What was Oswald's Motive?
RICLAND
What was Oswald's motive?
ricland
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman
"We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
--Earl Warren, 1964
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Can someone help me here?
>
> What was Oswald's motive?
Brings to mind something I`ve read recently. When Austrian Prince
von Metternich was told of the Russian ambassador`s death, he asked
"What may have been his motive?".
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>> Can someone help me here?
>>
>> What was Oswald's motive?
>
> Brings to mind something I`ve read recently. When Austrian Prince
> von Metternich was told of the Russian ambassador`s death, he asked
> "What may have been his motive?".
The best explanation Bugliosi came up with was Oswald was "nuts."
But as Ed Cage would say, "where's the pattern of evidence?"
Ain't none.
Nothing in Oswald's history shows a mental condition. Nothing in
Oswald's history shows a rabid hatred for Kennedy. Nothing. So what
Bugliosi did was give us Charlie Manson: the Sequel -- "He's nuts!"
Now that might be good enough for you, Bud, but any real
scholar/researcher would find it wonting.
If that television interview Oswald gave a year or two earlier is any
indication, Oswald was no nut. He held his own against two pro news
reporters who were trying to make him look stupid. And this from a guy
who at the time would have only been 22 or 23.
As to the Walker shooting, that's the only thing that bothers me and
I'll admit, that one in your favor.
Then again, how does a guy who can do shooting 10 Olympic experts can't
duplicate with a better weapon, miss hitting Walker?
The scope...?
Careful answering that, Bubba.
RICLAND
>>>> "The best explanation Bugliosi came up with was Oswald was "nuts"." <<<
>
> was a "He Was Nuts" theory to the jury in '86.
>
> The "nuts" thing was merely layered by Vince ON TOP of the actual
> evidence that supports Oswald's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
>
> The "Nuts" comments were merely window-dressing used by Vince to
> emphasize the obvious -- i.e., that somebody who shoots the President
> has GOT to be kind of nuts/bonkers/screwy.
>
> But the things that led up to VB's "He's Nuts" dialogue would be the
> things called THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT PROVE OSWALD DID DO THE CRIME.
>
> Why do you ignore the physical and circumstantial evidence that
> Bugliosi was working with BEFORE he ever said "he's nuts" to that
> jury?
>
> The gun, the shells, the witnesses, the fingerprints, and just as
> important....Oswald's LIES that reek of a guilty state of mind.
>
> You, Ric, seem to want to toss out all of that "evidence" stuff and
> insist that VB had NOTHING else going for his side except a "He Was
> Nuts" posture. Why would you think that?
>
> Vince summarizes all the evidence for the jury right here (via
> excerpts below). Why pretend it doesn't exist just to peddle your
> crazy anti-Bugliosi campaign that you seem so determined to press upon
> the masses recently?.....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
>
Well, we have no idea what Spence's defense was because it's been edited
out. But, based on the transcript you supplied, Bugliosi presents
nothing an ordinary assassination buff would have trouble rebutting.
The real issue here, David, is your ignorance of what lawyers are paid
to do. Lawyers are paid to twist unfavorable evidence not evaluate it.
For example, when Mr. Frazier says Oswald carried the bag under his arm
and Bugliosi replies, "But isn't it true, Mr. Frazier he could have
carried it in front of him because as you say, you weren't really paying
attention?" That's not evidence of Frazier making a mistake; that's
evidence of Bugliosi using a lawyer trick to discredit Frazier's testimony.
In other words, Frazier's second answer doesn't discredit his first one.
He didn't have to be paying attention to remember Oswald carried the
bag under his right arm.
All Bugliosi's other points are even easier to rebut.
The only bullet conclusively linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano (MC) was
the "pristine" bullet someone placed on the wrong stretcher at Parklund
Memorial. The MC was -- in the condition it was found -- unusable. The
medical testimony, selective. The multiple witnesses who saw men behind
the picket fence, ignored. The impossibility of Oswald having enough
time to be at the Tippit murder scene, likewise ignored. Ruby's
life-long association with the Mob, equally dismissed.
Spence knew nothing of these things, so none of them came up. Spence is
a good lawyer, but he was out of his depth. Bugliosi is an amateur
assassination buff. Spence was simply ignorant of the real issues
involved(which is no doubt why Bugliosi picked him).
Mark Lane, on the other hand, would have butchered Bugliosi. The 1986
Hunt v Liberty Lobby trial shows how. Lane took Hunt apart like a cheap
watch. By the time Lane was finished with Hunt, Hunt's 20-year lie --
that he wasn't in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963 -- had been exposed as a lie.
And as one of the first "assassination researchers" -- the guy who
started it all -- Lane has forgot more about the assassination than
Bugliosi ever knew.
