all have the
name "Day" scratched into them. And Lt. Day certainly didn't say he
scratched his name on MORE than three shells.
So, unless the conspiracy theorists want to call Lieutenant J.C. Day a
bald-faced liar (which many conspiracy kooks undoubtedly DO want to
do), then there's noplace for the CTers to run when it comes to the
subject of the THREE bullet shells that were found in the Sniper's
Nest on November 22, 1963.
In other words -- It doesn't really make any difference who else had
possession of those three bullet hulls AFTER Lieutenant Day marked
them with his name, and it doesn't really matter how many times those
three shells were shuttled back and forth between the DPD and the
FBI....because those three shells STILL HAVE LT. DAY'S NAME SCRATCHED
ON THEM.
And Lt. Day only marked THREE Mannlicher-Carcano bullet shells. He
didn't mark four, five, or six Carcano shells with his name. He marked
exactly THREE shells. No more, no less.
So the math really isn't too difficult to do regarding this matter, is
it?
Therefore, the only possible recourse the conspiracy theorists have
with respect to this topic is for the kooks to wrap the always-handy
label of "liar" around the necks of various police officers.
Because if officers such as Lt. Carl Day and Deputy Luke Mooney
weren't liars, then there were positively THREE spent bullet shells
from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth
floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63.
Maybe the conspiracy theorists should simply try to live with the
above "three shells were found" fact. Because it IS an irrevocable and
proven FACT, despite the persistent and half-assed protests coming
from the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy brigade.
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com/2009/10/spotlighted-articles.html
Walt
> >>> "Those affidavits mention nothing about sending the third shell on 11/27." <<<
>
> We have THREE bullet shells in evidence (CE543, 544, 545), and each
> one of them has J.C. Day's mark ("Day") on it.
>
> Let's listen to Lieutenant Day once again:
>
No matter how many times you listen to a tale from a liar......You
can't be certain that he's tellng the truth....... Now isn't that so
Von Pea Brain??
I posted undeniable PROOF yesterday thay Lt John C, Day lied about the
so called "palm Print"..... Unless you're a fool in the same catagory
as Rob Caprio you have to know that the "palm print" was nothing but a
smudge that Day lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle while he
was in the TSBD just minutes after the rifle was found.
You just can't face reality can you gutless??
Walt
> In article <ea5b9fd5-dd2f-4d61-92d1-e31ee15fc...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
You were right, Ben....... The yellow cur, tucked his tail tween his
legs and crawled away.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Walt's "proof" is about as believable as Bob Groden at the O.J.
Simpson civil trial.
BTW, Walt, do you still think this picture has been "altered"?:
BTW #2, since you brought up the name of Rob Caprio --- I never read
anything written by "Robcap" anymore (or Ben Holmes). In 2007 and
2008, I revealed Rob to be one of the silliest CT-Kooks in the history
of Internet-based CT-Kooks, so I have no desire to beat him over the
head with the facts anymore. And if I want to re-visit some of his
nuttiness, I always have my "DVP Trounces Caprio" archives.
BTW #3, do you, Walt, want to call Sebastian Latona a "liar", too?
(Latona, as you know, said that CE637 was positively the right
palmprint of LHO.)
What limit have you set for calling people liars, Cakebread? 1,000
people? 2,500? Higher? Just wondering.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jan 2, 12:29 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Those affidavits mention nothing about sending the third shell on 11/27." <<<
>
> > We have THREE bullet shells in evidence (CE543, 544, 545), and each
> > one of them has J.C. Day's mark ("Day") on it.
>
> > Let's listen to Lieutenant Day once again:
>
> No matter how many times you listen to a tale from a liar......You
> can't be certain that he's tellng the truth....... Now isn't that so
> Von Pea Brain??
>
> I posted undeniable PROOF yesterday thay Lt John C, Day lied about the
> so called "palm Print"..... Unless you're a fool in the same catagory
> as Rob Caprio you have to know that the "palm print" was nothing but a
> smudge that Day lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle while he
> was in the TSBD just minutes after the rifle was found.
To make this claim you have to LIE about the evidence as much as DVP
does!
The ACTUAL EVIDENCE shows us NO lift was done, and NO "smudges" were
found ANYWHERE beyond the trigger guard!
Remember Wally, YOUR homo lover said this about IGNORING the ACTUAL
evidence!
“Yep... the actual evidence can't be dealt with by the trolls.” (Ben
Holmes – 11/22/09)
> You just can't face reality can you gutless??
Obviously NOT! YOU are NO better that Dave Von Con!
> > "Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light
> > disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small
> > end. .... I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my
> > name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas
> > School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. As to the time I
> > scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember whether it was at
> > the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, when
> > they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked envelope. It had to
> > be one or the other, because this is the only time I had all three
> > hulls in my possession. Both Detective R. L. Studebaker and Detective
> > R. M. Sims, who were present at the window when the hulls were picked
> > up, state I marked them as they were found under the window." -- Lt.
> > J.C. Day; June 23, 1964
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day2.htm
>
> > Case closed on the shells.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> Walt's "proof" is about as believable as Bob Groden at the O.J.
> Simpson civil trial.
>
> BTW, Walt, do you still think this picture has been "altered"?:
>
>
> BTW #2, since you brought up the name of Rob Caprio --- I never read
> anything written by "Robcap" anymore (or Ben Holmes).
Why would you read Ben Holmes's stuff??? I mean YOU are Ben Holmes
too, right?
> In 2007 and
> 2008, I revealed Rob to be one of the silliest CT-Kooks in the history
> of Internet-based CT-Kooks,
Wally and Dave Von Con ARE WORKING TOGETHER AGAIN TO SLANDER A REAL
CTER!
> so I have no desire to beat him over the
> head with the facts anymore.
The word "anymore" implies that you have beaten me over he head with
facts before, but I don't remember this ever happening. Can you
enlighten us as to when this happened Dave Von Con?
I remember you being full of hot air and lies, but NEVER "facts" as NO
one who supports the WC has any FACTS on their side.
> And if I want to re-visit some of his
> nuttiness, I always have my "DVP Trounces Caprio" archives.
YOU keep EMPTY archives??
Let's see if he edits anything, okay?
> BTW #3, do you, Walt, want to call Sebastian Latona a "liar", too?
> (Latona, as you know, said that CE637 was positively the right
> palmprint of LHO.)
Saying it was LHO's and saying it was FOUND on the alleged murder
weapon are TWO DIFFERENT things Dave Von Con.
Bud
Watch the tape, retard, He said he looked in the SN and saw three
shells. One, two, three. Is he lying?
Walt
wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:01 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Walt's "proof" is about as believable as Bob Groden at the O.J.
> > Simpson civil trial.
Het Stupid..... Get your arrogant head out of your ass and
LOOK.....at
CE 637
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Can you SEE those two parallel lines on the right hand side of the so
called palm print????
Do you know what caused those parallel lines, Stupid???
Those lines were caused by the slot cut into the WOODEN foregrip of a
model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
The wooden foregrip of a model 91/38 has a groove or slot routered
out
to accomodate the blade of the bayonet when the bayonet isn't being
used to stab enemy soldiers.
When the blade is folded back toward the trigger guard the tip of the
blade rests in a slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip. this slot
is about 4.5mm ( 3/16") wide.
When Day dusted that wooden forgrip just minutes after he pulled the
rifle from the place it had been carefully hidden he placed a piece
of
cellophane tape on that smudge on the wooden foregrip and rubbed his
fingers across the tape to transfer the smuge to the tape....in doing
that he created pressure on the edges of the bayonet slot and
therefore he picked up the edges of the bayonet slot. They are
clearly visible at the right hand side of the smudge .
I posted this to another Stupid Bastard yesterday....... But I'll
repeat it for your benefit, even though I doubt that you're smart
enough to understand this SIMPLE FACT..
> > people? 2,500? Higher? Just wondering.- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Happens all of the time in an investigation. Only retards pretend
these "no take back" rules are in effect. People misspeak, become
confused, ect, and when this happens, and errors appear in the record,
they go back and amend or clarify.
>They're not liars, they're just mistaken, we
> know. Day's testimony proved that there was a break in the chain of
> possession of the evidence of the shells allegedly found on the sixth
> floor and that break would have been enough to throw out the shells as
> evidence in court.
<snicker> Even if you could call in to question the chain of
possession of one, why would that cause the other two o be thrown out?
> Here's something else, Mr. Nutcase:
>
> Repeating your silly post doesn't "close the case" on the shells. IOW,
> the case isn't "closed" just because you say so. It's a lame attempt
> on your part to run from the evidence that's inconvenient to you.
And the shells aren`t dismissed as evidence just because a retard
has decided they would be.
> The documents and photographs show that the DPD possessed TWO shells,
> that they sent TWO shells to the FBI and that they got TWO shells
> back, not only on 11/23, but on 11/27 also.
>
> You need to address this rather than ignore it.
You ignore every source he cites, retard.
> And when the FBI examined those shells, they found that only one of
> them had the marking of the firing pin of the depository rifle on it.
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=162...
>
> You need to explain this also.
Just for fun, lets hear the retard explanation. Gil, you`re up...
Bud
He cited evidence that you didn`t like. It doesn`t have to
information a retard accepts, you guys use the official sources, then
you rule them inadmissible, then you use them, and so on. Retard
investigation will always yield retard results.
>
>
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -
Walt
Who knows??? This is the problem with liars...... You simply can't
believe them. If a liar says it's raining, the only way you can be
sure is ..go to the window and look for yourself.
Since I'm not sure that Craig is believable .... As much as I'd like
to believe him about the way the shells were only about an inch apart
and parallel, I simply can't believe him.
Bud
Because he supplies a number for the shells found that goes against
what you want to believe.
David Von Pein
>>> "Can you SEE those two parallel lines on the right hand side of the so called palm print????" <<<
Yes, I can see the lines in the picture. But, overall, CE637 is a
horrible photo:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
I can't see any of the Oswald palmprint at all in CE637, linked above.
But I'm certainly not going to declare CE637 a fake or a fraud because
I cannot SEE the print in question. Lt. Day and S. Latona CONFIRMED
FOR ALL TIME that CE637 is a photo of Oswald's right palmprint....and
Lt. Day confirmed that he lifted that print off of the metal barrel of
the C2766 rifle after he removed the wooden stock.
And your silly theory about the "parallel lines" certainly does
nothing to trump Lt. Day's testimony. After all, it was DAY (not a
retard named Walt) who actually lifted the print seen in CE637.
And, as I said, CE637 is a really, really crappy photo. And so is
CE639 (which is another photo of the palmprint, except #639 has the
print circled):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0159a.htm
BTW, the circled print in CE639 is located pretty much completely to
the LEFT of the "parallel lines" that you, Walt, like to continually
talk about.
And inasmuch as CE637 & CE639 are so terrible (clarity-wise) so that
we cannot actually see where Oswald's print begins and where it ends
(within the confines of the circled area), it's not possible to say
for sure exactly WHERE within the circle the print is precisely
located. And it's also not possible to say for certain what the
"parallel lines" represent.
Also, btw, there are more than just two "parallel lines" visible in
CE637 & CE639. There are also some lines above the "two" that you're
obviously talking about, Walt. I don't know whether that fact alters
your theory about the print being taken off of the wood of the rifle
instead of the metal part. But I wouldn't trust a thing uttered by a
nut like you anyway, so it doesn't really matter if those extra
"parallel lines" weaken or bolster your retarded theory.
As Bud has asked (rhetorically) in the past:
Who should be believed -- the experts in their fields or a bunch
of conspiracy-happy retards (like Walt C.)?
Call me madcap--but that's not a real tough choice to make.
In the final analysis regarding this matter:
Walt doesn't know exactly what those "parallel lines" represent. How
can he know for certain? He's a retard. Therefore, Walt's analysis of
those "lines" on CE637 is meaningless (especially when compared with
the testimony of the FINGERPRINT EXPERTS named Day and Latona--
particularly Lt. Day).
And since Walt will forever reside in the "Anybody But Oswald" Retard
Club, it's a good bet that anything Walt says about ANYTHING in this
case will be a retarded idea designed to promote his "ABO" stance.
Heck, Walt can't even figure out that Oswald shot President Kennedy
with a gun on November 22nd, 1963. And that fact couldn't be more
crystal-clear, even to most conspiracy theorists (as ABC News proved
in its 2003 assassination poll):
http://www.PollingReport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
ABC POLL QUESTION:
"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%
Walt
> >>> "Can you SEE those two parallel lines on the right hand side of the so called palm print????" <<<
>
> Yes, I can see the lines in the picture.
Von Pea Brain wrote:....."Yes, I can see the lines in the picture."
So you can see the lines that were created when Lt,Day rubbed the
cellophane tape to lift the smudge, and I've told you what created
those parallel lines, and I've told you to check photos of a model
91/38 Mannlicher Carcano for confirmation that there is a bayonet slot
at the front of the foregrip of a Carcano and yet you claim not to
understand the ramifications of that very simple FACT. ...... I know
that you not anywhere near as smart as you think you are.....but I
know that your smart enough to know that the so called "palm print"
was actually lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle, and you
know that because the bayonet slot is shown on that print ( CE 637).
You have three choices....(1) Deny it, and prove that you are a
liar....or (2) deny it, and prove that you're stupid.....or (3) admit
that CE 637 proves that the authorties were framing Oswald.
Tough choice ....huh?
An honest man with character would choose number 3.........
Let's see your choice
But, overall, CE637 is a
> horrible photo:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> I can't see any of the Oswald palmprint at all in CE637, linked above.
>
> But I'm certainly not going to declare CE637 a fake or a fraud because
> I cannot SEE the print in question. Lt. Day and S. Latona CONFIRMED
> FOR ALL TIME that CE637 is a photo of Oswald's right palmprint....and
> Lt. Day confirmed that he lifted that print off of the metal barrel of
> the C2766 rifle after he removed the wooden stock.
>
> And your silly theory about the "parallel lines" certainly does
> nothing to trump Lt. Day's testimony. After all, it was DAY (not a
> retard named Walt) who actually lifted the print seen in CE637.
>
> And, as I said, CE637 is a really, really crappy photo. And so is
> CE639 (which is another photo of the palmprint, except #639 has the
> print circled):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Walt
>
> Yes, I can see the lines in the picture. But, overall, CE637 is a
> horrible photo:
>
>
> I can't see any of the Oswald palmprint at all in CE637, linked above.
>
> But I'm certainly not going to declare CE637 a fake or a fraud because
> I cannot SEE the print in question. Lt. Day and S. Latona CONFIRMED
> FOR ALL TIME that CE637 is a photo of Oswald's right palmprint....and
> Lt. Day confirmed that he lifted that print off of the metal barrel of
> the C2766 rifle after he removed the wooden stock.
>
> And your silly theory about the "parallel lines" certainly does
> nothing to trump Lt. Day's testimony. After all, it was DAY (not a
> retard named Walt) who actually lifted the print seen in CE637.
>
> And, as I said, CE637 is a really, really crappy photo. And so is
> CE639 (which is another photo of the palmprint, except #639 has the
> print circled):
>
>
> BTW, the circled print in CE639 is located pretty much completely to
> the LEFT of the "parallel lines" that you, Walt, like to continually
> talk about.
>
> And inasmuch as CE637 & CE639 are so terrible (clarity-wise) so that
> we cannot actually see where Oswald's print begins and where it ends
> (within the confines of the circled area), it's not possible to say
> for sure exactly WHERE within the circle the print is precisely
> located. And it's also not possible to say for certain what the
> "parallel lines" represent.