While Bugliosi was in high school wondering if Peggy Sue would let him
take her to the prom, Lane was interviewing all the witnesses the Warren
Commission ignored.
To sum up, Bugliosi's antics in the courtroom have no worth in this
forum. His court transcript doesn't advance the ball. His win no more
convincing than the win in a professional rasslin' match.
Walt
Ricland....This is a commonly accepted myth. It is accepted by both
LNer's and CT's but it's a lie.
Yesterday I posted an excerpt from a memo that Hoover wrote for his
files. He wrote the memo on 11 / 29 / 63 after talking to President
Lyin Bastard Johnson about the story they were going to feed the
public. Hoover told LBJ that three shots had been fired and the FBI
had recovered all three bullets and the FBI had ballistically proved
that the bullets had been fired from the TSBD rifle.
ricland, do you see the lies in that statement?? Hoover said that
HIS lab boys had proved that the bullets had come from that rifle.
Now .....why would you believe that the "magic bullet" CE 399 was
PROVED to have been fired from that rifle.
I can tell you that it WAS NOT....fired from that rifle. And I can
PROVE it mathmatically.
Walt
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
RICLAND
Not quite following you here, Walt.
Break it down for me, please.
ric.
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Can someone help me here?
> >>
> >> What was Oswald's motive?
> >
> > Brings to mind something I`ve read recently. When Austrian Prince
> > von Metternich was told of the Russian ambassador`s death, he asked
> > "What may have been his motive?".
>
>
> The best explanation Bugliosi came up with was Oswald was "nuts."
>
> But as Ed Cage would say, "where's the pattern of evidence?"
For conspiracy.
> Ain't none.
>
> Nothing in Oswald's history shows a mental condition.
Untrue. Read Posner`s section on Oswald. He relates a few
psychological evaluations of Oz. And what of Oz`s suicide attempt? Is
this what stable people do?
> Nothing in
> Oswald's history shows a rabid hatred for Kennedy.
He had a dislike for American foreign policy. Any idea who was
setting American foreign policy at the time?
> Nothing. So what
> Bugliosi did was give us Charlie Manson: the Sequel -- "He's nuts!"
Do you think Hinckley was nuts? He shot Reagan to impress Jodie
Foster, who isn`t even hot. Oz shot Kennedy to impress Castro, who
really isn`t hot.
> Now that might be good enough for you, Bud, but any real
> scholar/researcher would find it wonting.
You can imagine such people on your side of this issue if you like.
> If that television interview Oswald gave a year or two earlier is any
> indication, Oswald was no nut. He held his own against two pro news
> reporters who were trying to make him look stupid. And this from a guy
> who at the time would have only been 22 or 23.
You might be able to establish his being articulate from that, not
sane. The fact he was on a show defending his extreme political
viewpoints might tell those scholar/reasearchers a thing or two about
Oz.
> As to the Walker shooting, that's the only thing that bothers me and
> I'll admit, that one in your favor.
<snicker> You think Oz may have shot at Walker? So, what are the
chances of him making that assassination attempt, and not Kennedy`s?
How many people attempt assassination?
> Then again, how does a guy who can do shooting 10 Olympic experts can't
> duplicate with a better weapon, miss hitting Walker?
You think Oz was aiming at that window sash?
> The scope...?
>
> Careful answering that, Bubba.
There is evidence Oz had the rifle and scope boresighted after the
Walker attempt. He may have felt the scope was the cause of his
failure.
Walt
I'm telling you that CE 399 WAS NOT fired from the rifle that was
found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The FBI fire arms "expert"
Robert Frazier swore that CE 399 was fired from the MC rifle with the
serial #C2766, but he was lying. It's a rather difficult story to
tell but trust me.....the original CE 399 was NOT fired from a rifle
with a four groove barrel. All standard MC's have four groove barrels,
and the TSBD MC was a standard four groove barrel rifle.
Walt
>
> ric.
>
> --
> "Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
> It only took me 10 visits before I was
> able to navigate it just fine."
> --cddraftsman
>
> "We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
> --Earl Warren, 1964
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> RICLAND wrote:
>>>> Can someone help me here?
>>>>
>>>> What was Oswald's motive?
>>> Brings to mind something I`ve read recently. When Austrian Prince
>>> von Metternich was told of the Russian ambassador`s death, he asked
>>> "What may have been his motive?".
>>
>> The best explanation Bugliosi came up with was Oswald was "nuts."
>>
>> But as Ed Cage would say, "where's the pattern of evidence?"
>
> For conspiracy.
>
>> Ain't none.
>>
>> Nothing in Oswald's history shows a mental condition.
>
> Untrue. Read Posner`s section on Oswald. He relates a few
> psychological evaluations of Oz. And what of Oz`s suicide attempt? Is
> this what stable people do?