The Pea Brain wrote:......"it's also not possible to say for certain
what the "parallel lines" represent."
Oh but it IS ....positively IS ... possible to know that the parallel
lines were created by the edges of the bayonet slot on the WOODEN
foregrip of a model 91/ 38 Mannlicher Carcano, because they not only
LOOK exactly like the edges of that bayonet slot...... The grain of
the wood is also visible in the print.
David Von Pein
Walt, how many "parallel lines" are part of the wooden foregrip of a
Carcano 91/38 rifle? If the answer is only "two", you'd better change
your theory a tad bit. Because there are at least FOUR such lines
visible in CE637 and CE639 (especially in #639, which shows the lines
a little clearer).
And I'll admit, I have no idea what the answer to my last question is.
Maybe Walt will enlighten us.
Walt
Whoa there just a damned minute......Let's back up a few posts and
review the feasibility of anybody depositing a palm print at the
location where Day claimed he found it on the METAL barrel.
He could NOT have found it as he claimed....He claimed he saw part of
a print on the metal barrel sticking out from under the wooden
foregrip. It takes little effort to look at CE 1304 on page 132 of the
WR and SEE the bayonet lug surrounding the metal barrel at the point
where the wooden stock ends at the front of the rifle. That LUG says
Lt day was a stupid "lug" who was lying through his teeth. .....Nobody
could have deposited an identifable palm print at that location.
In addition to that impossiblity......The metal barrel of a Carcno is
only 5/8 of inch in diameter..... Not LOOK at CE 638....notice the
area that is circled on Oswald's palm print.....I defy you to transfer
that much area onto a 5/8 inch metal rod or tube. Only about 1/4
inch of a 5/8" tube would come in contact with a man's palm. There
simply is NOT enough area on a 5/8 inch tube to deposit an
identifiable palm print.
So those two points prove that The authorities were lying..... Now
then.....In addition to that the print itself shows that it was lifted
from the WOODEN surface of a M 91/38 carcano, because the bayonet slot
is visible and the grain od the wood can be seen.......
All of this proves that the authorities framed Oswald.......
Walt
The part of Craigs statement that I'd like to believe is the part
about the shells lying side by side not an inch apart and all pointing
in the same direction......It's obvious that the odds of that
happening with shells being ejected from a rifle are astronomical....
(maybe even impossible) IF ..IF ..Craig saw them lying side by side
as he claimed that would be a very good piece of evidence that the
were planted there beneath the window..... But I think he was
lying, I don't believe he saw them in that arrangement at all.
However if you seen the illuminating video the Intense Italian firing
his Carcano then you've got a good idea that the shells coldn't have
landed in that small area only a couple of feet away from the rifle.
The fact that the shells were found closely grouped beneath that
window is a very strong indocation that they were planted there. If
that carcano had been rapidly fired as the warren Commission claimed
those shells would have been widely scattered just as they are in the
video.
Bud
There is nothing inconsistent about how the shells are shown in this
evidence photo and Oswald shooting there from a low position
surrounded by boxes, it`s just another case of a retard looking for
justification for the stupid things he wants to believe.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
Walt
>
>
Duhhhh...Dud..... The Bolt of the carcano would have been to the REAR
TO THE REAR of those boxes and angled AWAY from thos boxes....
IF that rifle had been fired from that location as the Warren
Commission THEORIZED..... then the ejected shells would have been
flung AWAY FROM THE WINDOW. They would NOT have landed in the tight
group as they are seen in the photo. You sure are a dumbass aren't
you?.
>
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
They couldn`t hit boxes and end of where they are shown in the
evidence photo, is that what you are saying Sherlock Retard?
Walt
Well I'll be dipped....Yer not a stupid as you pretend to be.... are
ya??
You DO know where the shells would have struck IF IF they had hit
those boxes don'tcha Dud??
You've seen pictures of that so called "Sniper's Nest"....IF IF those
shells has struck the boxes they would have hit the north/south face
of the upper box and bounced right back at the shooter or they could
have ended up along the EAST wall ..... They would NOT have ended up
under the south facing window.
Actually this whole discussion is silly, because that rifle was never
fired that day.
Bud
I suspect you are every bit as retarded as you seem.
> You DO know where the shells would have struck IF IF they had hit
> those boxes don'tcha Dud??
Where they are shown in the evidence photo.
> You've seen pictures of that so called "Sniper's Nest"....IF IF those
> shells has struck the boxes they would have hit the north/south face
> of the upper box and bounced right back at the shooter or they could
> have ended up along the EAST wall ..... They would NOT have ended up
> under the south facing window.
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/fig23.jpg
> Actually this whole discussion is silly, because that rifle was never
> fired that day.
How valid can your ideas be when you have to constantly resort to
the amazing and extraordinary?
Walt
Amazing and extraordinary??...... It's only amazing and extraordinary
to someone who has his head in his ass. There's nothing amazing
about LOOKING at the evidence and using your head. Of course if your
head is being used as a butt plug then you can only mumble stupid
stuff like..."Well, maybe those ejected shells bounced off the
boxes"....
Bud
Yah, retard, that the bullets and rifle were planted by persons
unknown in an occupied building during a workday at the very location
people said they saw a rifle firing is amazing and extraordinary.
That your idea require these sorts of things all over shows your ideas
to be merely the creation of an overactive retarded imagination.
> It's only amazing and extraordinary
> to someone who has his head in his ass.
That you can`t tell that your ideas are extraordinary and amazing
shows just how far gone you are.
> There's nothing amazing
> about LOOKING at the evidence and using your head.
Using your imagination to contrive and create like you are writing
the script for a bad television program is not investigation, retard.
It`s playing games, it`s a hobby and it`s retarded.
> Of course if your
> head is being used as a butt plug then you can only mumble stupid
> stuff like..."Well, maybe those ejected shells bounced off the
> boxes"....
<snicker> THIS you find amazing. That Oswald shooting his rifle
about 18 inches off the floor could have the shells he ejected hit the
walls of boxes around him and return back towards him. But thinking
there were conspiracy leprechauns sprinkling false evidence everywhere
is considered having your head out of your ass. Walt, you are just
retarded, it`s that simple.
Walt
In a building where boxes and large packages were routine you think it
would have been difficult to conceal a rifle??? Maybe you are as
stupid as I thought.
And the person who actually saw the rifle being aimed out of the
window said the man was dressed in light colored shirt and trousers.
He described a window that was wide
open ( the N/W corner window) and he said the rifle was possibly a
30-30 winchester.
> That your idea require these sorts of things all over shows your ideas
> to be merely the creation of an overactive retarded imagination.
Well at least I have an imagination....unlike a brainless drone who
can't think for himself.
>
> > It's only amazing and extraordinary
> > to someone who has his head in his ass.
>
> That you can`t tell that your ideas are extraordinary and amazing
> shows just how far gone you are.
Nah....When I compare our ideas it's obvious that you couldn't solve a
long division problem.
>
> > There's nothing amazing
> > about LOOKING at the evidence and using your head.
>
> Using your imagination to contrive and create like you are writing
> the script for a bad television program is not investigation, retard.
> It`s playing games, it`s a hobby and it`s retarded.
Perhaps you can explain how the bayonet slot on the foregrip of a
mannlicher carcano appears on a print that the cops said was taken
from the metal barrel of the rifle.
>
> > Of course if your
> > head is being used as a butt plug then you can only mumble stupid
> > stuff like..."Well, maybe those ejected shells bounced off the
> > boxes"....
>
> <snicker> THIS you find amazing. That Oswald shooting his rifle
> about 18 inches off the floor could have the shells he ejected hit the
> walls of boxes around him and return back towards him.
Hey STUPID..... You have just repeated what I told you earlier.....
The shells could have bounced back toward a shooter but they could NOT
have bounced forward and away from the bolt of the rifle. If the
shells had bounced off the boxes they would NOT have been beneath that
window. The debate is silly.....the rifle wasn't fired that day and
both the shells and the rifle were planted.
But thinking
> there were conspiracy leprechauns sprinkling false evidence everywhere
> is considered having your head out of your ass. Walt, you are just
> retarded, it`s that simple.
I understand that you'd seek simple solutions.....that's the way with
simpletons......
David Von Pein
>>> "You've seen pictures of that so called "Sniper's Nest"....IF IF those shells [had] struck the boxes they would have hit the north/south face of the upper box and bounced right back at the shooter or they could have ended up along the EAST wall. They would NOT have ended up under the south facing window." <<<
It looks like Walt The Super-Kook wants to totally disregard some
additional Warren Commission expert testimony (from the FBI's Robert
A. Frazier this time).
Beginning at 3H401, Frazier talks about the tests that the FBI
performed in order to illustrate "the positions on the floor at which
cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the
rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139." [Frazier's quote, at 3H401.]
To further illustrate the ejection pattern of the tested cartridge
cases, diagrams and charts were drawn up by a draftsman and the
diagrams were entered as Warren Commission exhibits (CE546 and CE547,
below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0134b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0135a.htm
MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these diagrams as
Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547?"
JOHN McCLOY -- "They may be admitted."
MR. EISENBERG -- "Could you give us the results of your tests by using
these diagrams, Mr. Frazier?"
ROBERT FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. In this test, Commission Exhibit 546, the
diagram illustrates the positions on the floor at which cartridge
cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the rifle,
Commission's Exhibit 139.
"In the top portion of Exhibit 546, the
barrel was held depressed at a 45-degree angle, and in the lower half
of the exhibit it shows the pattern with the barrel held in a
horizontal position. Each spot marked with a figure on the diagram
shows where one cartridge case landed in both instances, and each one
is marked with the distance and the angle to which the cartridge case
was ejected.
"With the barrel held in the depressed
condition, all of the cartridge cases landed within an 85-inch circle
located 80 degrees to the right front of the rifle. That may be
confusing. It was 80 degrees to the right from the line of sight of
the rifle and at a distance of 86 inches from the ejection port.
"Now, this circle will not necessarily
encompass all cartridge cases ejected from the rifle, since the
ejection is determined, not only by the angle of the weapon, but more
by the force with which the bolt is operated. A very light force on
the bolt can cause the cartridge case to tip gently out and fall at
your feet. However, under normal conditions of reloading in a fairly
rapid manner, we found the cartridge cases to land in this circle.
"The same situation is true of the test
made with the muzzle in the horizontal condition. All of the cartridge
cases landed within a 47-inch circle, which was located at right
angles to the ejection port, or 90 degrees from the line of sight, and
at a distance 80 inches from the ejection port. In both of these
tests, the ejection port of the weapon was held 32 inches above the
floor.
"In the second test performed, Commission
Exhibit 547, the test was made to ascertain how high above the
ejection port a cartridge case would fly as it was being ejected.
After ejecting numerous cartridge cases from the weapon with the
barrel held in a depressed condition, it was found that the cartridge
cases did not exceed two inches above the level of the ejection port.
And with the muzzle held horizontally, it did not exceed 12 inches
above the level of the ejection port."
[And then, at 3H402, Robert Frazier tells the Warren Commission
something that completely destroys Walt's theory about the location of
the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest...]
MR. EISENBERG -- "I now hand you three Commission Exhibits, 510, 511,
and 512, which are photographs which have been identified as giving
the location of the cartridges--cartridge cases--Nos. 543, 544, and
545, on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building. I ask
you to examine these pictures, and to determine whether if the rifle
had been fired from the window shown in these pictures, the location
of the cartridge cases is consistent with the results of the tests you
ran to determine the ejection patterns."
MR. FRAZIER -- "I would say yes; it is consistent--although the
cartridge cases are--two of them--against the wall. There is a stack
of boxes fairly near the wall, and the position of the cartridge cases
could very well have been affected by the boxes. That is, they could
strike the box and bounce for several feet, and they could have
bounced back and forth in this small area here and come to rest in the
areas shown in the photographs."
MR. EISENBERG -- "In making your tests, did you notice much ricochet?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes; considerable. Each time a cartridge case hit the
floor, it would bounce anywhere from 8 inches to 10 to 15 feet."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0205a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0205b.htm
So, we have Bob Frazier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation telling
the world (via his Warren Commission testimony) that the location of
the ejected rifle shells as seen in the official Dallas Police crime-
scene photographs is perfectly "CONSISTENT" with the shell-ejection
pattern that Frazier observed during his post-assassination tests
(which are tests that were performed WITH THE SAME EXACT RIFLE,
Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano).
Case closed on another stupid theory gushed forth by a conspiracy
theorist [Walt Cakebread] who lives strictly by the rigid rules set
forth in his own self-published "Anybody But Lee Harvey Oswald"
guidebook.
In short, Walt obviously has no desire to accept ANYTHING of an
"official" nature regarding this murder case--whether it be from
Robert A. Frazier of the FBI, Captain J. Will Fritz of the DPD,
Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD, Henry Wade of the District Attorney's
office, Earl Warren of the Warren Commission, or anybody in-between.
ADDENDUM:
To tell you the truth, I've always thought that the "Shell Ejection
Pattern Tests" were altogether unnecessary. But it just goes to show
the thoroughness and the depth of the FBI's and the Warren
Commission's investigation into the murder of President Kennedy.
I mean, even without those cartridge-ejection tests, it couldn't BE
more obvious that somebody fired three shots FROM OSWALD'S C2766
MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE out of that sixth-floor Depository window. So
the ejection-pattern tests were totally superfluous, IMO.
And there's something else for conspiracy theorists to ask themselves
here too---
Would a Presidential Commission or J. Edgar Hoover's FBI have actually
gone to the trouble of doing superfluous tests (like those cartridge-
ejection tests) if the main goal of each of those two organizations
(WC and FBI) was to COVER-UP the truth of the assassination in order
to pin the whole thing on an innocent man named Oswald?
In my opinion, the answer to that last question has to be a resounding
"No".
Those ejection tests are just one more indication (among many) that
the Warren Commission and the FBI were leaving no stone unturned in
their respective investigations surrounding the murder of the 35th
U.S. President.
aeffects
<snip>
out of the way shithead.... you're irrelevant... you shitheads seem to
be in total disarray since Doug Horne showed up... you have 5 books to
read.... get busy
David Von Pein
>>> "you shitheads seem to be in total disarray since Doug Horne showed up." <<<
As if the crazy theories of Doug Horne are anything NEW.
His crap isn't new at all. We've known about his impossible "Two
Brains" theory (and his other silly theories) since 1996 [see link
below]:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0002a.htm
aeffects
> >>> "you shitheads seem to be in total disarray since Doug Horne showed up." <<<
>
> As if the crazy theories of Doug Horne are anything NEW.
hon, your fear is palpable .... like groaning in the night... HBO
doing rewrites
~~~heaven, I'm in heaven ....~~~ want my autograph, moron?
> His crap isn't new at all. We've known about his impossible "Two
> Brains" theory (and his other silly theories) since 1996 [see link
> below]:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams...
David Von Pein
>>> "your fear is palpable." <<<
And your retardedness is obvious.
Gil Jesus
found.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see the empty cartridges when they were found?
Mr. CRAIG. I didn't see them when they were found. I saw them laying
on the floor.
Mr. BELIN. About how soon after they were found did you see them,
laying on the floor?
Mr. CRAIG. Oh, a couple of minutes.