Posner who?
When are you going to learn how to give a proper cite, Bud?
>
>> Nothing in
>> Oswald's history shows a rabid hatred for Kennedy.
>
> He had a dislike for American foreign policy. Any idea who was
> setting American foreign policy at the time?
What part of the word "hatred" don't you understand, Bud?
>
>> Nothing. So what
>> Bugliosi did was give us Charlie Manson: the Sequel -- "He's nuts!"
>
> Do you think Hinckley was nuts? He shot Reagan to impress Jodie
> Foster, who isn`t even hot. Oz shot Kennedy to impress Castro, who
> really isn`t hot.
I think you're nuts if you expect anyone to follow your logic directly
above.
>
>> Now that might be good enough for you, Bud, but any real
>> scholar/researcher would find it wonting.
>
> You can imagine such people on your side of this issue if you like.
You mean people like Earl Warren? Here's what he said about his own
findings:
We probably will never learn the truth about this case.
--Earl Warren, 1964
Yet YOU know more than Earl Warren.
How is that, Bud?
>
>> If that television interview Oswald gave a year or two earlier is any
>> indication, Oswald was no nut. He held his own against two pro news
>> reporters who were trying to make him look stupid. And this from a guy
>> who at the time would have only been 22 or 23.
>
> You might be able to establish his being articulate from that, not
> sane. The fact he was on a show defending his extreme political
> viewpoints might tell those scholar/reasearchers a thing or two about
> Oz.
Of course had he been acting like a loon on the show we should expect
you'd be telling us that's proof he was loon.
I know: heads you win, tails I lose. Yeah, right.
Look, pal, none of the people who knew Oswald said he was a nut. Nothing
in his history indicates he was a nut. And if a belief in Marxism is
evidence of mental dysfunction than everyone in Russia is crazy.
But this was the heart of Bugliosi's indictment: Oswald was a nut
because he was Marxist and only nuts are Marxists.
Now, granted, to someone dumb, that kind of logic makes sense. But here
in this forum, you and David are the only ones who buy it.
>
>> As to the Walker shooting, that's the only thing that bothers me and
>> I'll admit, that one in your favor.
>
> <snicker> You think Oz may have shot at Walker? So, what are the
> chances of him making that assassination attempt, and not Kennedy`s?
> How many people attempt assassination?
It bothers me because the only evidence we have of it is the MC and
Marina Oswald's testimony, testimony that is worthless because of
obvious reasons.
Oswald's ownership of the MC is not only suspect but begs the question
if he missed a stationary target like Walker with it, how could he
perform shooting Olympic class sharpshooters couldn't match?
>
>> Then again, how does a guy who can do shooting 10 Olympic experts can't
>> duplicate with a better weapon, miss hitting Walker?
>
> You think Oz was aiming at that window sash?
>
>> The scope...?
>>
>> Careful answering that, Bubba.
>
> There is evidence Oz had the rifle and scope boresighted after the
> Walker attempt. He may have felt the scope was the cause of his
> failure.
Well, he must have had it un-boresighted for the Kennedy shoot because
according to the FBI experts, the scope was unusable in the condition
they found it.
David Von Pein
serial #C2766, but he was lying." <<<
You are an absolute nut!
You just refuse to accept anything in this case if it leads down the
"IT WAS OSWALD" path.
You're a disgrace!
I suppose Joe Nicol was a liar, too, when he said this.....
"It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit
572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and
399." -- Joseph D. Nicol
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142b.htm
>>> "But trust me..." <<<
Good God in heaven! Why would anybody "trust" you....about anything?
Those two words ("Trust me") automatically make me even MORE skeptical
of the person using those two words.
BTW, Walt, do you still think JFK was shot at circa Z161 (via the
Croft picture)? And do you still think a piece of JFK's shirt is
visible at an EXIT hole in Kennedy's back via the Croft picture? Or
have you switched to another loony, unsupportable, Anybody-But-Oswald
conspiracy theory these days?
I was just curious.
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> RICLAND wrote:
> >>>> Can someone help me here?
> >>>>
> >>>> What was Oswald's motive?
> >>> Brings to mind something I`ve read recently. When Austrian Prince
> >>> von Metternich was told of the Russian ambassador`s death, he asked
> >>> "What may have been his motive?".
> >>
> >> The best explanation Bugliosi came up with was Oswald was "nuts."
> >>
> >> But as Ed Cage would say, "where's the pattern of evidence?"
> >
> > For conspiracy.
> >
> >> Ain't none.
> >>
> >> Nothing in Oswald's history shows a mental condition.
> >
> > Untrue. Read Posner`s section on Oswald. He relates a few
> > psychological evaluations of Oz. And what of Oz`s suicide attempt? Is
> > this what stable people do?