( 6 H 267 )
That means that he saw them after Fritz picked them up and held them
in his hand for the reporter to photograph. Fritz could have easily
placed those shells on the floor in the configuration that Craig
described.
But of course, it's easier to call Craig a liar.
Bud
I`m stupid? You can`t even understand the point I made, you think it
has something to do with hiding the rifle. The point was getting a
rifle and shells to a place inside where people outside are going to
indicate a shooter was in a building with people moving here and
there. But nothing is difficult for the conspiracy, you think they can
magically accomplish anything your constructs require.
> And the person who actually saw the rifle being aimed out of the
> window said the man was dressed in light colored shirt and trousers.
> He described a window that was wide
> open ( the N/W corner window) and he said the rifle was possibly a
> 30-30 winchester.
He said that the man was firing from the "...east end of the
building, and the second row of windows from the top." Right were the
shells were found, retard.
> > That your idea require these sorts of things all over shows your ideas
> > to be merely the creation of an overactive retarded imagination.
>
> Well at least I have an imagination....unlike a brainless drone who
> can't think for himself.
Imagination is great, just admit you are playing games trying to
contrive creative scenarios. Real investigations aren`t about playing
these silly games, and it is retarded to criticize them for not
engaging in these silly games you enjoy so much.
> > > It's only amazing and extraordinary
> > > to someone who has his head in his ass.
>
> > That you can`t tell that your ideas are extraordinary and amazing
> > shows just how far gone you are.
>
> Nah....When I compare our ideas it's obvious that you couldn't solve a
> long division problem.
You`s make "two plus two" a long division problem, Walt. You reject
obvious and simple explanations and contrive elaborate complex plots
to explain the same information. Nothing anywhere in this case is as
it seems. But, the more complex you make, the more blatantly
impossible it becomes. Actions like your mega-complex constructs need
coordination, which means communications, which means orders flying
everywhere, given from dozens of ringleaders to the hundreds of people
needed to carry them out. These things could not have happened that
way and have the case stand as it does today. You scoff at the WC`s
findings, but you want to replace them with things that could not have
happened. You ridicule the way the WC gathered and processed
information, but no investigation worthy of it`s name would
investigate like you and your fellow retards would.
> > > There's nothing amazing
> > > about LOOKING at the evidence and using your head.
>
> > Using your imagination to contrive and create like you are writing
> > the script for a bad television program is not investigation, retard.
> > It`s playing games, it`s a hobby and it`s retarded.
>
> Perhaps you can explain how the bayonet slot on the foregrip of a
> mannlicher carcano appears on a print that the cops said was taken
> from the metal barrel of the rifle.
You haven`t established it does, Walt. Creases often appear on tape.
Could be the tape dispenser. You are more than willing to call a
police officer doing his job a liar, based on what you think a couple
lines in a poor photo show. If you can convict Day with a couple lines
in a photo, then you must believe Oswald is guilty with the mountain
of indications of his guilt.
> > > Of course if your
> > > head is being used as a butt plug then you can only mumble stupid
> > > stuff like..."Well, maybe those ejected shells bounced off the
> > > boxes"....
>
> > <snicker> THIS you find amazing. That Oswald shooting his rifle
> > about 18 inches off the floor could have the shells he ejected hit the
> > walls of boxes around him and return back towards him.
>
> Hey STUPID.....
What, retard?
> You have just repeated what I told you earlier.....
> The shells could have bounced back toward a shooter but they could NOT
> have bounced forward and away from the bolt of the rifle.
<snicker> You were just saying I was mumbling stupid stuff like the
shells bounced off the boxes, then you repeat what you just called
"stupid stuff".
> If the
> shells had bounced off the boxes they would NOT have been beneath that
> window.
Why not? They bounce, they roll, with the force they are ejected in
the film you linked to, they could be anywhere in that area. The
ejections wouldn`t have the height to clear the boxes, so they hit the
boxes, hit the floor and go wherever.
> The debate is silly.....the rifle wasn't fired that day and
> both the shells and the rifle were planted.
Thats just retarded.
Walt
Huh??..... You really are obtuse...... Apparently you haven't got
your head out of your ass long enough to study James Powell's photo of
the face of the TSBD ( You know the picture that Hoover hid from us
for about twelve years ) Powell's photo was taken just minutes
BEFORE the motorcade arrived in Dealey. He took a photo of "someone"
sticking a rifle barrel out of that SE corner window. That action
had many meanings.....It was the signal that the shells had been
planted, the patsy had set himself up, and the assassination was GO.
Now all Powell had to do after the murder was point and yell that the
shots had come from "up there" and then fade away.....the crowd would
take it from there.... and they did.
But nothing is difficult for the conspiracy, you think they can
> magically accomplish anything your constructs require.
>
> > And the person who actually saw the rifle being aimed out of the
> > window said the man was dressed in light colored shirt and trousers.
> > He described a window that was wide
> > open ( the N/W corner window) and he said the rifle was possibly a
> > 30-30 winchester.
>
> He said that the man was firing from the "...east end of the
> building, and the second row of windows from the top." Right were the
> shells were found, retard.
No Stupid you've got it backwards..... Brennan DESCRIBED the wide open
window at the WEST end of the sixth floor in his affidavit which he
wrote about an hour after the shooting.
AT THAT TIME Brennan wasn't aware that they would find the planted
shells beneath the SE corner window...... He merely wrote what he'd
seen. Later he learned that the cops weren't understanding that he
and Arnold Rowland had seen the man with the HUNTING rifle behind the
WEST end window.....And they wouldn't listen to him. Recall that he
told them Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen, but they were insistant
that Oswald was their man. ( Lynin Bastard Johnson had already told
Fritz that Oswald was "the man") Brennan had no voice....all he
could do was watch helplessly.... He may have felt a little like
Orville Nix.....who KNEW by using his God given senses that at least
one shot had come from the GK..... But a couple of days later he
willing changed his mind..... He said.... " I was sure that the shots
had been fired from behind that picket fence,,,,,,But they found proof
that they were fired from up there in that building" Nix willing
abandoned his good sense and caved in to authority.......
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Walt, when I said you contrive elaborate, complex and retarded
scenarios, I wasn`t asking for examples.
> But nothing is difficult for the conspiracy, you think they can
>
> > magically accomplish anything your constructs require.
>
> > > And the person who actually saw the rifle being aimed out of the
> > > window said the man was dressed in light colored shirt and trousers.
> > > He described a window that was wide
> > > open ( the N/W corner window) and he said the rifle was possibly a
> > > 30-30 winchester.
>
> > He said that the man was firing from the "...east end of the
> > building, and the second row of windows from the top." Right were the
> > shells were found, retard.
>
> No Stupid you've got it backwards..... Brennan DESCRIBED the wide open
> window at the WEST end of the sixth floor in his affidavit which he
> wrote about an hour after the shooting.
He doesn`t say anything about a half-opened window in his affidavit,
retard. He said it was "the east end of the building, and the second
row of windows from the top".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
> AT THAT TIME Brennan wasn't aware that they would find the planted
> shells beneath the SE corner window...... He merely wrote what he'd
> seen. Later he learned that the cops weren't understanding that he
> and Arnold Rowland had seen the man with the HUNTING rifle behind the
> WEST end window.....And they wouldn't listen to him. Recall that he
> told them Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen, but they were insistant
> that Oswald was their man. ( Lynin Bastard Johnson had already told
> Fritz that Oswald was "the man") Brennan had no voice....all he
> could do was watch helplessly.... He may have felt a little like
> Orville Nix.....who KNEW by using his God given senses that at least
> one shot had come from the GK..... But a couple of days later he
> willing changed his mind..... He said.... " I was sure that the shots
> had been fired from behind that picket fence,,,,,,But they found proof
> that they were fired from up there in that building" Nix willing
> abandoned his good sense and caved in to authority.......
Can anyone imagine if the WC had returned retarded rambling such as
this?
Cling to your retarded beliefs, Walt, you desperately seem to need
them. Perhaps it`s therapy of sorts for you, and you are doing no real
harm to anyone, so carry on, I don`t suppose it really matters.
Walt
Gil, I'm at a loss to understand how you can defend Roger Craig.....
There can bo no doubt that he lied about the Mannlicher Carcano being
a 7.65 mauser. I don't believe it was intended to be a malicious
lie.... He heard Fritz and Weitzman speculating that the rifle was a
mauser and accepted their expertise. The problem is, he was very
much like Rob Caprio....and he would not accept that he was wrong.
There absolutely no doubt in my mind that Roger craig is a totally
unreliable witness..... He "may"? have seen the shells lying side by
side after Fritz put them back on the floor, and that could explain
his description, but there is NO WAY to know if that's the truth,
because I KNOW that he lied about the Mauser. Roger Craig "may'?
have seen a mauser in the TSBD that day, but it was NOT at the time
that Lt Day lifted the Mannlicher Carcano from the place it had been
hidden. Craig "may?" have seen a police sharpshooter carrying a
mauser and assumed that the sharpshooter's mauser was the same rifle
( the mannlicher Carcano) he'd seen earlier, but he said he saw the
mauser logo on the rifle when Day and Fritz were examining it just
seconds after it was retrieved . That simply is NOT true.
Walt
Let's see who's the retard.... Here's exactly what Howard Brennan
wrote:....
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway
in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the
top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's
car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently
waiting for the same thing I was to see the President."
Brennan said that he saw the 30 /35 year old, 175 pound, man who was
dressed in a light colored shirt and white trousers just sitting up
there in the east end window BEFORE the motorcade arrived. His
observationis corroborated by at least a half dozen other
witnesses.... who also said they saw a man in light colored clothing
in the east end window BEFORE the motorcade arrived. However Brennan
later DESCRIBES the window where he saw the man at the time of the
shooting....
"I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the
corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and
Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line
with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I
thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be
someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building
and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described
in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could
see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on
it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the
last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped
down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see
this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him
at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I
ever saw him again. "
I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the
corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and
Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line
with the last windows I have previously described (HLB)
50 yards past the intersection JFK's back was directly beneath the
WEST end of the TSBD.
I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that
it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red
brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I
have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.
"I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking
aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the
gun." (HLB)
High powered rifle.....ie Hunting rifle..... If the man had been
Oswald sitting on a box of books behind that east end window Brennan
could NOT have seen him back away from the window. We can know that
this is true because Brennan said that he saw the man from his belt
up. From the floor to the belt of a 5' 10" man is approximately 40 -
42 inches. Bennan said the man was standing directly behind the
window and not back away from it. If the man had been further back
away from the window Brennan would only have seen his shoulders and
head. ( about 54 - 56 inches from the floor.) the top of Oswald's
head would have been about 48 inches from the floor if he had been
sitting on a box back away from the windowand Brennan cound NOT have
seen him.
"I could see all of the barrel of the gun. " (HLB)
A m 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano has 5 inches of barrel exposed.....That's
a very short barrel...... It's highly unlikely that anybody would see
a 5 inch barrel and descibe it as ....."I could see all of the barrel
of the gun." Later Brennan was to expand on his statement by saying he
could see all of the barrel of the rifle from the muzzle clear back to
the man's hand as he STOOD and aimed the rifle out of the window.
"I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the
man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man
let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight."
"Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of
sight."(HLB)
How does a man who is sitting out of the line of vision, on a box of
books, Let the gun down to his side and "Step down out of sight"????
He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about
his belt up.
"I could see this man from about his belt up." (HLB)
Only a complete loon would think that Howard Brennan could have seen
Oswald from the belt up if he had been sitting on a box of books about
three feet back from the window.
There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe
that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You, Walt. Brennan specifically placed the man in a window. Your
retarded mind moves him to another location.
> Here's exactly what Howard Brennan
> wrote:....
>
> "I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway
> in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the
> top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's
> car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently
> waiting for the same thing I was to see the President."
>
> Brennan said that he saw the 30 /35 year old, 175 pound, man who was
> dressed in a light colored shirt and white trousers just sitting up
> there in the east end window BEFORE the motorcade arrived.
Brennan also said the man was slender. He also said the man was
Oswald.
> His
> observationis corroborated by at least a half dozen other
> witnesses....
Many who said the man was younger than Brennan`s estimate.
>who also said they saw a man in light colored clothing
> in the east end window BEFORE the motorcade arrived.
Some inside the building said Oswald was wearing a light colored
top.
> However Brennan
> later DESCRIBES the window where he saw the man at the time of the
> shooting....
>
> "I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the
> corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and
> Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line
> with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I
> thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be
> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building
> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described
> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could
> see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on
> it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the
> last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped
> down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see
> this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him
> at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I
> ever saw him again. "
>
> I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the
> corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and
> Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line
> with the last windows I have previously described (HLB)
>
> 50 yards past the intersection JFK's back was directly beneath the
> WEST end of the TSBD.
Yah, retard, but he has not moved the man from the window he saw him
in.
> I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that
> it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red
> brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I
> have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
> rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.
>
> "I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking
> aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the
> gun." (HLB)
>
> High powered rifle.....ie Hunting rifle..... If the man had been
> Oswald sitting on a box of books behind that east end window Brennan
> could NOT have seen him back away from the window. We can know that
> this is true because Brennan said that he saw the man from his belt
> up. From the floor to the belt of a 5' 10" man is approximately 40 -
> 42 inches. Bennan said the man was standing directly behind the
> window and not back away from it. If the man had been further back
> away from the window Brennan would only have seen his shoulders and
> head. ( about 54 - 56 inches from the floor.) the top of Oswald's
> head would have been about 48 inches from the floor if he had been
> sitting on a box back away from the windowand Brennan cound NOT have
> seen him.
Walt, your "this must mean this" constructs only impress yourself.
> "I could see all of the barrel of the gun. " (HLB)
>
> A m 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano has 5 inches of barrel exposed.....That's
> a very short barrel...... It's highly unlikely that anybody would see
> a 5 inch barrel and descibe it as ....."I could see all of the barrel
> of the gun." Later Brennan was to expand on his statement by saying he
> could see all of the barrel of the rifle from the muzzle clear back to
> the man's hand as he STOOD and aimed the rifle out of the window.
He said the rifle was on the sill when he saw him shooting. How does
he stand and do this, Walt?
And Brennan didn`t take note of the scope, there is no reason to
believe he took note of the details of the rifle well enough to
discern the barrel from the stock. As usual, you are picking flyshit
from pepper.
> "I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the
> man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man
> let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight."
>
> "Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of
> sight."(HLB)
>
> How does a man who is sitting out of the line of vision, on a box of
> books, Let the gun down to his side and "Step down out of sight"????
By getting up? You assume that all of Brennan`s impressions about
the actions he is observed must be accurate, like he is watching a
film of them and describing what he is seeing. The mind makes
assumptions and fills in gaps with information. these may be accurate,
they may not. You micro-analyze details, but your expectations that
all these related impressions are correct are unrealistic. Hundreds of
people saw Kennedy shot, have you ever seen one who got all of
Kennedy`s actions and reactions correct as shown in the z-film? You
are trying to cut diamonds with a rubber hammer, you get the gist of
what they think they saw.
Walt
> >>> "You've seen pictures of that so called "Sniper's Nest"....IF IF those shells [had] struck the boxes they would have hit the north/south face of the upper box and bounced right back at the shooter or they could have ended up along the EAST wall. They would NOT have ended up under the south facing window." <<<
>
> It looks like Walt The Super-Kook wants to totally disregard some
> additional Warren Commission expert testimony (from the FBI's Robert
> A. Frazier this time).