>
>
>
> Posner who?
>
> When are you going to learn how to give a proper cite, Bud?
Sorry, I forgot I was talking to an idiot.
> >> Nothing in
> >> Oswald's history shows a rabid hatred for Kennedy.
> >
> > He had a dislike for American foreign policy. Any idea who was
> > setting American foreign policy at the time?
>
>
>
> What part of the word "hatred" don't you understand, Bud?
It`s only your poor assumption that Oz would have to hate Kennedy
to want him dead.
> >> Nothing. So what
> >> Bugliosi did was give us Charlie Manson: the Sequel -- "He's nuts!"
> >
> > Do you think Hinckley was nuts? He shot Reagan to impress Jodie
> > Foster, who isn`t even hot. Oz shot Kennedy to impress Castro, who
> > really isn`t hot.
>
>
>
> I think you're nuts if you expect anyone to follow your logic directly
> above.
Doesn`t matter what reason I give, you won`t accept it. The fact
is, Oz killed Kennedy, and he didn`t explain his reasons.
> >> Now that might be good enough for you, Bud, but any real
> >> scholar/researcher would find it wonting.
> >
> > You can imagine such people on your side of this issue if you like.
>
>
> You mean people like Earl Warren? Here's what he said about his own
> findings:
>
> We probably will never learn the truth about this case.
> --Earl Warren, 1964
Wow, a quote out of context, I`ve never sen that one tried before.
> Yet YOU know more than Earl Warren.
No, we both believe Oz killed Kennedy.
> How is that, Bud?
How is it you process all information in this same weak way?
> >> If that television interview Oswald gave a year or two earlier is any
> >> indication, Oswald was no nut. He held his own against two pro news
> >> reporters who were trying to make him look stupid. And this from a guy
> >> who at the time would have only been 22 or 23.
> >
> > You might be able to establish his being articulate from that, not
> > sane. The fact he was on a show defending his extreme political
> > viewpoints might tell those scholar/reasearchers a thing or two about
> > Oz.
>
>
>
> Of course had he been acting like a loon on the show we should expect
> you'd be telling us that's proof he was loon.
"He can`t be a mad killer, I saw him on TV, and he didn`t look like
one to me." Stellar.
> I know: heads you win, tails I lose. Yeah, right.
>
> Look, pal, none of the people who knew Oswald said he was a nut. Nothing
> in his history indicates he was a nut.
How can you say that? You seem ignorant of his history.
> And if a belief in Marxism is
> evidence of mental dysfunction than everyone in Russia is crazy.
Oz`s Marxism is only a sign of his deeper troubles. Marxism made
him different than those around him, superior. One of the reasons his
going to Russia was unfulfilling, when the novelty of him being an
American defector wore off, he was just another drone.
> But this was the heart of Bugliosi's indictment: Oswald was a nut
> because he was Marxist and only nuts are Marxists.
Bugs called Oz a nut to reach the jury. A typical juror can`t
understand why a person would do such a thing. Calling Oz "nuts"
explains it in a way a juror can understand.
> Now, granted, to someone dumb, that kind of logic makes sense. But here
> in this forum, you and David are the only ones who buy it.
You seem to have a need to believe everyone agrees with you? Why is
that?
> >> As to the Walker shooting, that's the only thing that bothers me and
> >> I'll admit, that one in your favor.
> >
> > <snicker> You think Oz may have shot at Walker? So, what are the
> > chances of him making that assassination attempt, and not Kennedy`s?
> > How many people attempt assassination?
>
>
> It bothers me because the only evidence we have of it is the MC and
> Marina Oswald's testimony, testimony that is worthless because of
> obvious reasons.
Yah, kooks disregard it because it is detremental to Oswald.
> Oswald's ownership of the MC is not only suspect
Would it help you if there were pictures of him holding it?
> but begs the question
> if he missed a stationary target like Walker with it, how could he
> perform shooting Olympic class sharpshooters couldn't match?
Do you think he was aiming at the window sash?
> >> Then again, how does a guy who can do shooting 10 Olympic experts can't
> >> duplicate with a better weapon, miss hitting Walker?
> >
> > You think Oz was aiming at that window sash?
> >
> >> The scope...?
> >>
> >> Careful answering that, Bubba.
> >
> > There is evidence Oz had the rifle and scope boresighted after the
> > Walker attempt. He may have felt the scope was the cause of his
> > failure.
>
>
> Well, he must have had it un-boresighted for the Kennedy shoot because
> according to the FBI experts, the scope was unusable in the condition
> they found it.
It was taken off when the rifle was dusted for prints. The way
ballistics got it wasn`t how it was found.
RICLAND
The point is that there's nothing in his history that supports the claim
that he hated JFK. That's important, especially since there's also
nothing in his history that shows he was a nut.
>
>>>> Nothing. So what
>>>> Bugliosi did was give us Charlie Manson: the Sequel -- "He's nuts!"
>>> Do you think Hinckley was nuts? He shot Reagan to impress Jodie
>>> Foster, who isn`t even hot. Oz shot Kennedy to impress Castro, who
>>> really isn`t hot.
>>
>>
>> I think you're nuts if you expect anyone to follow your logic directly
>> above.
>
> Doesn`t matter what reason I give, you won`t accept it. The fact
> is, Oz killed Kennedy, and he didn`t explain his reasons.
It's not fact. It's not even a legal fact. Honestly, dude, are you a
native English speaking or what?
>
>>>> Now that might be good enough for you, Bud, but any real
>>>> scholar/researcher would find it wonting.
>>> You can imagine such people on your side of this issue if you like.
>>
>> You mean people like Earl Warren? Here's what he said about his own
>> findings:
>>
>> We probably will never learn the truth about this case.
>> --Earl Warren, 1964
>
> Wow, a quote out of context, I`ve never sen that one tried before.
You're dumb. I'm ending it here.
ricland
muc...@gmail.com
"We may not know the whole story in our lifetime."
On the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, quoted in Minute by
Minute (1985)
Please learn to quote correctly.
-Mark
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Walt
ricland, you really need to reseach the shooting at the Walker
residence a little deeper. General Walker knew that Oswald had fired
the bullet through his window, Oswald told Marina that he had tried to
shoot Walker, and he told a couple of people in New Orleans that he
had tried to shoot Walker. He was trying to infiltrate Castro's
supporters, and he thought by telling them that he had tried to shoot
a very high profile foe of Fidel Castro they would be more accepting
of him.
There's little doubt that Oswald was involved in the shooting at
General Walker's house......The question is about his truthfulness in
his intention. I seriously doubt that he intended to shoot
Walker....because he had ample opportunity to actually hit Walker but
he only fired one shot and he missed. Walker was the epitomy of the
proverbial "Sitting Duck" as he sat behind his desk in a well lighted
room and yet Oswald missed him from a range of only 30 yards.
Preposterous!!
Walt
> >http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1176388165....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
RICLAND
Thanks, Walt. I've been trying to get the straight dope on that.
Ok, so the MC is Oswald's, right?
How does it get to SBD?
ricland
RICLAND
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
Ok, checked out your page. Awesome detective work.
But can you summarize the meaning of it all?
ric
Bud
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> RICLAND wrote:
> >>>> Bud wrote:
> >>>>> RICLAND wrote:
> >>>>>> Can someone help me here?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What was Oswald's motive?
> >>>>> Brings to mind something I`ve read recently. When Austrian Prince
> >>>>> von Metternich was told of the Russian ambassador`s death, he asked
> >>>>> "What may have been his motive?".
> >>>> The best explanation Bugliosi came up with was Oswald was "nuts."
> >>>>
> >>>> But as Ed Cage would say, "where's the pattern of evidence?"
> >>> For conspiracy.
> >>>
> >>>> Ain't none.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing in Oswald's history shows a mental condition.
> >>> Untrue. Read Posner`s section on Oswald. He relates a few
> >>> psychological evaluations of Oz. And what of Oz`s suicide attempt? Is
> >>> this what stable people do?
> >>
> >>
> >> Posner who?
> >>
> >> When are you going to learn how to give a proper cite, Bud?
> >
> > Sorry, I forgot I was talking to an idiot.
>
> When are you going to learn how to give a proper cite, Bud?
Posner only wrote one book on the assassination. If you don`t know
the name of that book, you shouldn`t be here.
> >>>> Nothing in
> >>>> Oswald's history shows a rabid hatred for Kennedy.
> >>> He had a dislike for American foreign policy. Any idea who was
> >>> setting American foreign policy at the time?
> >>
> >>
> >> What part of the word "hatred" don't you understand, Bud?
> >
> > It`s only your poor assumption that Oz would have to hate Kennedy
> > to want him dead.
>
>
> The point is that there's nothing in his history that supports the claim
> that he hated JFK.
Like I pointed out, it is only your poor assumption that murder can
only be performed by an angry person..
> That's important, especially since there's also
> nothing in his history that shows he was a nut.
You keep saying that, yet seem completely unaware of pschological
evauations made on Oz.
> >>>> Nothing. So what
> >>>> Bugliosi did was give us Charlie Manson: the Sequel -- "He's nuts!"
> >>> Do you think Hinckley was nuts? He shot Reagan to impress Jodie
> >>> Foster, who isn`t even hot. Oz shot Kennedy to impress Castro, who
> >>> really isn`t hot.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you're nuts if you expect anyone to follow your logic directly
> >> above.
> >
> > Doesn`t matter what reason I give, you won`t accept it. The fact
> > is, Oz killed Kennedy, and he didn`t explain his reasons.
>
> It's not fact. It's not even a legal fact. Honestly, dude, are you a
> native English speaking or what?
Seriously, dude, how does you saying it`s not a fact establish it
isn`t one? And you think facts can only be determined in a court of
law?
> >>>> Now that might be good enough for you, Bud, but any real
> >>>> scholar/researcher would find it wonting.
> >>> You can imagine such people on your side of this issue if you like.
> >>
> >> You mean people like Earl Warren? Here's what he said about his own
> >> findings:
> >>
> >> We probably will never learn the truth about this case.
> >> --Earl Warren, 1964
> >
> > Wow, a quote out of context, I`ve never seen that one tried before.
>
>
> You're dumb. I'm ending it here.
Didn`t we do this already?
> ricland
>
<SNIP>
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
Even
Walker said it was NOT Oswald.
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:oIednfL2CrE404Pb...@comcast.com...
Lone
> Can someone help me here?
>
> What was Oswald's motive?
Oswald got just one motive: to save the president. Thats what he said
via telefon his mistress Judyt Vary Baker 48 hours prior to the
assassination.
Oswald said: " If I stay there would not be one single bullet fired at
Kennedy."
Poor manipulated guy. He knew nothing about his real role in that CIA
game.
RICLAND
Now wait a minute. I don't believe anything that nutty broad says. if
she told me the moon WASN"T made of green cheese, I'd believe IT WAS
made of green cheese.
She's a fraud.
Walt
I don't think the Mannlicher Carcano found in the TSBD was Oswald's.
That is to say I don't believe it was purchased with his money. I
strongly suspect that George DeMorhenschildt gave Lee the money and
told him to order the rifle for him. So technically the rifle would
have belonged to De Morhenschildt. I know with 100% certainty that
the TSBD rifle is NOT the rifle that Oswald was holding when he had
Marina take the ONE and ONLY authentic Back yard photo.(CE 133A) The
question is:...Did Oswald ever have possession of the MC with the
serial # C2766?? I don't know.... It certainly was never positively
established. I'll admit it is a mystery to me how it would APPEAR
that Oswald using the name "Hidell" ordered the MC #C2766 and yet that
IS NOT the rifle in his hands in CE 133A. There clearly are two
different rifles involved.
All of this is really immaterial.... because the rifle found in the
TSBD that day was nothing but a stage prop. I was NOT the weapon the
killed JFK. It was planted along with the two spent shells, to
incriminate Oswald the patsy.
Walt
>
> How does it get to SBD?
>
> ricland
>
> --
> "Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
> It only took me 10 visits before I was
> able to navigate it just fine."
> --cddraftsman
>
> "We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
> --Earl Warren, 1964
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
Lone
> Lone wrote:
> > On 10 Apr., 22:18, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> Can someone help me here?
>
> >> What was Oswald's motive?
>
> > Oswald got just one motive: to save the president. Thats what he said
> > via telefon his mistress Judyt Vary Baker 48 hours prior to the
> > assassination.
>
> > Oswald said: " If I stay there would not be one single bullet fired at
> > Kennedy."
>
> > Poor manipulated guy. He knew nothing about his real role in that CIA
> > game.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZyJ1APE6Lc
>
> Now wait a minute. I don't believe anything that nutty broad says. if
> she told me the moon WASN"T made of green cheese, I'd believe IT WAS
> made of green cheese.
>
> She's a fraud.
>
> ricland
If Baker is lying she is worth two Oscars: one for best actress in
a leading role and the second for best writing/original screenplay.
Have you seen all of the 5 parts of her Y toube stuff?
There are certain pieces of here story that fit perfectly with details
of the Haslam and the Garrison investigation.
For example: hours after Ferries dead in February 1967 Garrison found
some cancer searching equipment in his apartment. It was well known in
N.O then, that Ferrie was interested in cancer searching-but Garrison
thought, Ferrie did it to heal cancer...
For the Haslam Investigatin check out this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-678503303319704937&q=Mary%2CFerrie+and+the+Monkey+virus
Walt
> Oswald was Framed for the Walker shooting Also.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
> Even
> Walker said it was NOT Oswald.
Do you believe General Walker?? He pretended he didn't have a clue
who had fired the bullet through his window, and yet less than 24
hours after the murder of JFK he was on the phone telling a reporter
for a German newspaper that oswald was the person who had fired the
bullet through his window. How did he know that??
Mr. Liebeler.
When were you in Shreveport?