Hey Von Pea Brain..... Why do you us the information that government
dumped on us in your attempts to refute FACTS.... It should be obvious
the crux of the debate is the critic's refusal to accept lies and
bulls shit. You can't be very bright because you keep trying to
unload the same old BS that Lyin Bastard Johnson's "select blue ribbon
committee" tried to dump on us 45 years ago. We didn't believe the BS
then and we don't believe it now. The bastards lied to us then and no
matter how many times you repeat the lie....It's still a lie.
>
> Beginning at 3H401, Frazier talks about the tests that the FBI
> performed in order to illustrate "the positions on the floor at which
> cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the
> rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139." [Frazier's quote, at 3H401.]
>
> To further illustrate the ejection pattern of the tested cartridge
> cases, diagrams and charts were drawn up by a draftsman and the
> diagrams were entered as Warren Commission exhibits (CE546 and CE547,
> below):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_020...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_020...
Walt
The stupid liar wrote:...." He (Brennan) also said the man was
Oswald.
No Liar....Brennan specifically said that Lee Oswald was NOT the man
he saw dressed in light colored clothing with a hunting rifle on the
6th floor. Just a few hours after the murder, Brennan viewed a line
up in which Oswald was present Howard Brennan said the man he'd seen
STANDING and aiming the hunting rifle from the wide open
window ....WAS NOT IN THAT LINE UP.
> > His
> > observationis corroborated by at least a half dozen other
> > witnesses....
>
> Many who said the man was younger than Brennan`s estimate.
>
> >who also said they saw a man in light colored clothing
> > in the east end window BEFORE the motorcade arrived.
>
> Some inside the building said Oswald was wearing a light colored
> top.
>
>
>
> > However Brennan
> > later DESCRIBES the window where he saw the man at the time of the
>
Bud
> On Jan 3, 1:22 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 12:51 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jan 3, 9:52 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Jan 2, 11:24 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:46 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 4:18 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 3:36 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:47 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 10:36 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 1, 10:54 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
Never. Brennan never said Oswald was not the man he saw.
>dressed in light colored clothing with a hunting rifle on the
> 6th floor. Just a few hours after the murder, Brennan viewed a line
> up in which Oswald was present Howard Brennan said the man he'd seen
> STANDING and aiming the hunting rifle from the wide open
> window ....WAS NOT IN THAT LINE UP
Just a lie. Brennan never said the man he saw was not in the lineup.
What he said was that Oswald most resembled the man he saw.
.> > His
Walt
I'm sure you have conveniently forgotten that when Brennan testified
before the Warren Commission, he said Oswald was dressed differently
than the man he'd seen, and that was one of the reasons he knew Oswald
was not the man he'd seen STANDING with a hunting rifle behind a wide
open window. then he blurted out ... "AND I TRIED TO TELL THEM THAT"
In other words Howard Brennan had refused to identify Oswald as the
man he'd seen. The Cops were twisting his arm to idendify Oswald but
he won't do it..... When the cops asked him how he could be so sure
that Oswald wasn't the man he said..."Well for one thing he's not
dressed like the man I saw" The cops then told Brennan that Oswald
had changed his clothes after the assassination.
The FACT that he blurted out ... I TRIED TO TELL THEM THAT OSWALD WAS
DRESSED DIFFERENTLY..reveals that he did NOT identify
oswald...AND ...the cops were railroading Oswald.
Bud
Nobody cares about your retarded interpretations. You said that
Brennan said that the man he saw was not in the lineup. That was a
lie, Brennan never said that.
Walt
>
> It looks like Walt The Super-Kook wants to totally disregard some
> additional Warren Commission expert testimony (from the FBI's Robert
> A. Frazier this time).
>
> Beginning at 3H401, Frazier talks about the tests that the FBI
> performed in order to illustrate "the positions on the floor at which
> cartridge cases landed after being extracted and ejected from the
> rifle, Commission's Exhibit 139." [Frazier's quote, at 3H401.]
>
> To further illustrate the ejection pattern of the tested cartridge
> cases, diagrams and charts were drawn up by a draftsman and the
> diagrams were entered as Warren Commission exhibits (CE546 and CE547,
> below):
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_020...
>
> So, we have Bob Frazier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation telling
> the world (via his Warren Commission testimony) that the location of
> the ejected rifle shells as seen in the official Dallas Police crime-
> scene photographs is perfectly "CONSISTENT" with the shell-ejection
> pattern that Frazier observed during his post-assassination tests
> (which are tests that were performed WITH THE SAME EXACT RIFLE,
> Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano).
>
> Case closed on another stupid theory gushed forth by a conspiracy
> theorist [Walt Cakebread] who lives strictly by the rigid rules set
> forth in his own self-published "Anybody But Lee Harvey Oswald"
> guidebook.
>
> In short, Walt obviously has no desire to accept ANYTHING of an
> "official" nature regarding this murder case--whether it be from
> Robert A. Frazier of the FBI, Captain J. Will Fritz of the DPD,
> Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD, Henry Wade of the District Attorney's
> office, Earl Warren of the Warren Commission, or anybody in-between.
In short, Walt obviously has no desire to accept ANYTHING of an
"official" nature regarding this murder case--whether it be from
Robert A. Frazier of the FBI, Captain J. Will Fritz of the DPD,
Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD, Henry Wade of the District Attorney's
office, Earl Warren of the Warren Commission, or anybody in-between.
I was surprised by your list ( though I shouldn't have been) because
every one of the men you listed are proven liars......EVERY SINGLE
ONE !!....... And you believe them. That pretty well sums it
up.... you're a gutless naive sucker who doesn't have the guts or
the brains to think for yourself.
David Von Pein
>>> "Many who said the man was younger than Brennan`s estimate." <<<
True. But on the other side of that "age" coin, there's Marrion Baker,
who we KNOW FOR A FACT saw Oswald minutes after the assassination.
Baker gave this physical description of the man he saw in the TSBD
lunchroom on 11/22/63:
"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
165 pounds..."
Walt
Hey Von Pea Brain.....Was Oswald on the 3rd or 4th floor??.... Baker
said he saw a 5 '9", 165 pound , 30 year old wearing a tan jacket on
either the 3rd or 4th floor.
Baker and Truly encountered Oswald in the lunchroom and then continued
up the stairs when they reached the fourth floor Baker saw a 5'9', 165
pound, 30 year old walking away from the NE corner . He called to the
man and the man turned around and walked back to Baker.
You sure can't see through the BS can you.....Is that because you're
stupid, or gutless...or maybe both?
David Von Pein
>>> "Baker and Truly encountered Oswald in the lunchroom and then continued up the stairs when they reached the fourth floor Baker saw a 5'9', 165 pound, 30 year old walking away from the NE corner. He called to the man and the man turned around and walked back to Baker." <<<
Huh? You're stupid enough to think that Baker & Truly encountered TWO
different men as they raced to the roof? Quite obviously, that never
happened. B&T only encountered ONE man--and it was definitely Oswald.
Baker was confused about the floor number is all. Which, of course,
is why he hedged on the floor # by saying "third or fourth floor".
Both numbers were wrong, of course, but since we know that Baker
positively did encounter LEE OSWALD inside the building right after
the shooting--what's your point? (Other than to invent a SECOND man
encountered by B&T.)
[Rossley--get in here with your "Baker Lied 4 Times" link now. Okay?]
Walt
> >>> "Baker and Truly encountered Oswald in the lunchroom and then continued up the stairs when they reached the fourth floor Baker saw a 5'9', 165 pound, 30 year old walking away from the NE corner. He called to the man and the man turned around and walked back to Baker." <<<
>
> Huh? You're stupid enough to think that Baker & Truly encountered TWO
> different men as they raced to the roof? Quite obviously, that never
> happened. B&T only encountered ONE man--and it was definitely Oswald.
>
> Baker was confused about the floor number is all.