General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7
a.m.
Mr. Liebeler.
That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having
attacked you?
General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information--I think the
portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way
of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very
prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did
not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently
that he did.
Mr. Liebeler.
They both took place while you were down in Louisiana, the 23d and the
22d of November?
General WALKER. The first one was 7 o'clock in the morning the 23d,
and it woke me up.
Mr. Liebeler.
You didn't have the faintest idea that Oswald had taken a shot at you
and you didn't make a statement to that effect to the newspaper?
General WALKER. No; I didn't know.
Mr. Liebeler.
You didn't make a statement to the newspaper or anybody connected with
it at any other time, isn't that a fact?
General WALKER. No.
Mr. Liebeler.
Is it not a fact?
General WALKER. I might have said that the reports over here had
connected Oswald with me some subsequent time.
Mr. Liebeler.
I am somewhat puzzled by the whole thing, because the newspaper in
which this apparently appeared is dated November 29, and in fact, that
information was not known to anybody that I know of until a later date
than that--
General WALKER. Much later.
Mr. Liebeler.
Several days, at any rate.
General WALKER. People began to guess it immediately. I should say
guess at it.
Mr. Liebeler.
It might have been that the article was based on speculation, and it
might have been the newspaper was postdated too. I think that
sometimes happens.
General WALKER. I think that paper was definitely postdated.
Mr. Liebeler.
Yes; that would explain it. That is what I mean, predated.
General WALKER. That is something else.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you have any other information that you think the Commission ought
to have that we haven't already talked about?
General WALKER. Yes. I think the Commission should look into George De
Mohrenschildt, if it hasn't.
Mr. Liebeler.
What do you know about Mr. De Mohrenschildt?
General WALKER. I know that my information indicates that he lived
next door to the professor that was supposed to have burned up.
Mr. Liebeler.
Do you have any information that would connect De Mohrenschildt to the
assassination of President Kennedy in any way?
General WALKER. I have the information the paper had that connected
him with the Oswalds.
Mr. Liebeler.
Yes?
General WALKER. Of course, it is common knowledge that De
Mohrenschildt was associated with Oswald now.
Mr. Liebeler.
Other than that, do you have any information to indicate that De
Mohrenschildt was involved in any way with the assassination of
President Kennedy?
>
> "RICLAND" <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:oIednfL2CrE404Pb...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > tomnln wrote:
> >>http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
>
> > Ok, checked out your page. Awesome detective work.
>
> > But can you summarize the meaning of it all?
>
> > ric
>
> > -
> > "Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
> > It only took me 10 visits before I was
> > able to navigate it just fine."
> > --cddraftsman
>
> > "We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
> > --Earl Warren, 1964
> > Who Shot JFK?
RICLAND
The woman has been outed, and quite throughly too, I might add. One of
the researchers went through her story and found massive holes every
step of the way.
She's a fraud.
Someone will supply the link shortly.
Walt
> >>> "I'm telling you that CE 399 WAS NOT fired from the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The FBI fire arms "expert" Robert Frazier swore that CE 399 was fired from the MC rifle with the
>
> serial #C2766, but he was lying." <<<
>
> You are an absolute nut!
>
> You just refuse to accept anything in this case if it leads down the
> "IT WAS OSWALD" path.
>
> You're a disgrace!
>
> I suppose Joe Nicol was a liar, too, when he said this.....
>
> "It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit
> 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and
> 399." -- Joseph D. Nicol
>
>
> >>> "But trust me..." <<<
>
> Good God in heaven! Why would anybody "trust" you....about anything?
>
> Those two words ("Trust me") automatically make me even MORE skeptical
> of the person using those two words.
>
BTW, Walt, do you still think JFK was shot at circa Z161 (via the
Croft picture)? And do you still think a piece of JFK's shirt is
visible at an EXIT hole in Kennedy's back via the Croft picture? Or
have you switched to another loony, unsupportable, Anybody-But-Oswald
conspiracy theory these days?
I was just curious.
Absolutely... The bullet that struck JFK in the throat exited his
back. The piece of JFK's shirt is visible exiting JFK's back at the
exact spot where there is a bullet hole in JFK's jacket.
Walt
David Von Pein
Okay. Thanks, Walt.
Just wanted to make sure your insanity was still in place re. this
theory.
Thanks.
Walt
Hey Dud,..... How about presenting a photo of the disassembled rifle
on the table at DPD Crime lab. If you can't do that perhaps you can
provide verification that Lt Day removed the scope when he examined
the rifle. You CAN do that can't you Dud? You know I love to show
you to be a liar...so please don't provide any proof for your
statement.
Walt
Walt
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > "Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
> > It only took me 10 visits before I was
> > able to navigate it just fine."
> > --cddraftsman
>
> > "We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
> > --Earl Warren, 1964
> > Who Shot JFK?
> >http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Why would I do that?
> If you can't do that perhaps you can
> provide verification that Lt Day removed the scope when he examined
> the rifle.
This is where you always run into trouble. Your mind constantly
inserts things that aren`t there. I never said a word about Day taking
the scope off. Who else did fingerprint work on the rifle, Walt?
> You CAN do that can't you Dud?
No, I can`t show where Day removed the scope, but then again, I
never said he did. He may have taken note of a print under the scope,
though.
> You know I love to show
> you to be a liar...so please don't provide any proof for your
> statement.
I won`t. I keep looking stuff up for you, but you show no signs
that any of it is making you any smarter.
David Von Pein
Damn right. Ric didn't even know Vince Bugliosi was involved in the
Lee Oswald TV Docu-Trial until just last month when he joined this
asylum of a forum. No way he had the slightest idea that VB was in any
way at all involved in the JFK case.
But after about a month (and via a few YouTube clips), Ric has now
become an EXPERT on the history and methods of Vincent T.
Bugliosi....enough of an expert, in fact, that Ric feels comfortable
enough to resort to calling Mr. Bugliosi names like: "guttersnipe",
"schlock lawyer", "a loathesome creature", "an embarrassment to the
legal profession", "a money-grabbing rock-star wannabe", "a glorified
cop with a law degree", and "a cheap-shot artist" .... among other
lovely terms being used by a kook who doesn't know what the hell he's
talking about.
Plainly, Ric WANTS a conspiracy in the JFK case....and he's willing to
tear down anybody who gets between him and that "conspiracy" that so
many OTHER people have built up for him since 1963. It's certainly
nothing that Ricland has built up HIMSELF in any way at all, since
he's a totally-lazy researcher who even admits that he has no
intention of looking stuff up himself--i.e., "Someone will supply the
link shortly" -- Ric.*
* = Unless, of course, it's taking a very few minutes to look up some
brief info on Mr. Bugliosi....in which case he'll start numerous new
anti-VB smear threads here in order to promote the "JFK conspiracy"
that he (Ric) knows virtually nothing about at all....and knew even
less about (by far) prior to mid-March 2007 when he joined the CT
ranks here.
Despicable is too kind a term for someone of Ric's ilk. Can someone
think of the proper term for Ric's ilk? I'm kind of embarrassed to
even type out those words.
eca...@tx.rr.com
"Nothing in Oswald's history shows a mental condition."
Ric your incompetence never ceases to amaze..
You make nUtTy pronouncements such as OJ was
"found innocent" and "18 doctors identified
the neck wound as an entrance wound" and now
this gem that nothing in Oswald's history
shows a mental condition." (?!) You asked for an
example of same and I quoted you verbatim
from Oswald's own brother Robert that as far
as he was concerned he had "serious mental
problems."
Is it any wonder your JFK (Har-har) site
bombed so quickly and completely? You blissfully
think you have vision while the rest of the world
wears blinders but you ignore the fact that
you are seen as a baffoon of sorts and your
JFK site, while cosmetically appealing, offers
nothing but recycled dead ideas/theories
that died decades ago from a lack of evidence..
Much less an *evidence pattern*
Ed 2309Apr1307
On Apr 10, 5:17 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Can someone help me here?
>
> >> What was Oswald's motive?
>
> > Brings to mind something I`ve read recently. When Austrian Prince
> > von Metternich was told of the Russian ambassador`s death, he asked
> > "What may have been his motive?".
>
> The best explanation Bugliosi came up with was Oswald was "nuts."
>
> But as Ed Cage would say, "where's the pattern of evidence?"
>
> Ain't none.
>
> Nothing in Oswald's history shows a mental condition. Nothing in
> Oswald's history shows a rabid hatred for Kennedy. Nothing. So what
> Bugliosi did was give us Charlie Manson: the Sequel -- "He's nuts!"
>
> Now that might be good enough for you, Bud, but any real
> scholar/researcher would find it wonting.
>
> If that television interview Oswald gave a year or two earlier is any
> indication, Oswald was no nut. He held his own against two pro news
> reporters who were trying to make him look stupid. And this from a guy
> who at the time would have only been 22 or 23.
>
> As to the Walker shooting, that's the only thing that bothers me and
> I'll admit, that one in your favor.
>
> Then again, how does a guy who can do shooting 10 Olympic experts can't
> duplicate with a better weapon, miss hitting Walker?
>
> The scope...?
>
> Careful answering that, Bubba.
>
> ricland
tomnln
Robert also said the biggest suspecdt was the FBI.
WHO is ed cage?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/ed_cage_page.htm
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1176524169....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...