Von Pea Brain wrote:....."Baker was confused about the floor number is
all."
What an idiotic liar!!....Just yesterday you said he was confused
about the description of Oswald..... You're simply too stupid and
arrogant to realize that when Baker arrived on the 4th floor he saw
the same man that Howard Brennan and Arnold Rowland had seen in the
west end window of the 6th floor.
At the time that Baker first became aware that he may have encountered
the sixth floor gunman he recalled the man he'd seen on either the
third or fouth floor....He remember that man as being about 30, 5 ' 9"
tall and about 165 pounds, and wearing a tan jacket. Now check
Howard Brennan's description of the man he'd seen STANDING behind the
wide open window and aiming a hunting rifle.....Brennan described the
gunman as:...A white man in his early thirties, weighing about 165 to
175 pounds, and wearing light colored clothing.
Oswald was in his early twenties, he weighed 140 pounds, and was
wearing a DARK reddish brown shirt, and DARK gray trousers.
When Baker didn't find anybody on the roof of the TSBD he went back
down to the street and hopped on his motorcycle and rode out to
Parkland hospital and thought no more about the innocuous encounter
with Oswald in the lunchroom. When he was made aware that he may have
encountered the gunman in the TSBD he immediately thought of the man
he encountered on the 4th floor, because that man was much closer to
the roof of the TSBD ( Where Baker thought the shots had originated)
The man wasn't calmly drinking a coke like Oswald had been, he was
walking away from the stairs and Baker had to call him back before
Truly vouched for the man as being an employee.
That's the encounter that Baker was thinking about when he wrote his
first affidavit...... Then when he learned that it wasn't the fourth
floor man that his fellow officers were saying had gunned down Tippit
but the guy he'd seen drinking the coke in the second floor
lunchroom. That's when he rewrote his affidavit to make it look
like Oswald was the guy even though the description of the man didn't
fit Oswald, and Oswald wasn't "walking away from the stairs on the 3rd
or 4th floor. The Boys in blue had convicted Oswald of killing one of
hem and they were out to extract their revenge........the truth be
damned.
Sam McClung
craig said belin altered it in 14 places, possibly as to how the shells were
found:
in the signed typewritten manuscript craig authored, he said regarding the
discovery of the mauser:
"Luke Mooney and I reached the southeast corner at the same time. We
immediately found three rifle cartridges laying in such a way that they
looked as though they had been carefully and deliberately placed there--in
plain sight on the floor to the right of the southeast corner window. Mooney
and I examined the cartridges very carefully and remarked how close together
they were. The three of them were no more than one inch apart and all were
facing in the same direction, a feat very difficult to achieve with a bolt
action
rifle--or any rifle for that matter."
perhaps belin altered craig's testimony to be consistent with the discovery
of the frame rifle, the carcano, in which fritz took the theatrical lead
role since day screwed up investigation procedures so bad with the mauser,
fritz didn't do much better with the carcano
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:51a09a94-3e0f-4d8d...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Hey Sam..... Have you noticed that nobody responds to your insane
ideas..... The reason nobody responds is because you're a Looney
Mooney, and you should be in the funny farm.
> regarding the unsigned typewritten testimony produced by the wc for craig,
> craig said belin altered it in 14 places, possibly as to how the shells were
> found:
>
> in the signed typewritten manuscript craig authored, he said regarding the
> discovery of the mauser:
> "Luke Mooney and I reached the southeast corner at the same time. We
> immediately found three rifle cartridges laying in such a way that they
> looked as though they had been carefully and deliberately placed there--in
> plain sight on the floor to the right of the southeast corner window. Mooney
> and I examined the cartridges very carefully and remarked how close together
> they were. The three of them were no more than one inch apart and all were
> facing in the same direction, a feat very difficult to achieve with a bolt
> action
> rifle--or any rifle for that matter."
>
> perhaps belin altered craig's testimony to be consistent with the discovery
> of the frame rifle, the carcano, in which fritz took the theatrical lead
> role since day screwed up investigation procedures so bad with the mauser,
> fritz didn't do much better with the carcano
>
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51a09a94-3e0f-4d8d...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Craig's testimony is that he didn't see the shells when they were
> > found.
>
> > Mr. BELIN. Did you see the empty cartridges when they were found?
>
> > Mr. CRAIG. I didn't see them when they were found. I saw them laying
> > on the floor.
>
> > Mr. BELIN. About how soon after they were found did you see them,
> > laying on the floor?
>
> > Mr. CRAIG. Oh, a couple of minutes.
>
> > ( 6 H 267 )
>
> > That means that he saw them after Fritz picked them up and held them
> > in his hand for the reporter to photograph. Fritz could have easily
> > placed those shells on the floor in the configuration that Craig
> > described.
>
> > But of course, it's easier to call Craig a liar.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jan 3, 6:24 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Craig's testimony is that he didn't see the shells when they were
> > found.
>
> > Mr. BELIN. Did you see the empty cartridges when they were found?
>
> > Mr. CRAIG. I didn't see them when they were found. I saw them laying
> > on the floor.
>
> > Mr. BELIN. About how soon after they were found did you see them,
> > laying on the floor?
>
> > Mr. CRAIG. Oh, a couple of minutes.
>
> > ( 6 H 267 )
>
> > That means that he saw them after Fritz picked them up and held them
> > in his hand for the reporter to photograph. Fritz could have easily
> > placed those shells on the floor in the configuration that Craig
> > described.
>
> > But of course, it's easier to call Craig a liar.
>
> Gil, I'm at a loss to understand how you can defend Roger Craig.....
> There can bo no doubt that he lied about the Mannlicher Carcano being
> a 7.65 mauser. I don't believe it was intended to be a malicious
> lie.... He heard Fritz and Weitzman speculating that the rifle was a
> mauser and accepted their expertise.
Explain for us why Weitzman SIGNED an affadavit the NEXT DAY saying
the rifle he saw was a Mauser then Walt!
But he won't.
> The problem is, he was very
> much like Rob Caprio....
Thank you! I like being compared to a man who WAS A DECORATED officer
and who was ONE of the few who would NOT change his story despite it
costing him EVERYTHING in the long run!
I would hope people would say I had that KIND of integrity!
> and he would not accept that he was wrong.
How was he wrong? Why do ALL LNers claim he was wrong (or lying) yet
NONE of them can produce anything to show he was?
That equals a false claim.
> There absolutely no doubt in my mind that Roger craig is a totally
> unreliable witness.....
So a HIGHLY DECORATED POICE OFFICER is a "unreliable witness" to
Walt????? Who possibly could be a reliable witness then?
> He "may"? have seen the shells lying side by
> side after Fritz put them back on the floor, and that could explain
> his description, but there is NO WAY to know if that's the truth,
> because I KNOW that he lied about the Mauser.
How do you know it for sure? Where is YOUR evidence showing he lied?
IF you don't produce it we have just another false claim by you!
> Roger Craig "may'?
> have seen a mauser in the TSBD that day, but it was NOT at the time
> that Lt Day lifted the Mannlicher Carcano from the place it had been
> hidden.
Cite your evidence for this claim!
> Craig "may?" have seen a police sharpshooter carrying a
> mauser and assumed that the sharpshooter's mauser was the same rifle
> ( the mannlicher Carcano) he'd seen earlier, but he said he saw the
> mauser logo on the rifle when Day and Fritz were examining it just
> seconds after it was retrieved . That simply is NOT true.
Cite your evidence for this claim!
But sadly, we WILL NEVER see any as Walt ONLY makes SPECULATIVE claims
that benefit the WC's story!
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jan 4, 9:31 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Sam..... Have you noticed that nobody responds to your insane
> ideas..... The reason nobody responds is because you're a Looney
> Mooney, and you should be in the funny farm.
WE NOTICE YOU respond though BECAUSE you are a WC Shill!
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -