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 Historical content remains viewable.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

JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 181)

23 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 10:07:32 PM3/7/12
to

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 181):

======================================================

"THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1964):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1964.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ddb0927e5adb11bf


"THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1977 TELEVISION MOVIE):
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2012/01/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1977.html
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1977.html#Oswald-On-The-Witness-Stand


"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1986 TELEVISION DOCU-TRIAL):
http://On-Trial-LHO.blogspot.com/#Watch-The-Trial
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e6882b3d73ea4d6
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8cf814deb0e4c8cc


"JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET" (2004 DOCUMENTARY):
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html


"THE DEATH OF JFK AND THE WARREN REPORT" (1994 DOCUMENTARY):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/death-of-jfk-1994-documentary.html


"PRESIDENT KENNEDY HAS BEEN SHOT" (2003 DOCUMENTARY):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/president-kennedy-has-been-shot.html


THE JFK ASSASSINATION--AS IT HAPPENED:
http://JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-assassination-tv-radio-coverage.html


SECRET SERVICE AGENTS AT LOVE FIELD:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html#The-Agents-Near-The-Cars


JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51853db033761122
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3c63649451663888
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cb58f621eeba1288


THE BOXES IN THE SNIPER'S NEST:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/adb11c82a18c1394
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/944eb0e379a31caa


ADDITIONAL POSTS AND ARTICLES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06cd6c8a7abeb05
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fc2139a44c077ce9
http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1VLRED2TYB89B&cdMsgNo=18&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2C9PP9L0I0GI&cdMsgID=Mx1E551IUQZ7UC7#Mx1E551IUQZ7UC7




======================================================

aeffects

unread,
Mar 8, 2012, 3:30:21 PM3/8/12
to
On Mar 7, 7:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

you know the rules troll, no advertising....
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 6:51:13 PM4/10/12
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6f781dec384e4584/0009e1ba7e7d3385?#0009e1ba7e7d3385

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How did your make-believe thief get the rifle out of Ruth Paine's
garage without being heard or seen?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Oh Master of Illogic, how did Oswald supposedly get the rifle out of
Ruth Paine's garage without being heard [or] seen?


DVP:

Oswald was staying at the Paine house on Nov. 21 and therefore had
easy access to the garage. He wasn't a thief on the outside trying to
get in.

And you think it would have been extremely difficult for Oswald to
have merely taken his own rifle out of the Paine garage on Friday
morning while everyone else in the house was asleep? You think that
sleeping people would have had to notice Oswald leaving the house with
a package in his hands? That's odd.

TONY MARSH:

How did Oswald smuggle his 40-inch rifle into the TSBD without anyone
seeing it?

DVP:

He didn't. Wesley Frazier saw it (the large package). And Wesley saw
Oswald ENTER THE BUILDING with the package. (See Page 2 of Buell
Wesley Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit below for confirmation of this.)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s1600-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png

TONY MARSH:

Where did he hide it all morning long so that no one would stumble
across it?

DVP:

Nobody can answer that question. And it is something I have asked
myself too. But just because we can never know where within the Book
Depository that Oswald hid his rifle prior to 12:30 PM on 11/22 is
certainly not strong evidence to support the idea that he never took
the rifle into the building AT ALL.

Wes Frazier's testimony about seeing LHO take a package INTO THE BACK
DOOR OF THE BUILDING, coupled with the fact that Oswald's own Carcano
rifle was found on the sixth floor after the assassination, plus the
empty brown bag in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on it),
pretty much make this part of the case easy to figure out. Oswald took
his own rifle to work in a paper bag on 11/22/63.

But I can just as easily ask the conspiracy theorists the same two
questions Tony Marsh just asked me:

How did THE CONSPIRATORS smuggle Oswald's 40-inch rifle into the
TSBD without anyone seeing it? .... And: .... Where did THE
CONSPIRATORS hide it all morning long so that no one would stumble
across it?

Any ideas, Tony?

Or do you think that NOBODY brought that Carcano into the TSBD on the
MORNING of Nov. 22? Do you think it made its way into the building by
way of the police breaking into Ruth Paine's garage on the afternoon
of Nov. 22 (but before 1:22 PM) and then the cops rushed the Carcano
to the TSBD where it could be conveniently planted on the sixth floor
and then filmed by Tom Alyea before 1:30 PM?

TONY MARSH:

Looking for the most simplistic solution is not a good way to solve a
crime.

DVP:

Yeah, it's always much better to muddy the waters by pretending that a
whole bunch of unprovable things happened -- like your theory about
Oswald's rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's house.

(Occam is turning over in his grave right now.)


TONY MARSH:

Don't factor in what you can't prove.


DVP:

Says the man who thinks Oswald's rifle was stolen.

Pot meets kettle--again.


TONY MARSH:

We know that the police lied about what Oswald said.


DVP:

We do? How do "we" know this for a fact, Anthony? Please enlighten us.


TONY MARSH:

We don't know that Oswald lied, because they did not record the
interviews.


DVP:

You say with such certainty that "we know that the police lied about
what Oswald said", but one second later you say "we don't know that
Oswald lied, because they did not record the interviews".

So, even though we're talking about the very same unrecorded
interviews, Tony Marsh is absolutely positive about the DPD telling
lies, but he wants to give poor LHO the benefit of the doubt.

Nice double standard there, Tony.


TONY MARSH:

Prove that he [Oswald] did [lie to Buell Wesley Frazier about the
contents of the paper bag].


DVP:

The proof that Oswald lied about the curtain rods is the fact that no
curtain rods were ever found in the TSBD and no curtain rods were ever
found at Oswald's roominghouse on Beckley.

And I can only assume, Tony, that you don't really think that Oswald
took some curtain rods out of the building at about 12:33 PM on Nov.
22 and then he just tossed them in a trash dumpster somewhere between
the Depository and 1026 Beckley. Do you?

Or was Roy Truly a liar when he said what he said about curtain rods
in CE2640?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm

Or would you like to pull a DiEugenio and call Buell Frazier a rotten
liar? Frazier, as we all know, has never varied his story one bit
about the curtain rods. For decades Frazier has told the same story
about how Oswald (twice) mentioned "curtain rods" in association with
LHO's unusual trip to the Paine home in Irving on Thursday, November
21st.

Do you really think Frazier is a liar, Tony?

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html


TONY MARSH:

It wasn't a large bag. It was a small bag.


DVP:

So, you think Frazier DID lie about the bag then, eh Tony? And Linnie
Mae Randle must have lied too, because she said she saw Oswald
carrying a decent-sized (not "small") bag on the morning of November
22.

Why are you intentionally misrepresenting the evidence, Tony?


TONY MARSH:

We don't know what Oswald said to the police.


DVP:

Sure we do. We can't know verbatim what Oswald told the police, but we
know enough to know that Oswald was positively a big fat liar when it
comes to a lot of substantive things associated with the two murder
charges he was facing.

And we know for a fact that he was attempting to distance himself from
the two murder weapons as much as he could--to the point of Oswald not
mentioning the Neely address when he was asked to list all of his
previous residences; and to the point where Oswald lied about where he
purchased the Tippit murder weapon (even though he was caught red-
handed with that gun on him when he was arrested).


TONY MARSH:

Time frame. Maybe he [Oswald] meant [he didn't own a rifle] at that
moment [in November 1963].


DVP:

You're reaching, Tony. And you know you're reaching. You know damn
well that Oswald ordered, paid for, and possessed Carcano rifle #C2766
in 1963. The trail leading to him as the owner of that gun is three
miles long.

You, as always, just like to argue about things that are proven facts.

TONY MARSH:

I can't prove it, but it seems likely [that Oswald's rifle was
stolen].


DVP:

Fantasies are nice, aren't they Tony?

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-oswalds-rifle-stolen.html

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 10:51:21 PM4/10/12
to

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "It is entirely possible someone stole the rifle a week or two before the shooting, then had it stashed in the building on the night of 11-21, or earlier." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How is it even remotely possible for a reasonable and rational person
who has been looking deeply into the JFK-assassination evidence since
2006 (like Patrick J. Speer) to utter the above words about Oswald's
rifle being stolen from Ruth Paine's home prior to 11/22/63?

The reason I can ask my last question is because of the following
questions that I'd like for Pat Speer to answer:

1.) If Lee Oswald was only going to Irving to get some curtain rods,
then why did he feel it necessary to go to the Paine house one day
earlier than usual on 11/21/63?

2.) Why did Oswald lie (twice) to Buell Frazier about the "curtain
rods"? If the bag really had something innocuous in it, then why does
Oswald feel the need to lie about the bag's contents (twice) to
Frazier (once on Thursday morning and again on Friday morning)?

3.) If not Rifle C2766, then what was in the package that Frazier and
Linnie Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63?

4.) Since every last piece of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit
murder cases points straight to Lee Harvey Oswald, then why do so many
conspiracists continually feel the need to paint him as an innocent
patsy? Why would ANYONE do that? Just to be contrary?
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 5:23:31 PM4/11/12
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6f781dec384e4584/b0e7157a05ca2411?#b0e7157a05ca2411

PAT SPEER SAID:

This is not related to the question of whether or not it was possible
someone stole the rifle and put it in the building.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But those questions are most certainly relevant to THIS PARTICULAR
CASE involving Oswald, his rifle, and his actions on November 21-22,
1963.

Sure, theoretically it's POSSIBLE that someone else could have swiped
LHO's rifle before the assassination....but given the circumstances as
they unfolded involving that rifle's OWNER (a chap named Oswald) on
Nov. 21-22, is it REASONABLE to think that the theoretical possibility
of some other person stealing Oswald's rifle is the truth in this
case?

And, Pat, you know darn well that the four questions I posed in my
previous post are reasonable and relevant questions when it comes to
answering this big-ticket question:

Did Lee Harvey Oswald take his rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63?

But you avoided having to deal with the reality of the situation by
merely pasting in the same "This is not related.." response to each of
the questions I asked.

If you were Oswald's defense lawyer at his murder trial, then, yes,
you probably would offer up the anemic argument about the rifle being
conveniently stolen without Oswald's knowledge (just as Gerry Spence
did at the '86 mock trial in London when he had Ruth Paine on the
witness stand).

But a reasonable jury isn't going to buy a single word of that
pathetic argument when they hear the other side of the story -- i.e.,
when they hear the prosecution tell them all about Lee Oswald's own
actions...and about the paper bag with Oswald's prints on it (which
has never proven to be a fake)...and about the make-believe "curtain
rods"...and about Oswald's continuous lies that he told the police to
distance himself as much as possible from the murder weapon...etc.

But if you want to talk ONLY about "theoretical possibilities"
regarding Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 and how it got from Point A
(Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) to Point B (the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository in downtown Dallas), then have a
ball.

But given the evidence that says it was Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF who
removed that rifle from Mrs. Paine's house on 11/22/63, any theory
being proposed about Oswald's rifle being stolen is just about as
believable as a theory which has Barbara Eden of "I Dream Of Jeannie"
using her magic powers to "blink" the rifle from the Paine residence
to the Depository.

Deep down, you know my last paragraph above is 100% spot-on
accurate....don't you Pat?
Message has been deleted

aeffects

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 5:50:25 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 2:39 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>

wow, two lone nuts going at it! what's a .johnite to think?

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 5:54:04 PM4/11/12
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6f781dec384e4584/094961f494b23e35?#094961f494b23e35


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

He [Wesley Frazier] did not see Oswald entering the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you want to call Wesley Frazier a liar now. Nice.

Maybe you'd better read Frazier's affidavit again. Was Frazier lying
when he wrote these words on the very day of the assassination?:

"I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the
building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
-- Buell Wesley Frazier; 11/22/63

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s1600-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png


TONY MARSH:

The police lied about what Oswald said. They said that he said he ate
lunch with the two Negro men in the Domino Room. That is not what he
said. He said he saw them walk by as he was in the Domino Room.


DAVID VON PEIN:

So now you're placing a lot of faith in those words of Oswald that
were unrecorded and untranscribed. (I.E., the very same Oswald
statements that you, Tony, only yesterday said could not be verified.
Here's your exact quote: "We don't know that Oswald lied, because they
did not record the interviews.")

But as long as you can find some discrepancy or inconsistency, you're
more than eager to call the DPD rotten liars and cover-uppers. Right,
Anthony?

And Sweet Oswald is ALWAYS given the benefit of every doubt by you and
yours, right? (Even though you know you're defending a person who
committed at least one murder [Tippit's]--even from your POV. And
imagine a murderer telling a lie to the police? Gasp!)

TONY MARSH:

YOU need to call Frazier a liar because he said the bag was too short.

DAVID VON PEIN:

Not at all. All I need to do is call Frazier "mistaken" about the
exact length of the bag. You really think it's reasonable to expect
Frazier (or Randle) to nail the exact dimensions of that bag, which
they each saw for only a brief period on 11/22? You expect too much
from witnesses.

And it's YOU who just called Wesley Frazier a liar earlier in this
post--when you said this falsehood:

"He did not see Oswald entering the TSBD."

That statement totally contradicts Frazier's affidavit that I cited
above. So, was Frazier a liar?

aeffects

unread,
Apr 11, 2012, 6:00:59 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 2:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>

uh-uh-huh..... no advertising troll

and still wow, two lone nuts going at it! what's a .johnite to think?

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 13, 2012, 6:17:14 PM4/13/12
to

PAT SPEER SAID:

They [Arlen Specter and Lyndal Shaneyfelt] gave the illusion the
trajectory passed close to the back wound, when they both KNEW it
passed inches above it.


DAVID VON PEIN RETORTS:

Bullshit. Some things had to be approximated, and the Warren
Commission was forthright about such approximations. And the
trajectory the WC ultimately used (which was for the equivalent of
Z217.5) is obviously not going to be the EXACT trajectory for the
single bullet that struck JFK and Connally--unless, by some incredibly
good fortune, the WC did, indeed, just happen to choose the EXACT half
of a Zapruder frame (Z217.5) when the SBT bullet did strike the
victims, which is very unlikely. (The SBT actually occurs, of course,
at precisely Z224, and there are many reasons why this is so.)

Therefore, Shaneyfelt's and Specter's "approximately" language does
come into play...and rightly so.

In fact, that's probably the reason why Specter's rod is above the
chalk mark on the JFK stand-in in some of the re-enactment photos
taken in the garage near Dealey Plaza. Because, I assume, that the
angle being used for all of those photos is identical (17 degrees, 43
minutes, 30 seconds). And since a 17-43-30 angle is only the average
angle between Z210 and Z225, then (quite obviously) the REAL angle of
descent for the SBT at Z224 (per my opinion about when the bullet
struck) is going to be a little less than 17-43-30 because the car has
travelled further down Elm Street between Z217.5 and Z224, decreasing
the angle from Oswald's window.

But the CE903 reconstruction is so incredibly close to being spot-on
perfect (angle-wise and wound location-wise) that only the hardcore
conspiracy buffs who refuse to "approximate" anything relating to this
case will be unconvinced by it. (With those conspiracists also, of
course, ignoring the undeniable common sense elements that exist in
the 6 points I'm going to talk about below too.)

When we factor in the basic garden-variety common sense of the Single-
Bullet Theory (coupled with the WC's 5/24/64 re-creation of the
shooting in Dealey Plaza), the SBT becomes crystal clear as the
probable truth:

1.) At Z-Film frames 210-225, when looking through the scope of
Oswald's rifle from the SN window in the TSBD, Connally and Kennedy
are lined up--one in front of the other.

2.) JFK was hit in the back by a bullet.

3.) JFK had a bullet hole in his throat.

4.) Connally was hit in the back by a bullet at just about the exact
same time that JFK was being struck by a bullet.

5.) No bullets were inside JFK's throat/neck/upper back.

6.) The only physical evidence of any shooter in Dealey Plaza was
found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

Now, just add up #1 thru #6 above and tell me the Single-Bullet Theory
is a load of shit.

Based on just the above basic facts in this case ALONE (and each one
is definitely a proven fact, without a speck of a doubt), the SBT is
the best explanation for the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC on
November 22, 1963.

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 16, 2012, 7:35:48 PM4/16/12
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/6f781dec384e4584/a003bdaf99f7d56b?#a003bdaf99f7d56b





Pat,

Do you REALLY think that there is a huge difference in the back-wound
locations in the two photos shown below?

Do you really think Specter's rod is NOT in just about the same place
as the real wound in JFK's upper back?

The level of the wounds in both pictures is pert-near identical. JFK's
real wound in the center of his upper back is situated very near the
top of his shoulders, just where Specter has it in CE903.

Anyone looking at these two photographs side-by-side who still thinks
that Specter's rod isn't even close to the real wound is, frankly, a
fool:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gM9IKl4-Rug/T4ygetB8U0I/AAAAAAAAH0g/yyG62_MExqI/s1600/CE903-Back-Wound-Comparison.jpg

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 8:33:58 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 7:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> Pat,
>
> Do you REALLY think that there is a huge difference in the back-wound
> locations in the two photos shown below?
>
> Do you really think Specter's rod is NOT in just about the same place
> as the real wound in JFK's upper back?
>
> The level of the wounds in both pictures is pert-near identical. JFK's
> real wound in the center of his upper back is situated very near the
> top of his shoulders, just where Specter has it in CE903.
>
> Anyone looking at these two photographs side-by-side who still thinks
> that Specter's rod isn't even close to the real wound is, frankly, a
> fool:
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gM9IKl4-Rug/T4ygetB8U0I/AAAAAAAAH0g/yyG62_M...

Frankly, fools believe the whacky theories of the WC without
question and lure others to rack up the counts on their websites.
Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle.
Maybe many things. The above is full of assumptions. All the talk
about JFK and Connally being lined up is sill too. Check with Cyril
Wecht, a forensic specialist. He think the SBT is for fools.

Chris


David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 8:42:06 AM4/17/12
to

>>> "Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle." <<<

With which the wacky conspirators attempted to frame Oswald (who owned
a Carcano, not a Mauser).

Brilliant plot by the unseen henchmen, who possessed the combined I.Q.
of melba toast.

bigdog

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 8:58:27 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 8:33 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> > Pat,
>
> > Do you REALLY think that there is a huge difference in the back-wound
> > locations in the two photos shown below?
>
> > Do you really think Specter's rod is NOT in just about the same place
> > as the real wound in JFK's upper back?
>
> > The level of the wounds in both pictures is pert-near identical. JFK's
> > real wound in the center of his upper back is situated very near the
> > top of his shoulders, just where Specter has it in CE903.
>
> > Anyone looking at these two photographs side-by-side who still thinks
> > that Specter's rod isn't even close to the real wound is, frankly, a
> > fool:
>
> >http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gM9IKl4-Rug/T4ygetB8U0I/AAAAAAAAH0g/yyG62_M...
>
>    Frankly, fools believe the whacky theories of the WC without
> question and lure others to rack up the counts on their websites.

Bullshit!!!. The WCR has been scrutinized more than any document in
the history of the world and it remains solid as a rock and has needed
no revisions to its core findings.

> Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle.
> Maybe many things.

There are millions of things that are possible for which there is no
evidence. If you restrict yourself to the things for which there is
real evidence, the choices get much narrower. In this case, the
choices are narrowed down to one. The only theory every put forth that
is based on actual evidence is that put forth by the WC. The fact that
you want to entertain theoretical possibilities for which you have no
evidence speaks volumes. Yours is a faith based approach rather than a
scientific one.

> The above is full of assumptions.  All the talk
> about JFK and Connally being lined up is sill too.

There is nothing silly about it. They were lined up perfectly with the
sniper's nest at the time they were both shot. Photographs taken
during the reenactment establish that conclusively.

> Check with Cyril
> Wecht, a forensic specialist.  He think the SBT is for fools.
>
None of Wecht's reservations about the SBT are based on his medical
expertise. They are based upon areas in which he is nothing more than
a layman. He is a layman when it comes to ballistics. He is a layman
when it comes to photographic analysis. His medical based opinion is
that JFK was shot twice from behind.

aeffects

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 3:51:41 PM4/17/12
to
and the kentucky fried chicken queen, David Von Pein, can't prove that
-- and the lone nut, SBT, WCR, LHO cavalcade of pure bullshit rolls
into oblivion...

aeffects

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 3:53:55 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 4:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> Pat,
>
> Do you REALLY think that there is a huge difference in the back-wound
> locations in the two photos shown below?
>
> Do you really think Specter's rod is NOT in just about the same place
> as the real wound in JFK's upper back?

only a lone nut skankster would bring up someone's rod and where it
is... you're pathetic, young man.

> The level of the wounds in both pictures is pert-near identical. JFK's
> real wound in the center of his upper back is situated very near the
> top of his shoulders, just where Specter has it in CE903.
>
> Anyone looking at these two photographs side-by-side who still thinks
> that Specter's rod isn't even close to the real wound is, frankly, a
> fool:
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gM9IKl4-Rug/T4ygetB8U0I/AAAAAAAAH0g/yyG62_M...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 4:32:56 PM4/17/12
to
In article <9d65a8f7-3686-4907...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 17, 5:42=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle." =
><<<
>>
>> With which the wacky conspirators attempted to frame Oswald (who owned
>> a Carcano, not a Mauser).


Oh, if need be... he *would* have owned a Mauser... complete with paperwork...


>> Brilliant plot by the unseen henchmen, who possessed the combined I.Q.
>> of melba toast.
>
>and the kentucky fried chicken queen, David Von Pein, can't prove that
>-- and the lone nut, SBT, WCR, LHO cavalcade of pure bullshit rolls
>into oblivion...


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 4:49:36 PM4/17/12
to
In article <8d37bdd7-6c93-492d...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
Since Spector is demonstrating roughly a 20 degree down angle, and the width of
the body is about 5.5 inches, simple trig tells us that the back wound must have
been 2 inches higher than the neck wound.

Seems that the HSCA put that myth to rest.

"Pathetic" is the right word...

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 5:16:55 PM4/17/12
to
Birds of a feather...:)

Chris

Jason Burke

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 5:37:45 PM4/17/12
to
On 4/17/2012 12:53 PM, aeffects wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:35 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> Pat,
>>
>> Do you REALLY think that there is a huge difference in the back-wound
>> locations in the two photos shown below?
>>
>> Do you really think Specter's rod is NOT in just about the same place
>> as the real wound in JFK's upper back?
>
> only a lone nut skankster would bring up someone's rod and where it
> is... you're pathetic, young man.

Why am I not surprised that you have a fascination with rods?

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 6:07:54 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 8:58 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:33 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 7:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> > > Pat,
>
> > > Do you REALLY think that there is a huge difference in the back-wound
> > > locations in the two photos shown below?
>
> > > Do you really think Specter's rod is NOT in just about the same place
> > > as the real wound in JFK's upper back?
>
> > > The level of the wounds in both pictures is pert-near identical. JFK's
> > > real wound in the center of his upper back is situated very near the
> > > top of his shoulders, just where Specter has it in CE903.
>
> > > Anyone looking at these two photographs side-by-side who still thinks
> > > that Specter's rod isn't even close to the real wound is, frankly, a
> > > fool:
>
> > >http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gM9IKl4-Rug/T4ygetB8U0I/AAAAAAAAH0g/yyG62_M...
>
> >    Frankly, fools believe the whacky theories of the WC without
> > question and lure others to rack up the counts on their websites.
>
> Bullshit!!!. The WCR has been scrutinized more than any document in
> the history of the world and it remains solid as a rock and has needed
> no revisions to its core findings.
>
You can be sure that thousands of suggestions were made to change
the stupid thing from its very beginning. That the WC or any
authority refused to make changes until the roar got too loud to bear
is more the truth. It was finally changed when the HSCA came out with
the 'Final Assassinations Report', which strated that the murder of
JFK was probably a conspiracy. That's a big change to the WC's little
findings, which were that a 'lone nut' did it...:) You've really
forgotten a lot of this stuff, eh?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_report.htm

> > Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle.
> > Maybe many things.
>
> There are millions of things that are possible for which there is no
> evidence. If you restrict yourself to the things for which there is
> real evidence, the choices get much narrower. In this case, the
> choices are narrowed down to one. The only theory every put forth that
> is based on actual evidence is that put forth by the WC. The fact that
> you want to entertain theoretical possibilities for which you have no
> evidence speaks volumes. Yours is a faith based approach rather than a
> scientific one.
>
I consider witnesses to be evidence as well as rifles. Now we have
Roger Craig stating that the rifle found in the TSBD was a 7.65
Mauser,and he said so because he read the name on the rifle itself.
Thr rifle was also identified as a 7.65 Mauser by Seymour Weitzman,
who was their expert in that area.

> > The above is full of assumptions.  All the talk
> > about JFK and Connally being lined up is silly too.
>
> There is nothing silly about it. They were lined up perfectly with the
> sniper's nest at the time they were both shot. Photographs taken
> during the reenactment establish that conclusively.

Nope. It's sounds nice as you say it, but it's only something you
said, giving it NO weight at all. A reenactment is like a cartoon
also. A similar but not exact representation of reality. If you look
at the juxtaposition of limo pictures of JFK andConnally, you see they
are not 'lined up' for a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Maybe
the Daltex building, at the 2nd or 3rd floor, but not the TSBD 6
floors high.
>
> > Check with Cyril
> > Wecht, a forensic specialist.  He think the SBT is for fools.
>
> None of Wecht's reservations about the SBT are based on his medical
> expertise. They are based upon areas in which he is nothing more than
> a layman. He is a layman when it comes to ballistics. He is a layman
> when it comes to photographic analysis. His medical based opinion is
> that JFK was shot twice from behind.

I didn't see that anywhere. Do you have any backup of that
statement? Or should we simply believe anything you say? And how did
you find out all this about Wecht, that he had NO forensic
background? Any backup of that? And which wound ballistician was
your proof that both bullets came from the 6th floor and one of them
hit both men and caused all the damage?

I'm concerned at the moment with Wecht's opinion of the SBT, which
any sane person can make an obvious decision about. And Wecht thinks
the SBT is for idiots. Hew had no peroblem blasting the WC when they
and their sycophants told the SBT story.

Chris


bigdog

unread,
Apr 17, 2012, 6:25:55 PM4/17/12
to
> forgotten a lot of this stuff, eh?http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_re...
>
The HSCA endorsed the SBT and the finding that Oswald fired all the
shots which struck JFK and JBC. Are you sure you want to use them to
bolster your wacky beliefs?

> > > Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle.
> > > Maybe many things.
>
> > There are millions of things that are possible for which there is no
> > evidence. If you restrict yourself to the things for which there is
> > real evidence, the choices get much narrower. In this case, the
> > choices are narrowed down to one. The only theory every put forth that
> > is based on actual evidence is that put forth by the WC. The fact that
> > you want to entertain theoretical possibilities for which you have no
> > evidence speaks volumes. Yours is a faith based approach rather than a
> > scientific one.
>
>    I consider witnesses to be evidence as well as rifles.

Witnesses are only evidence if they testify under oath and can be
cross examined.

> Roger Craig stating that the rifle found in the TSBD was a 7.65
> Mauser,and he said so because he read the name on the rifle itself.
> Thr rifle was also identified as a 7.65 Mauser by Seymour Weitzman,
> who was their expert in that area.
>
Amazing how the 7.65mm Mauser could fire the two 6.5mm bullets and 3
spent shells that were recovered.

> > > The above is full of assumptions.  All the talk
> > > about JFK and Connally being lined up is silly too.
>
> > There is nothing silly about it. They were lined up perfectly with the
> > sniper's nest at the time they were both shot. Photographs taken
> > during the reenactment establish that conclusively.
>
>   Nope.  It's sounds nice as you say it, but it's only something you
> said, giving it NO weight at all.

No, dumbass, photos were taken. Just how fucking stupid are you?

>  A reenactment is like a cartoon
> also.

I think you just answered my question.

> A similar but not exact representation of reality.  If you look
> at the juxtaposition of limo pictures of JFK andConnally, you see they
> are not 'lined up' for a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.  Maybe
> the Daltex building, at the 2nd or 3rd floor, but not the TSBD 6
> floors high.
>
Now that, Gil Jesus, Rob Caprio, and Walt Cakebread have left the
house, you are now the dumbest fuck on this board.
>
>
> > > Check with Cyril
> > > Wecht, a forensic specialist.  He think the SBT is for fools.
>
> > None of Wecht's reservations about the SBT are based on his medical
> > expertise. They are based upon areas in which he is nothing more than
> > a layman. He is a layman when it comes to ballistics. He is a layman
> > when it comes to photographic analysis. His medical based opinion is
> > that JFK was shot twice from behind.
>
>    I didn't see that anywhere.  Do you have any backup of that
> statement? Or should we simply believe anything you say?  And how did
> you find out all this about Wecht, that he had NO forensic
> background?

His background is in forensic MEDICINE. He is also a lawyer. Neither
makes him an expert in ballistics. He testified under oath at the mock
trial of LHO that JFK was shot twice from behind. There is a film
record of it.

> Any backup of that?  And which wound ballistician was
> your proof that both bullets came from the 6th floor and one of them
> hit both men and caused all the damage?
>
>   I'm concerned at the moment with Wecht's opinion of the SBT, which
> any sane person can make an obvious decision about.  And Wecht thinks
> the SBT is for idiots.  Hew had no peroblem blasting the WC when they
> and their sycophants told the SBT story.
>
Bugliosi made Wecht look like a fool on the witness stand. You have
managed to make yourself look like a fool with no help from Vince.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 18, 2012, 8:01:57 AM4/18/12
to
You really have forgotten most of this stuff it appears. Here's
the wording from the HSCA on their findings. That they subscribed to
the whacko theories of the WC doesn't help them gain any respect
though.

"C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to
it, that president John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a
result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other
gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."
From: http://www.jfklancer.com/HSCA.html

> > > > Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle.
> > > > Maybe many things.
>
> > > There are millions of things that are possible for which there is no
> > > evidence. If you restrict yourself to the things for which there is
> > > real evidence, the choices get much narrower. In this case, the
> > > choices are narrowed down to one. The only theory every put forth that
> > > is based on actual evidence is that put forth by the WC. The fact that
> > > you want to entertain theoretical possibilities for which you have no
> > > evidence speaks volumes. Yours is a faith based approach rather than a
> > > scientific one.
>
> >    I consider witnesses to be evidence as well as rifles.
>
> Witnesses are only evidence if they testify under oath and can be
> cross examined.
>
So you're saying that ALL witnesses at the WC cannot be considered
as evidence since they weren't cross-examined? I bet a lot of
attorneys would have loved to have cross-examined them, if only for
the exposure...:)

> > Roger Craig stating that the rifle found in the TSBD was a 7.65
> > Mauser,and he said so because he read the name on the rifle itself.
> > Thr rifle was also identified as a 7.65 Mauser by Seymour Weitzman,
> > who was their expert in that area.
>
> Amazing how the 7.65mm Mauser could fire the two 6.5mm bullets and 3
> spent shells that were recovered.
>
We've gone over that stuff before. Since the autopsy was such a
botched up fake, no complete enough bullets were recovered from the
body to say with any certainly what type of rifle was used, or even
what direction the bullets came from. Having an autopsy team with no
real bullet wound experience made it useless in determining the bullet
path through the brain. Finding an almost pristine bullet on an
uninvolved stretcher at Parkland isn't much proof of anything. And
finding 2 pieces of a bullet in the limo doesn't say that they came
from the Mauser at the TSBD. The rifle that fired that bullet might
have been at the Daltex building, or any other location.

> > > > The above is full of assumptions.  All the talk
> > > > about JFK and Connally being lined up is silly too.
>
> > > There is nothing silly about it. They were lined up perfectly with the
> > > sniper's nest at the time they were both shot. Photographs taken
> > > during the reenactment establish that conclusively.
>
> >   Nope.  It's sounds nice as you say it, but it's only something you
> > said, giving it NO weight at all.
>
> No, dumbass, photos were taken. Just how fucking stupid are you?
>
Well, considering the mistakes and silly statements you've made,
'fucking stupid' might fit you more than me...:) Now let's get you
squared away. You made your statements based on photos, and I made my
statements based on photos, sounds like they both have the same weight
to me. However, if you used a 'reenactment' in deciding something,
the label fits you better...:)

One thing you can be sure of is that if the WC had measurements
made of the positions of JFK and Connally, you can be sure they would
match and show what they wanted to show, or we would have never heard
of the measurements having been made.

> >  A reenactment is like a cartoon
> > also.
>
> I think you just answered my question.
>
> > A similar but not exact representation of reality.  If you look
> > at the juxtaposition of limo pictures of JFK andConnally, you see they
> > are not 'lined up' for a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.  Maybe
> > the Daltex building, at the 2nd or 3rd floor, but not the TSBD 6
> > floors high.
>
> Now that, Gil Jesus, Rob Caprio, and Walt Cakebread have left the
> house, you are now the dumbest fuck on this board.
>
Now that you have run out of intelligent things to say, you have
just taken over the position of lead idiot.
>
>
> > > > Check with Cyril
> > > > Wecht, a forensic specialist.  He think the SBT is for fools.
>
> > > None of Wecht's reservations about the SBT are based on his medical
> > > expertise. They are based upon areas in which he is nothing more than
> > > a layman. He is a layman when it comes to ballistics. He is a layman
> > > when it comes to photographic analysis. His medical based opinion is
> > > that JFK was shot twice from behind.
>
> >    I didn't see that anywhere.  Do you have any backup of that
> > statement? Or should we simply believe anything you say?  And how did
> > you find out all this about Wecht, that he had NO forensic
> > background?
>
> His background is in forensic MEDICINE. He is also a lawyer. Neither
> makes him an expert in ballistics. He testified under oath at the mock
> trial of LHO that JFK was shot twice from behind. There is a film
> record of it.
>
> > Any backup of that?  And which wound ballistician was
> > your proof that both bullets came from the 6th floor and one of them
> > hit both men and caused all the damage?
>
No backup. Just as I thought. Making noise without any reason.

> >   I'm concerned at the moment with Wecht's opinion of the SBT, which
> > any sane person can make an obvious decision about.  And Wecht thinks
> > the SBT is for idiots.  He had no problem blasting the WC when they
> > and their sycophants told the SBT story.
>
> Bugliosi made Wecht look like a fool on the witness stand. You have
> managed to make yourself look like a fool with no help from Vince.

Again running out of intelligent things to say so you drop down to
your normal low level of ad hominem. I saw the video of the bugger
man and Wecht. Wecht stayed with his contentions, while Bugliosi did
the lawyerly thing to an opposition witness, which could be expected,
given what he had to fight against.

Watching Wecht being questioned by Spence showed that he knew his
subject and he sharply commented on the incompetence of the autopsy
team, which is not a new fact for anyone here.

So let's see...you were unable to provide any wound ballistician
backup to for your belief in the whacky SBT theory. Ditto for 2
bullets coming from the 6th floor of the TSBD. You were unable to
provide backup for your statements on Wecht's ballistics experience
that you ran down either. Batting zero so far.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Apr 18, 2012, 12:37:03 PM4/18/12
to
So you just want to cherry pick the one part they got wrong and
dismiss everything they got right?
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle.
> > > > > Maybe many things.
>
> > > > There are millions of things that are possible for which there is no
> > > > evidence. If you restrict yourself to the things for which there is
> > > > real evidence, the choices get much narrower. In this case, the
> > > > choices are narrowed down to one. The only theory every put forth that
> > > > is based on actual evidence is that put forth by the WC. The fact that
> > > > you want to entertain theoretical possibilities for which you have no
> > > > evidence speaks volumes. Yours is a faith based approach rather than a
> > > > scientific one.
>
> > >    I consider witnesses to be evidence as well as rifles.
>
> > Witnesses are only evidence if they testify under oath and can be
> > cross examined.
>
>   So you're saying that ALL witnesses at the WC cannot be considered
> as evidence since they weren't cross-examined?  I bet a lot of
> attorneys would have loved to have cross-examined them, if only for
> the exposure...:)
>
The WC was not an adversarial process. It was a fact finding mission,
so cross examination was not part of the process. But they did testify
under oath.

> > > Roger Craig stating that the rifle found in the TSBD was a 7.65
> > > Mauser,and he said so because he read the name on the rifle itself.
> > > Thr rifle was also identified as a 7.65 Mauser by Seymour Weitzman,
> > > who was their expert in that area.
>
> > Amazing how the 7.65mm Mauser could fire the two 6.5mm bullets and 3
> > spent shells that were recovered.
>
>   We've gone over that stuff before.  Since the autopsy was such a
> botched up fake, no complete enough bullets were recovered from the
> body to say with any certainly what type of rifle was used, or even
> what direction the bullets came from.  Having an autopsy team with no
> real bullet wound experience made it useless in determining the bullet
> path through the brain.  Finding an almost pristine bullet on an
> uninvolved stretcher at Parkland isn't much proof of anything.  And
> finding 2 pieces of a bullet in the limo doesn't say that they came
> from the Mauser at the TSBD.  The rifle that fired that bullet might
> have been at the Daltex building, or any other location.
>
No bullets were removed from either body, just small fragments. We
have a whole bullet (CE399) recovered from Parkland, two large
identifiable fragments recovered from the limo, and 3 spent shells
found where a witness saw a gunman firing and the all were positively
traced to Oswald's MC. But you want to dismiss all that hard evidence
because you can comprehend that the rifle was simply misidentified
even though the person who made the identification said he made a
mistake. Of course you do. You're a kook. That's what kooks do. No
amount of evidence matters to a kook. They decide what they want to
believe than dismiss and and all evidence that contradicts their
beliefs.


> > > > > The above is full of assumptions.  All the talk
> > > > > about JFK and Connally being lined up is silly too.
>
> > > > There is nothing silly about it. They were lined up perfectly with the
> > > > sniper's nest at the time they were both shot. Photographs taken
> > > > during the reenactment establish that conclusively.
>
> > >   Nope.  It's sounds nice as you say it, but it's only something you
> > > said, giving it NO weight at all.
>
> > No, dumbass, photos were taken. Just how fucking stupid are you?
>
>   Well, considering the mistakes and silly statements you've made,
> 'fucking stupid' might fit you more than me...:)  Now let's get you
> squared away.  You made your statements based on photos, and I made my
> statements based on photos, sounds like they both have the same weight
> to me.  However, if you used a 'reenactment' in deciding something,
> the label fits you better...:)
>
HUH??? What photos did you base any of your statements on?

>    One thing you can be sure of is that if the WC had measurements
> made of the positions of JFK and Connally, you can be sure they would
> match and show what they wanted to show, or we would have never heard
> of the measurements having been made.
>
The WC didn't WANT them to show anything. They wanted to find out what
the truth was and they looked at the evidence and let the chips fall
where they may. That is how rational people arrive at their
conclusions. I know that's a strange concept in Kookdom where you
live.

> > >  A reenactment is like a cartoon
> > > also.
>
> > I think you just answered my question.
>
> > > A similar but not exact representation of reality.  If you look
> > > at the juxtaposition of limo pictures of JFK andConnally, you see they
> > > are not 'lined up' for a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.  Maybe
> > > the Daltex building, at the 2nd or 3rd floor, but not the TSBD 6
> > > floors high.
>
> > Now that, Gil Jesus, Rob Caprio, and Walt Cakebread have left the
> > house, you are now the dumbest fuck on this board.
>
>   Now that you have run out of intelligent things to say, you have
> just taken over the position of lead idiot.
>
At least I have had some intelligent things to say. You're still
searching.
Even Wecht admitted afterwards that Bugliosi had made mincemeat of
him. They have since become very good friends.

>    Watching Wecht being questioned by Spence showed that he knew his
> subject and he sharply commented on the incompetence of the autopsy
> team, which is not a new fact for anyone here.
>
None of which in anyway invalidates the SBT.

>    So let's see...you were unable to provide any wound ballistician
> backup to for your belief in the whacky SBT theory.  Ditto for 2
> bullets coming from the 6th floor of the TSBD.  You were unable to
> provide backup for your statements on Wecht's ballistics experience
> that you ran down either.  Batting zero so far.
>
Wecht is the guy you are using to support your claims. It is up to you
to establish his credentials. He has no credentials in that area. It
is not my job to produce things that don't exist.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 18, 2012, 6:25:47 PM4/18/12
to
LOL! Think about what you just accused me of, and whether you just
did the same thing. You just cherry picked the item you wanted to
disbelieve...:)

> > > > > > Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle.
> > > > > > Maybe many things.
>
> > > > > There are millions of things that are possible for which there is no
> > > > > evidence. If you restrict yourself to the things for which there is
> > > > > real evidence, the choices get much narrower. In this case, the
> > > > > choices are narrowed down to one. The only theory every put forth that
> > > > > is based on actual evidence is that put forth by the WC. The fact that
> > > > > you want to entertain theoretical possibilities for which you have no
> > > > > evidence speaks volumes. Yours is a faith based approach rather than a
> > > > > scientific one.
>
> > > >    I consider witnesses to be evidence as well as rifles.
>
> > > Witnesses are only evidence if they testify under oath and can be
> > > cross examined.
>
> >   So you're saying that ALL witnesses at the WC cannot be considered
> > as evidence since they weren't cross-examined?  I bet a lot of
> > attorneys would have loved to have cross-examined them, if only for
> > the exposure...:)
>
> The WC was not an adversarial process. It was a fact finding mission,
> so cross examination was not part of the process. But they did testify
> under oath.
>
Humorously enough they only found the facts they determined before
they held the hearings. Talk about cherry picking...:)
Nope. Won't do. Too many people changed their testimony after they
were convinced to do so. Some though, like Roger Craig didn't, and
although attempts were made on his life, he stuck with his guns and
kept telling the truth.
The Mauser was identified not just by knowledge of guns, but by the
very words 'Mauser 7.645' printede right on the gun. Hard to beat
that kind of evidence. Not aneasy m,istake to make, reading right off
the gun...:)

As well, I just got through going over that list of supposed
'evidence' and it stinks. The CE399 bullet was found at Parkland on
an uninvolved stretcher, making it more likely that someone had it
with them and dropped it off there thinking it was Connally's or JFK's
stretcher. As to whether that bulet came from the MC rifle, it may
have done, but the FBI did such a lousy job of messing up the chain of
evidence with the bullets that there's no way to know if a phony was
inserted into the chain. We've been over this, so you know it
already. Unless you hoped it would go away if you ignored it...:)


> > > > > > The above is full of assumptions.  All the talk
> > > > > > about JFK and Connally being lined up is silly too.
>
> > > > > There is nothing silly about it. They were lined up perfectly with the
> > > > > sniper's nest at the time they were both shot. Photographs taken
> > > > > during the reenactment establish that conclusively.
>
> > > >   Nope.  It's sounds nice as you say it, but it's only something you
> > > > said, giving it NO weight at all.
>
> > > No, dumbass, photos were taken. Just how fucking stupid are you?
>
> >   Well, considering the mistakes and silly statements you've made,
> > 'fucking stupid' might fit you more than me...:)  Now let's get you
> > squared away.  You made your statements based on photos, and I made my
> > statements based on photos, sounds like they both have the same weight
> > to me.  However, if you used a 'reenactment' in deciding something,
> > the label fits you better...:)
>
> HUH??? What photos did you base any of your statements on?
>
Most of the photos taken before the shots were fired showing
Connally in front of JFK. An example is:
http://www.crimemagazine.com/taxonomy/term/4

> >    One thing you can be sure of is that if the WC had measurements
> > made of the positions of JFK and Connally, you can be sure they would
> > match and show what they wanted to show, or we would have never heard
> > of the measurements having been made.
>
> The WC didn't WANT them to show anything. They wanted to find out what
> the truth was and they looked at the evidence and let the chips fall
> where they may. That is how rational people arrive at their
> conclusions. I know that's a strange concept in Kookdom where you
> live.
>
Oh c'mon. You don't actually believe that a panel of politicians
were brought together to only seek the truthm, do you? How gullible
are you? Talk about being a kook...:)


> > > >  A reenactment is like a cartoon
> > > > also.
>
> > > I think you just answered my question.
>
> > > > A similar but not exact representation of reality.  If you look
> > > > at the juxtaposition of limo pictures of JFK andConnally, you see they
> > > > are not 'lined up' for a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.  Maybe
> > > > the Daltex building, at the 2nd or 3rd floor, but not the TSBD 6
> > > > floors high.
>
> > > Now that, Gil Jesus, Rob Caprio, and Walt Cakebread have left the
> > > house, you are now the dumbest fuck on this board.
>
> >   Now that you have run out of intelligent things to say, you have
> > just taken over the position of lead idiot.
>
> At least I have had some intelligent things to say. You're still
> searching.
>
Well, I've been through your mumblings and none of it comes up to
the level of intelligence. Don't start bragging now...:)
LOL! Right, it defeats itself from the weight of sheer nonsense.
Another whacky theory of the WC and it's sycophants...:)
>
> >    So let's see...you were unable to provide any wound ballistician
> > backup to for your belief in the whacky SBT theory.  Ditto for 2
> > bullets coming from the 6th floor of the TSBD.  You were unable to
> > provide backup for your statements on Wecht's ballistics experience
> > that you ran down either.  Batting zero so far.
>
> Wecht is the guy you are using to support your claims. It is up to you
> to establish his credentials. He has no credentials in that area. It
> is not my job to produce things that don't exist.

Ahh! Talking fast to avoid doing a little work! That's you. All
talk, no backup.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Apr 18, 2012, 9:04:15 PM4/18/12
to
The HSCA was all set to endorse the WC on every major point until the
accoustics evidence was dumped on them at the eleventh hour. They
didn't give that evidence the proper scrutiny and as a result made a
glaring error in finding for a probable conspiracy. The endorsed the
core findings of the WC including the following:

1. Oswald fired the shots from the TSBD.
2. Two of Oswald's shots struck JFK.
3. One of those shots passed through JFK and caused all the inuries to
JFK. (i.e. They endorsed the SBT)
4. Oswald was the only one who fired a shot that hit anyone in the
limo.
5. Oswald murdered Tippit.
6. No evidence was found of a prior association between Oswald and
Ruby.

If they hadn't allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the junk
accoustics "science", they would have nailed it. As it was, we can
only give them partial credit.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > Maybe the paper bag in the TSBD contained parts of a Mauser rifle.
> > > > > > > Maybe many things.
>
> > > > > > There are millions of things that are possible for which there is no
> > > > > > evidence. If you restrict yourself to the things for which there is
> > > > > > real evidence, the choices get much narrower. In this case, the
> > > > > > choices are narrowed down to one. The only theory every put forth that
> > > > > > is based on actual evidence is that put forth by the WC. The fact that
> > > > > > you want to entertain theoretical possibilities for which you have no
> > > > > > evidence speaks volumes. Yours is a faith based approach rather than a
> > > > > > scientific one.
>
> > > > >    I consider witnesses to be evidence as well as rifles.
>
> > > > Witnesses are only evidence if they testify under oath and can be
> > > > cross examined.
>
> > >   So you're saying that ALL witnesses at the WC cannot be considered
> > > as evidence since they weren't cross-examined?  I bet a lot of
> > > attorneys would have loved to have cross-examined them, if only for
> > > the exposure...:)
>
> > The WC was not an adversarial process. It was a fact finding mission,
> > so cross examination was not part of the process. But they did testify
> > under oath.
>
>   Humorously enough they only found the facts they determined before
> they held the hearings.  Talk about cherry picking...:)
>
Do you guys think if you repeat that lie often enough it will one day
magically become true. There was no predetermined outcome for the
hearings. Their mission was to follow the evidence and determine the
facts, a process complete foreign to most CTs.
Nobody changed any testimony. Nobody testified that the weapon was a
Mauser. It was misidentified as such at first glance. When showed the
MC, they acknowledged they had been wrong. But people don't make
mistakes in the wacky CT world. If somebody makes a mistake, that
instantly gets elevated to a hard fact. That is the reason we have
elevated you to dumbest fuck on this board after the apparent
retirement of the previous title holders. You must be proud.

> Some though, like Roger Craig didn't, and
> although attempts were made on his life, he stuck with his guns and
> kept telling the truth.

Some like Roger Craig? Roger Craig was all by himself in the wacky
things he claimed. Nothing he claimed can be supported by hard
evidence. It is only natural he would be a hero in Kookdom. He is one
of your own.

>   The Mauser was identified not just by knowledge of guns, but by the
> very words 'Mauser 7.645' printede right on the gun.  Hard to beat
> that kind of evidence.  Not aneasy m,istake to make, reading right off
> the gun...:)
>
Quote anybody's testimony where they said that.

>   As well, I just got through going over that list of supposed
> 'evidence' and it stinks.

Of course it does. It conflicts with your beliefs. That really does
stink, doesn't it?

> The CE399 bullet was found at Parkland on
> an uninvolved stretcher,

More factoids. The person who found the bullet testified that he
wasn't sure which guerney it came from. Rather than take the common
sense approach that it came from the guerney of a victim who had been
shot at the same location that the rifle that fired the bullet was
found, you assholes want to insist it magically came from the guerney
of someone who had nothing to do with the shooting. But what the hell.
That's what dumbfucks do.

> making it more likely that someone had it
> with them and dropped it off there thinking it was Connally's or JFK's
> stretcher.

Why the fuck would somebody plant a bullet from Oswald's rifle? If
they shot JFK with Oswald's rifle, there would be no reason to plant
another bullet from that same rifle. If they shot JFK with a different
rifle, the last thing they would want to do is introduce a bullet from
a second rifle. But I guess you never bothered to think that through.
Of course not. That's something dumbfucks DON'T do.

> As to whether that bulet came from the MC rifle, it may
> have done,

Not may have. It came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all
other rifles in the world.

> but the FBI did such a lousy job of messing up the chain of
> evidence with the bullets that there's no way to know if a phony was
> inserted into the chain.

Another outright lie. Anyone who thinks the chain of possession wasn't
established doesn't know much about the rules of evidence. But
dumbfucks always think they know more than people who actually know
their business. That's another thing dumbfucks do.

> We've been over this, so you know it
> already.  Unless you hoped it would go away if you ignored it...:)
>
I do know that you are a dumbfuck. That's not a news flash.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > The above is full of assumptions.  All the talk
> > > > > > > about JFK and Connally being lined up is silly too.
>
> > > > > > There is nothing silly about it. They were lined up perfectly with the
> > > > > > sniper's nest at the time they were both shot. Photographs taken
> > > > > > during the reenactment establish that conclusively.
>
> > > > >   Nope.  It's sounds nice as you say it, but it's only something you
> > > > > said, giving it NO weight at all.
>
> > > > No, dumbass, photos were taken. Just how fucking stupid are you?
>
> > >   Well, considering the mistakes and silly statements you've made,
> > > 'fucking stupid' might fit you more than me...:)  Now let's get you
> > > squared away.  You made your statements based on photos, and I made my
> > > statements based on photos, sounds like they both have the same weight
> > > to me.  However, if you used a 'reenactment' in deciding something,
> > > the label fits you better...:)
>
> > HUH??? What photos did you base any of your statements on?
>
>   Most of the photos taken before the shots were fired showing
> Connally in front of JFK.  An example is:http://www.crimemagazine.com/taxonomy/term/4
>
The photo of the Z225 position shows they were in perfect allignment
and that was a split second after the bullet hit. But dumbfucks never
want to be concerned with facts. They prefer to believe myths.

> > >    One thing you can be sure of is that if the WC had measurements
> > > made of the positions of JFK and Connally, you can be sure they would
> > > match and show what they wanted to show, or we would have never heard
> > > of the measurements having been made.
>
> > The WC didn't WANT them to show anything. They wanted to find out what
> > the truth was and they looked at the evidence and let the chips fall
> > where they may. That is how rational people arrive at their
> > conclusions. I know that's a strange concept in Kookdom where you
> > live.
>
>   Oh c'mon.  You don't actually believe that a panel of politicians
> were brought together to only seek the truthm, do you?  How gullible
> are you?  Talk about being a kook...:)
>
Pokiticians lie when it is in their interest to do so. No one on the
WC or any of the staff lawyers who did the grunt work had any interest
in concealing the truth. As those staff lawyers later said, they would
have loved to have been the one who found evidence of a conspiracy
because it would have been a career maker. None of them could find any
despite their best efforts. They had no choice but to reach the
findings they did. They weren't dumbfucks.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 19, 2012, 8:40:37 AM4/19/12
to
Now that you've listed all the things the WC members should be
committed to an asylum for, is there anything they got right? At
least 4 more panels had to look at the same old evidence because the
WC did such a bad job of convincing anyone of anything, except a few
oddballs who cling to the WC like flies on a dogpile.

> If they hadn't allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the junk
> accoustics "science", they would have nailed it. As it was, we can
> only give them partial credit.
>
ROFLMAO!!! You mean they only allowed themselves to be hoodwinked
by only ONE little thing? Or actually the whole list of false
deductions...:) They failed utterly in accomplishing what they were
empaneled for, which was to shut people up who were talking of
conspiracy to murder JFK and quell the growing unrest.
LOL! We seem to differ in our viewpoints...very American of us...:)
You know what I'm speaking of, and so do many others on the board
here. Roger Craig kept repeating the Mauser evidence even though his
murder was attempted a few times. They convinced a couple of other
Dallas authorities to change their testimony, but the first take on
information is usually the best. When you can read the maker of a
rifle right off the rifle, and then a witness to that changes their
testimony about that reading, they obviously have been compromised by
someone attempting a coverup. Here's Roger Craig's autobiography. It
tells a tale of conspiracy throughout hte whole JFK murder affair.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html

> > Some though, like Roger Craig didn't, and
> > although attempts were made on his life, he stuck with his guns and
> > kept telling the truth.
>
> Some like Roger Craig? Roger Craig was all by himself in the wacky
> things he claimed. Nothing he claimed can be supported by hard
> evidence. It is only natural he would be a hero in Kookdom. He is one
> of your own.
>
Actually, everything he said fit the evidence, and the motives as
well. I recommend to everyone reading this now to read his
autobiography noted above...:)

> >   The Mauser was identified not just by knowledge of guns, but by the
> > very words 'Mauser 7.65' printed right on the gun.  Hard to beat
> > that kind of evidence.  Not an easy mistake to make, reading right off
> > the gun...:)
>
> Quote anybody's testimony where they said that.
>
OK. "Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt.
Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy
constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert
on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years
and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz
asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see
it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's
examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz
agreed with him."
From the above linked document.

> >   As well, I just got through going over that list of supposed
> > 'evidence' and it stinks.
>
> Of course it does. It conflicts with your beliefs. That really does
> stink, doesn't it?
>
> > The CE399 bullet was found at Parkland on
> > an uninvolved stretcher,
>
> More factoids. The person who found the bullet testified that he
> wasn't sure which guerney it came from. Rather than take the common
> sense approach that it came from the guerney of a victim who had been
> shot at the same location that the rifle that fired the bullet was
> found, you assholes want to insist it magically came from the guerney
> of someone who had nothing to do with the shooting. But what the hell.
> That's what dumbfucks do.
>
Ah! I must be right, since the response was more of your low class
style. That's the clue that there's no intelligent comeback...:)
Let's get you on the right track again. Now hold still a moment, here
it comes: O.P. Wright, the guy that found the bullet on the stretcher
couldn't identify the CE399 bullet as the one he found on the
stretcher! He was sure of that and looked at a number of other
bullets to be clear about it. Also, it was discovered later that newly
released documents from the FBI showed that they had a 'chain of
evidence' problem. As well, 2 FBI agents that supposedly had handled
CE399 could not identify it as the CE399 they had seen. They didn't
say itr ws similar, they said they couldn't identify it! So now we
have statements that CE399 is NOT the bullet that was on the
stretcher, never mind which stretcher it was on. Also never mind how
weird it would be if one of the real bullets actually went through two
people, hitting bones, and then flopped onto a stertcher in the
hospital hall in almost pristine condition!! Just a bit too
coincidental for almost the whole poulation of the U.S.

> > making it more likely that someone had it
> > with them and dropped it off there thinking it was Connally's or JFK's
> > stretcher.
>
> Why the fuck would somebody plant a bullet from Oswald's rifle? If
> they shot JFK with Oswald's rifle, there would be no reason to plant
> another bullet from that same rifle. If they shot JFK with a different
> rifle, the last thing they would want to do is introduce a bullet from
> a second rifle. But I guess you never bothered to think that through.
> Of course not. That's something dumbfucks DON'T do.
>
Tut, Tut! We aren't going to learn much with that sort of
talk...are we getting a bit ruffled? You haven't been using logic or
common sense and it's getting you all frustrated. Now I'll explain
what your problem is: If someone wanted to set up LHO as a patsy,
they would want the bullet to come from a rifle that looked like it
was his. Only the MC fit that bill. There was no bullet from another
rifle to worry about since from statements of witnesses that the
'chain of evidence' was broken by the FBI and the bullets found
weren't the ones they began with. At one point the FBI had 2 bullets
recorded as CE399, but later one of them disappeared and all looked
OK. That was a good time to take a bullet from a test of the MC rifle
attributed to LHO and insert it into the chain.

Now the finding of CE567 and 569 was attributed to the shot fired
through JFK's head, and oddly enough managed to land under the front
seat, being found in the middle of the night after the limo had been
partly cleaned up after it was stolen from Dallas. Odd that it struck
bone just like 399, but had very different damage to itself. Anyway,
here it was popped out of JFK's head, jumped 5 feet forward and then
it hopped over the seat back and then ran under the seat to hide from
everyone. Quite an energetic little cuss, wouldn't you say? Or maybe
it was placed there later in the evening when it was supposedly
found. I know this is all complicated for you, but it's really simple
for most of us to understand. Keep at it.

> > As to whether that bullet came from the MC rifle, it may
> > have done,
>
> Not may have. It came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all
> other rifles in the world.
>
Whoa! Talk about being sure of something! Now that's it! LOL! So
what? The bullets later weren't identified as those found the day of
the murder...:)

> > but the FBI did such a lousy job of messing up the chain of
> > evidence with the bullets that there's no way to know if a phony was
> > inserted into the chain.
>
> Another outright lie. Anyone who thinks the chain of possession wasn't
> established doesn't know much about the rules of evidence. But
> dumbfucks always think they know more than people who actually know
> their business. That's another thing dumbfucks do.
>
ROFLMAO! You've just described yourself...knowing more than the
experts! Like the snipers that know the murder of JFK wasn't done by
LHO from the 6th floor, but YOU know better...:))) I don't lie,
because there's no reason to do that. I wouldn't be trying so hard to
get you straightened out if I was going to lie. It would be much
easier to lie, as you well know...:)

You may not have read up on the more recent evidence that was
released from the FBI to be added to the record. The problem with the
'chain of evidence' of the CE399 bullet was clearly screwed up by the
FBI, and neither the original guy that found it and 2 of the FBI
agents that handled it wouldn't ID it either. For the information
about that, go here:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

> > We've been over this, so you know it
> > already.  Unless you hoped it would go away if you ignored it...:)
>
> I do know that you are a dumbfuck. That's  not a news flash.

My My! Such repetition. No creativity there at all. Just sort of
locked into your little WC world...:)

>
> > > > > > > > The above is full of assumptions.  All the talk
> > > > > > > > about JFK and Connally being lined up is silly too.
>
> > > > > > > There is nothing silly about it. They were lined up perfectly with the
> > > > > > > sniper's nest at the time they were both shot. Photographs taken
> > > > > > > during the reenactment establish that conclusively.
>
> > > > > >   Nope.  It's sounds nice as you say it, but it's only something you
> > > > > > said, giving it NO weight at all.
>
> > > > > No, dumbass, photos were taken. Just how fucking stupid are you?
>
> > > >   Well, considering the mistakes and silly statements you've made,
> > > > 'fucking stupid' might fit you more than me...:)  Now let's get you
> > > > squared away.  You made your statements based on photos, and I made my
> > > > statements based on photos, sounds like they both have the same weight
> > > > to me.  However, if you used a 'reenactment' in deciding something,
> > > > the label fits you better...:)
>
> > > HUH??? What photos did you base any of your statements on?
>
> >   Most of the photos taken before the shots were fired showing
> > Connally in front of JFK.  An example is:http://www.crimemagazine.com/taxonomy/term/4
>
> The photo of the Z225 position shows they were in perfect allignment
> and that was a split second after the bullet hit. But dumbfucks never
> want to be concerned with facts. They prefer to believe myths.
>
LOL! Still living in the ad hominem world. Poor fella. I say that
the pictures before the shots show them out of alignment. If it was
just after the shot, that may have caused an involuntary movement to
another position. Why would you makes such a mistake? It's clear
that JFK was higher and further to his right than Connally, because
JFK had one arm over the edge of the limo letting him go further to
the right than Connally could go. Try and use your head for something
other than beating the wall apart.

> > > >    One thing you can be sure of is that if the WC had measurements
> > > > made of the positions of JFK and Connally, you can be sure they would
> > > > match and show what they wanted to show, or we would have never heard
> > > > of the measurements having been made.
>
> > > The WC didn't WANT them to show anything. They wanted to find out what
> > > the truth was and they looked at the evidence and let the chips fall
> > > where they may. That is how rational people arrive at their
> > > conclusions. I know that's a strange concept in Kookdom where you
> > > live.
>
> >   Oh c'mon.  You don't actually believe that a panel of politicians
> > were brought together to only seek the truth, do you?  How gullible
> > are you?  Talk about being a kook...:)
>
> Pokiticians lie when it is in their interest to do so. No one on the
> WC or any of the staff lawyers who did the grunt work had any interest
> in concealing the truth.

Interesting. I wonder how you know that? Were you privvy to all
the back room discussions about the murder, and what they wanted to do
about it? Whether they wanted to quiet the noises being made around
the country? Or are you just psychic?

> As those staff lawyers later said, they would
> have loved to have been the one who found evidence of a conspiracy
> because it would have been a career maker. None of them could find any
> despite their best efforts. They had no choice but to reach the
> findings they did. They weren't dumbfucks.

And of course, neither are you, no matter what you say or do,
right? LOL! Now as to career makers, Allen Specter became a senator,
Ford became VP and then pres. Bugliosi the uninvolved even got a
couple books out of it. Many others involved made various careers
from that time on, since they all did what they were told to do, and
sold the party line. Finding a conspiracy might have been a death
sentence too. They were not foolish enough to go that route.

Chris


bigdog

unread,
Apr 19, 2012, 12:31:31 PM4/19/12
to
Did you just forget to mention that every one of those panels reached
the same conclusions? Must have just been an oversight.

> > If they hadn't allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the junk
> > accoustics "science", they would have nailed it. As it was, we can
> > only give them partial credit.
>
>   ROFLMAO!!!  You mean they only allowed themselves to be hoodwinked
> by only ONE little thing?  Or actually the whole list of false
> deductions...:)  They failed utterly in accomplishing what they were
> empaneled for, which was to shut people up who were talking of
> conspiracy to murder JFK and quell the growing unrest.
>
You mean they failed to dismiss the evidence and reach conclusions
based solely on assumptions, speculations, and most of all faith. For
people who choose to rewrite history to their liking, following the
evidence doesn seem like a strange endeavor. When one follows the
evidence, the only place you can end up is where the WC did, with the
6 items mentioned above.
The followed the evidence and reached the above stated conclusions.
Every investigation that followed using the same evidence reached the
same conclusions. Does that tell you anything? Of course it doesn't.
You're a dumbfuck.
Being a member of the Kook Hall of Fame, I'm not at all surpised that
kooks like you would believe everything he says even though not one
thing can be corrorobrated.

> They convinced a couple of other
> Dallas authorities to change their testimony,

Why do you always use "they" when you want to accuse somebody of
wrongdoing. Do you think by not being specific, it isn't necessary to
provide specific evidence of the alleged wrongdoing? Vagueness is a
kooks best friend.

> but the first take on
> information is usually the best.

When words are stamped into dark metal, they are not easy to read
unless you look closely at it, and Boone did not look closely at it.
He left the weapon in place on the floor until it was photographed and
it was Lt. Day who first picked it up. Boone never handled it. He
assumed it was a Mauser because that was a very common type of foreign
bolt action rifle and there are makes of Mausers with the receiver
built ahead of the trigger guard just like the Carcano did. It was an
easy mistake to make, but dumbfucks like you like to turn honest
mistakes into cold hard facts. It's now wonder you remain so
completely clueless after so many years.

> When you can read the maker of a
> rifle right off the rifle, and then a witness to that changes their
> testimony about that reading, they obviously have been compromised by
> someone attempting a coverup.  Here's Roger Craig's autobiography.  It
> tells a tale of conspiracy throughout hte whole JFK murder affair.
>  http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
>
I'm sure it is filled with all sorts of whoppers. Roger Craig was on
the fringe of the crime of the century but was never really involved,
so he made up a whole shitload of stuff to embellish his own
involvement. It worked for Eliot Ness Ness was a lush who couldn't
hold down a job and he had been a Treasury agent in Chicago at the
time Al Capone was busted, but Ness had little if anything to do with
the case. That didn't stop him from telling tall tales about his roll
to his drinking buddies, one of whom worked for a book publisher who
ended up giving Ness a book contract. The book was a hot seller and
made Ness a star but ironically he died of a heart attack while the
Untouchables TV series was in its initial productions and never lived
to see his ill gotten fame. Craig was a little luckier. Maybe someday
Kevin Costner will play Roger Craig in a movie too.

> > > Some though, like Roger Craig didn't, and
> > > although attempts were made on his life, he stuck with his guns and
> > > kept telling the truth.
>
> > Some like Roger Craig? Roger Craig was all by himself in the wacky
> > things he claimed. Nothing he claimed can be supported by hard
> > evidence. It is only natural he would be a hero in Kookdom. He is one
> > of your own.
>
>   Actually, everything he said fit the evidence, and the motives as
> well.  I recommend to everyone reading this now to read his
> autobiography noted above...:)
>
One kook endorsing another. Priceless.

> > >   The Mauser was identified not just by knowledge of guns, but by the
> > > very words 'Mauser 7.65' printed right on the gun.  Hard to beat
> > > that kind of evidence.  Not an easy mistake to make, reading right off
> > > the gun...:)
>
> > Quote anybody's testimony where they said that.
>
>  OK.  "Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt.
> Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy
> constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert
> on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years
> and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz
> asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see
> it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's
> examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz
> agreed with him."
> From the above linked document.
>
I asked for evidence and you give me a website. A website is not
evidence. Anybody can make up anything they want in a website without
ramifications just as Roger Craig could make up any bullshit story he
wanted to without ramifications. Sworn testimony is evidence. You have
to tell the truth when you are under oath or risk going to jail for
perjury. Got any sworn testimony? I didn't think so.

>
>
>
>
> > >   As well, I just got through going over that list of supposed
> > > 'evidence' and it stinks.
>
> > Of course it does. It conflicts with your beliefs. That really does
> > stink, doesn't it?
>
> > > The CE399 bullet was found at Parkland on
> > > an uninvolved stretcher,
>
> > More factoids. The person who found the bullet testified that he
> > wasn't sure which guerney it came from. Rather than take the common
> > sense approach that it came from the guerney of a victim who had been
> > shot at the same location that the rifle that fired the bullet was
> > found, you assholes want to insist it magically came from the guerney
> > of someone who had nothing to do with the shooting. But what the hell.
> > That's what dumbfucks do.
>
>   Ah!  I must be right, since the response was more of your low class
> style.  That's the clue that there's no intelligent comeback...:)
> Let's get you on the right track again.  Now hold still a moment, here
> it comes:  O.P. Wright, the guy that found the bullet on the stretcher
> couldn't identify the CE399 bullet as the one he found on the
> stretcher!

First of all, it would help if you got your facts straight. O.P.
Wright didn't find the bullet, Darrel Tomlinson did and gave it to
Wright. He couldn't identify it because one bullet looks very much
like another and he had no way of knowing for certain it was the same
bullet he found. He did say it looked like the same bullet. Of course
kooks like you turn that around to make it seem he was saying it
wasn't the same bullet.

> He was sure of that and looked at a number of other
> bullets to be clear about it. Also, it was discovered later that newly
> released documents from the FBI showed that they had a 'chain of
> evidence' problem.  As well, 2 FBI agents that supposedly had handled
> CE399 could not identify it as the CE399 they had seen.

Not one person in the chain of custody said it was not the bullet they
handled. It is not necessary for an individual to positively identify
the bullet in order to maintain chain of custody. All that is
necessary is for each individual in the chain to be able to testify
how they got the bullet and to whom they gave it. As long as each
person in the chain is able to corroborate the next, a legal chain of
custody is established. One agent did initial the bullet during the
process and he later identified his initials on CE399.

> They didn't
> say itr ws similar, they said they couldn't identify it!  So now we
> have statements that CE399 is NOT the bullet that was on the
> stretcher, never mind which stretcher it was on.

You just demonstrated exactly what I said. You turned their statements
that they could not positively identify it around as if they said it
was not the same bullet. Those are two entiredly different positions
but liars like you have to try to make it seem they said one when they
said the other.

> Also never mind how
> weird it would be if one of the real bullets actually went through two
> people, hitting bones, and then flopped onto a stertcher in the
> hospital hall in almost pristine condition!!

More lies. It was not even close to prisitine. It was signicantly bent
and flattened at the base. Strong indication it hit something hard
while tumbling.

> Just a bit too
> coincidental for almost the whole poulation of the U.S.
>
Almost the whole population of the US is as ignorant of the facts of
the case as you are.

> > > making it more likely that someone had it
> > > with them and dropped it off there thinking it was Connally's or JFK's
> > > stretcher.
>
> > Why the fuck would somebody plant a bullet from Oswald's rifle? If
> > they shot JFK with Oswald's rifle, there would be no reason to plant
> > another bullet from that same rifle. If they shot JFK with a different
> > rifle, the last thing they would want to do is introduce a bullet from
> > a second rifle. But I guess you never bothered to think that through.
> > Of course not. That's something dumbfucks DON'T do.
>
>   Tut, Tut!  We aren't going to learn much with that sort of
> talk...are we getting a bit ruffled?

There is no chance of someone as dumb as you learning anything anyway.

> You haven't been using logic or
> common sense and it's getting you all frustrated.  Now I'll explain
> what your problem is:  If someone wanted to set up LHO as a patsy,
> they would want the bullet to come from a rifle that looked like it
> was his.  Only the MC fit that bill.  There was no bullet from another
> rifle to worry about since from statements of witnesses that the
> 'chain of evidence' was broken by the FBI and the bullets found
> weren't the ones they began with.  At one point the FBI had 2 bullets
> recorded as CE399, but later one of them disappeared and all looked
> OK.  That was a good time to take a bullet from a test of the MC rifle
> attributed to LHO and insert it into the chain.
>
More bullshit.

>    Now the finding of CE567 and 569 was attributed to the shot fired
> through JFK's head, and oddly enough managed to land under the front
> seat, being found in the middle of the night after the limo had been
> partly cleaned up after it was stolen from Dallas.  Odd that it struck
> bone just like 399, but had very different damage to itself.  Anyway,
> here it was popped out of JFK's head, jumped 5 feet forward and then
> it hopped over the seat back and then ran under the seat to hide from
> everyone.  Quite an energetic little cuss, wouldn't you say?  Or maybe
> it was placed there later in the evening when it was supposedly
> found.  I know this is all complicated for you, but it's really simple
> for most of us to understand.  Keep at it.
>
It's amazing how much stupidity you can display in a single paragraph.
You seem completely unware that the windshield and the frame were
damaged from the inside. Gee, I wonder what could have caused that.
And of course you can't figure out why a bullet fired directly into
one of the densest bones in the human body would ended up in different
condition than one that had tumbled into softer rib bones after being
slowed by first passing through the soft tissue of two bodies. If you
can't figure that one out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's
incredibly simple. CE399, the fragmented bullet found in the limo, and
the three shells found at the scene of the crime were all fired by the
rifle that was found hidden on the opposite side of the building. It
takes somebody incredibly stupid to complicate it with all sorts of
imaginative stories for which there isn't a shred of evidence. But
look who we're talking about.
> > > As to whether that bullet came from the MC rifle, it may

> > > have done,
>
> > Not may have. It came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all
> > other rifles in the world.
>
>   Whoa!  Talk about being sure of something!  Now that's it!  LOL!  So
> what?  The bullets later weren't identified as those found the day of
> the murder...:)
>
I guess we can add ballistics to the areas you are completely ignorant
about. There was no chaing of custody problem with CE399 and there was
no chain of custody with the fragments found in the limo. You kooks
have to invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of evidence
because each and every piece of evidence points to Oswald. When he
have to invent excuses to dismiss all 53 pieces of evidence of
Oswald's guilt, you really are a kook.

> > > but the FBI did such a lousy job of messing up the chain of
> > > evidence with the bullets that there's no way to know if a phony was
> > > inserted into the chain.
>
> > Another outright lie. Anyone who thinks the chain of possession wasn't
> > established doesn't know much about the rules of evidence. But
> > dumbfucks always think they know more than people who actually know
> > their business. That's another thing dumbfucks do.
>
>   ROFLMAO!  You've just described yourself...knowing more than the
> experts!  Like the snipers that know the murder of JFK wasn't done by
> LHO from the 6th floor, but YOU know better...:)))  I don't lie,
> because there's no reason to do that.  I wouldn't be trying so hard to
> get you straightened out if I was going to lie.  It would be much
> easier to lie, as you well know...:)
>
If you aren't lying, it is only because you are too stupid to know
what you are saying is bullshit. If you don't believe what you say is
true, you are a liar. If you do believe what you say is true, you are
a dumbfuck. There is no third possibility. So which one is it?

>    You may not have read up on the more recent evidence that was
> released from the FBI to be added to the record.  The problem with the
> 'chain of evidence' of the CE399 bullet was clearly screwed up by the
> FBI, and neither the original guy that found it and 2 of the FBI
> agents that handled it wouldn't ID it either.  For the information
> about that, go here:http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMor...
>
> > > We've been over this, so you know it
> > > already.  Unless you hoped it would go away if you ignored it...:)
>
> > I do know that you are a dumbfuck. That's  not a news flash.
>
>   My My!  Such repetition.  No creativity there at all.  Just sort of
> locked into your little WC world...:)
>
When you keep displaying what a dumbfuck you are, what else is there
to say?

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 19, 2012, 7:21:16 PM4/19/12
to
Naah. They all were trying to accomplish the same thing. Not
proving what actually happened, but to shut up all the complaining
from the populace when they got no action by pointing how stupid the
WC theories were.

> > > If they hadn't allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the junk
> > > accoustics "science", they would have nailed it. As it was, we can
> > > only give them partial credit.
>
> >   ROFLMAO!!!  You mean they only allowed themselves to be hoodwinked
> > by only ONE little thing?  Or actually the whole list of false
> > deductions...:)  They failed utterly in accomplishing what they were
> > empaneled for, which was to shut people up who were talking of
> > conspiracy to murder JFK and quell the growing unrest.
>
> You mean they failed to dismiss the evidence and reach conclusions
> based solely on assumptions, speculations, and most of all faith. For
> people who choose to rewrite history to their liking, following the
> evidence doesn seem like a strange endeavor. When one follows the
> evidence, the only place you can end up is where the WC did, with the
> 6 items mentioned above.
>
A shame they didn't follow the evidence where it would lead and
investigate it legally. Instead of following it, they stole it.
Federal agencies stole the body at gunpoint, they stole the limousine
and flew it off, and they took the bullets that might have come from
some rifle or other. They performed a totally incompetent autopsy
which assured that certain evidence wouldn't be found, and they fell
all over the place trying to make it appear that only one little nut
was the shooter.
Aww...I'm hurt...:) But at least you care enough about me to try
and make me get angry...it's just that I'm just not the type like
yourself to get all red in the face like you are right now...:) You
can stop pretending that the WC or any of the failed panels that
succeeded them had any intention of following evidence. They only did
that after the evidence was created or said what they wanted. The
intent was to fool idiots that would swear on their family jewels that
the WC was honest to a fault...(pun intended)...:)
So now you try to fall back on corroboration...:) Sorry, you can't
dreep away so easily. A number of people saw smoke come out from
behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll at the same time as a shot
sounded, and it wasn't from someone smoking. So it must be true
because there was corroboration. Now we just have to figure out who
was there with a rifle and took the shot.

> > They convinced a couple of other
> > Dallas authorities to change their testimony,
>
> Why do you always use "they" when you want to accuse somebody of
> wrongdoing. Do you think by not being specific, it isn't necessary to
> provide specific evidence of the alleged wrongdoing? Vagueness is a
> kooks best friend.
>
There you go being stupid again. Do you actually think an FBI/SS
agent that is trying to intimidate a witness is going to leave a big
wide trail for someone to catch him? Sheesh! 'They' is used because
they kept their identity quiet so as not to be found out. When I get
a name, I'll use it, like E. Howard Hunt...:) A 'dirty tricks' guy
who it was believed was at "The Big Event" and photographed. Of
course, all the WC lovers said it wasn't so, but late in life near
death, Hunt himself admitted he was there. I don't think he admitted
to everything he did, but at least he admitted he was there...:)

> > but the first take on
> > information is usually the best.
>
> When words are stamped into dark metal, they are not easy to read
> unless you look closely at it, and Boone did not look closely at it.
> He left the weapon in place on the floor until it was photographed and
> it was Lt. Day who first picked it up. Boone never handled it. He
> assumed it was a Mauser because that was a very common type of foreign
> bolt action rifle and there are makes of Mausers with the receiver
> built ahead of the trigger guard just like the Carcano did. It was an
> easy mistake to make, but dumbfucks like you like to turn honest
> mistakes into cold hard facts. It's now wonder you remain so
> completely clueless after so many years.
>
Welp, it looks like you blew it once again. Try and remember what
you've been told so you don't look so stupid later. More than one
person looked carefully at the Mauser. One of them knew his rifles
better than most. Don't try to get away with saying that anyone that
doesn't agree with you is mistaken or lying. It won't wash.

> > When you can read the maker of a
> > rifle right off the rifle, and then a witness to that changes their
> > testimony about that reading, they obviously have been compromised by
> > someone attempting a coverup.  Here's Roger Craig's autobiography.  It
> > tells a tale of conspiracy throughout hte whole JFK murder affair.
> >  http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
>
> I'm sure it is filled with all sorts of whoppers. Roger Craig was on
> the fringe of the crime of the century but was never really involved,
> so he made up a whole shitload of stuff to embellish his own
> involvement. It worked for Eliot Ness  Ness was a lush who couldn't
> hold down a job and he had been a Treasury agent in Chicago at the
> time Al Capone was busted, but Ness had little if anything to do with
> the case. That didn't stop him from telling tall tales about his roll
> to his drinking buddies, one of whom worked for a book publisher who
> ended up giving Ness a book contract. The book was a hot seller and
> made Ness a star but ironically he died of a heart attack while the
> Untouchables TV series was in its initial productions and never lived
> to see his ill gotten fame. Craig was a little luckier. Maybe someday
> Kevin Costner will play Roger Craig in a movie too.
>
A lot of BusyNess there, but not much backup for your Craig
insult. Nothing new there.
Are you trying to get away with saying that anyone swearing to tell
the truth will always tell exactly that? And if you don't swear,
you're lying? In this case? You're coming from Wonderland and I
wonder about you. All the people in this bunch could and many did
tell lies through their teeth. Being sworn in does not confer TRUTH
on the witness, only the possibility of penalties. Except if you're
testifying to what they want you to, you're safe.
Nope. Won't do. It's true that Tomlinson was first to the bullet
and gave it to Wright. Later Wright was interviewed and he said the
bullet that they thought ewas CE399 was not the bullet he had seen.
He was very clear that the bullet they showed him had a round tip and
the one he originally saw was 'pointed'. He looked at a number of
bullets and was very clear on that 'point'.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

> > He was sure of that and looked at a number of other
> > bullets to be clear about it. Also, it was discovered later that newly
> > released documents from the FBI showed that they had a 'chain of
> > evidence' problem.  As well, 2 FBI agents that supposedly had handled
> > CE399 could not identify it as the CE399 they had seen.
>
> Not one person in the chain of custody said it was not the bullet they
> handled. It is not necessary for an individual to positively identify
> the bullet in order to maintain chain of custody. All that is
> necessary is for each individual in the chain to be able to testify
> how they got the bullet and to whom they gave it.
What a crock! Making it up as you go along and hoping you won't get
caught! If the exact chain of custody of the evidence isn't
maintained the chain is damaged. No ifs, ands or buts. Show the
rules of evidence to prove your case. Or don't you dare?

Here's the text supporting the inability of 2 SS agents (not FBI in
this case) that couldn't identify the 399 bullet.
"A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE
2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo
from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON
JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF …
ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY
RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had
logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in
original)."
From:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

< As long as each
> person in the chain is able to corroborate the next, a legal chain of
> custody is established. One agent did initial the bullet during the
> process and he later identified his initials on CE399.
>
Show your rules of evidence. Each person in a chain needs to put
their mark on the object in my book.

> > They didn't
> > say itr ws similar, they said they couldn't identify it!  So now we
> > have statements that CE399 is NOT the bullet that was on the
> > stretcher, never mind which stretcher it was on.
>
> You just demonstrated exactly what I said. You turned their statements
> that they could not positively identify it around as if they said it
> was not the same bullet. Those are two entiredly different positions
> but liars like you have to try to make it seem they said one when they
> said the other.
>
read the page if you still wonder and can't follow the story.
Leading you around by the nose is a waste:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

> > Also never mind how
> > weird it would be if one of the real bullets actually went through two
> > people, hitting bones, and then flopped onto a stretcher in the
> > hospital hall in almost pristine condition!!
>
> More lies. It was not even close to prisitine. It was signicantly bent
> and flattened at the base. Strong indication it hit something hard
> while tumbling.
>
LOL! What you call 'significant' I call 'almost pristine'. Take it
and lump it. Difference of opinion and mine carries the day.
Yes, I expected you wouldn't be able to follow a simple story. Too
bad. Don't complain later.

> >    Now the finding of CE567 and 569 was attributed to the shot fired
> > through JFK's head, and oddly enough managed to land under the front
> > seat, being found in the middle of the night after the limo had been
> > partly cleaned up after it was stolen from Dallas.  Odd that it struck
> > bone just like 399, but had very different damage to itself.  Anyway,
> > here it was popped out of JFK's head, jumped 5 feet forward and then
> > it hopped over the seat back and then ran under the seat to hide from
> > everyone.  Quite an energetic little cuss, wouldn't you say?  Or maybe
> > it was placed there later in the evening when it was supposedly
> > found.  I know this is all complicated for you, but it's really simple
> > for most of us to understand.  Keep at it.
>
> It's amazing how much stupidity you can display in a single paragraph.
> You seem completely unware that the windshield and the frame were
> damaged from the inside. Gee, I wonder what could have caused that.

Are you trying to say that a bullet now hit the frame of the
windshield and then fell to the floor of the limo? That it didn't hit
a person? If a bullet hit the frame, it couldn't then hit the
windshield, or a piece of it, as the angle was too acute. Maybe 2
bullets hit the limo windshield and frame? If we pretend that someone
on the 6th floor of the TSBD fired down to the limo, I don't think it
would make the mark in the frame from that angle. It looks like it
came almost straight in, like it originated at the Daltex building no
more than the 2-3rd floor. The windshield was nicked by a fragment of
some other bullet. remember there were many bullets flying around
that day...:)

Funny you would say the damage was from the inside. The shooters
would have to be outside the limo, and the points where bullets struck
people and limo, were from outside.

> And of course you can't figure out why a bullet fired directly into
> one of the densest bones in the human body would ended up in different
> condition than one that had tumbled into softer rib bones after being
> slowed by first passing through the soft tissue of two bodies. If you
> can't figure that one out, I'm afraid I can't help you.
So now you're inventing the density of various bones in the human
body, but what about specifically JFK's body? Which of his bones were
denser? If you ahve any backup for that density issue, spit it out,
otherwise you're full of it.

> It's
> incredibly simple. CE399, the fragmented bullet found in the limo, and
> the three shells found at the scene of the crime were all fired by the
> rifle that was found hidden on the opposite side of the building.

So now even fragments have been proven to come from the MC rifle?
That's impossible to prove. But it means nothing as evidence. Since
the chain of evidence was screwed up (see the page I linked), no
bullets that were found can be shown to have definitely come from the
MC and passed through JFK. They may have been fired through that gun
later, and inserted in the chain, but not as part of the murder
itself. The agents even found blood and fiber on some of the bullets,
but they wiped them off for better processing...:) Talk about
screwing up!

> It
> takes somebody incredibly stupid to complicate it with all sorts of
> imaginative stories for which there isn't a shred of evidence. But
> look who we're talking about.
>

> > > > As to whether that bullet came from the MC rifle, it may
> > > > have done,
>
> > > Not may have. It came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all
> > > other rifles in the world.
>
> >   Whoa!  Talk about being sure of something!  Now that's it!  LOL!  So
> > what?  The bullets later weren't identified as those found the day of
> > the murder...:)
>
> I guess we can add ballistics to the areas you are completely ignorant
> about. There was no chaing of custody problem with CE399 and there was
> no chain of custody with the fragments found in the limo. You kooks
> have to invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of evidence
> because each and every piece of evidence points to Oswald. When he
> have to invent excuses to dismiss all 53 pieces of evidence of
> Oswald's guilt, you really are a kook.
>
So you failed again to look over the page that describes all the
screwups with the 399 bullet chain. Of course, it's like an ostrich
putting your head in the sand. If you can't see it, then it doesn't
exist. Don't see the page, don't know that the chain wa terribly
screwed up. Or maybe I'm wrong and the reason you keep avoiding the
page is fear of truth.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

> > > > but the FBI did such a lousy job of messing up the chain of
> > > > evidence with the bullets that there's no way to know if a phony was
> > > > inserted into the chain.
>
> > > Another outright lie. Anyone who thinks the chain of possession wasn't
> > > established doesn't know much about the rules of evidence. But
> > > dumbfucks always think they know more than people who actually know
> > > their business. That's another thing dumbfucks do.
>
> >   ROFLMAO!  You've just described yourself...knowing more than the
> > experts!  Like the snipers that know the murder of JFK wasn't done by
> > LHO from the 6th floor, but YOU know better...:)))  I don't lie,
> > because there's no reason to do that.  I wouldn't be trying so hard to
> > get you straightened out if I was going to lie.  It would be much
> > easier to lie, as you well know...:)
>
> If you aren't lying, it is only because you are too stupid to know
> what you are saying is bullshit. If you don't believe what you say is
> true, you are a liar. If you do believe what you say is true, you are
> a dumbfuck. There is no third possibility. So which one is it?
>
LOL! Third is the one...That you're wrong...often...:)

> >    You may not have read up on the more recent evidence that was
> > released from the FBI to be added to the record.  The problem with the
> > 'chain of evidence' of the CE399 bullet was clearly screwed up by the
> > FBI, and neither the original guy that found it and 2 of the FBI
> > agents that handled it wouldn't ID it either.  For the information
> > about that, go here:http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMor...
>
> > > > We've been over this, so you know it
> > > > already.  Unless you hoped it would go away if you ignored it...:)
>
> > > I do know that you are a dumbfuck. That's  not a news flash.
>
> >   My My!  Such repetition.  No creativity there at all.  Just sort of
> > locked into your little WC world...:)
>
> When you keep displaying what a dumbfuck you are, what else is there
> to say?
>
I don't want to get all ad hominem on you...:)

aeffects

unread,
Apr 19, 2012, 6:00:14 PM4/19/12
to
On Apr 17, 2:37 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 12:53 PM, aeffects wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 4:35 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>  wrote:
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> >> Pat,
>
> >> Do you REALLY think that there is a huge difference in the back-wound
> >> locations in the two photos shown below?
>
> >> Do you really think Specter's rod is NOT in just about the same place
> >> as the real wound in JFK's upper back?
>
> > only a lone nut skankster would bring up someone's rod and where it
> > is... you're pathetic, young man.
>
> Why am I not surprised that you have a fascination with rods?

think trig, ya dumb fuck! course, the best part of you ran down your
old man's leg--not much of a formula there! LMFAO.
perhaps Tim 'Shell' Brennan (our very own Fresno flash) can get you
some fresh material eh, dipshit? Surely he has some old Bob Newhart
records or tapes someplace!

bigdog

unread,
Apr 19, 2012, 9:13:08 PM4/19/12
to
I don't think any of them had any illusions about shutting anybody up.
They knew there are plenty of dumbfucks in this country who would
never accept the truth no matter how obvious it was.
>
>
>
>
> > > > If they hadn't allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the junk
> > > > accoustics "science", they would have nailed it. As it was, we can
> > > > only give them partial credit.
>
> > >   ROFLMAO!!!  You mean they only allowed themselves to be hoodwinked
> > > by only ONE little thing?  Or actually the whole list of false
> > > deductions...:)  They failed utterly in accomplishing what they were
> > > empaneled for, which was to shut people up who were talking of
> > > conspiracy to murder JFK and quell the growing unrest.
>
> > You mean they failed to dismiss the evidence and reach conclusions
> > based solely on assumptions, speculations, and most of all faith. For
> > people who choose to rewrite history to their liking, following the
> > evidence doesn seem like a strange endeavor. When one follows the
> > evidence, the only place you can end up is where the WC did, with the
> > 6 items mentioned above.
>
>   A shame they didn't follow the evidence where it would lead and
> investigate it legally.  Instead of following it, they stole it.
> Federal agencies stole the body at gunpoint, they stole the limousine
> and flew it off, and they took the bullets that might have come from
> some rifle or other.  They performed a totally incompetent autopsy
> which assured that certain evidence wouldn't be found, and they fell
> all over the place trying to make it appear that only one little nut
> was the shooter.
>
One little nut was the shooter. But that's far too simple for a
dumbfuck like you to figure out.
Yes it is. Dumbfucks like you are as entitled to their opinions as the
intelligent people.

> > The followed the evidence and reached the above stated conclusions.
> > Every investigation that followed using the same evidence reached the
> > same conclusions. Does that tell you anything? Of course it doesn't.
> > You're a dumbfuck.
>
>   Aww...I'm hurt...:)  But at least you care enough about me to try
> and make me get angry...it's just that I'm just not the type like
> yourself to get all red in the face like you are right now...:)

If I'm red in the face its' from laughing at what a dumbfuck you are.

> You
> can stop pretending that the WC or any of the failed panels that
> succeeded them had any intention of following evidence.

You can stop pretending you are smart enough to make such a judgement.
Dumbfucks like you should leave the thinking to the intelligent people
of the world.

> They only did
> that after the evidence was created or said what they wanted.  The
> intent was to fool idiots that would swear on their family jewels that
> the WC was honest to a fault...(pun intended)...:)
>
The WC nailed it within 10 months of the assassination. Anyone who has
varied from their story has done so at the cost of their own
credibility and/or integrity.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > Roger Craig stating that the rifle found in the TSBD was a 7.65
> > > > > > > > > Mauser,and he said so because he read the name on the rifle itself.
> > > > > > > > > Thr
>
> ...
>
> read more »

Jason Burke

unread,
Apr 19, 2012, 9:23:52 PM4/19/12
to
On 4/19/2012 3:00 PM, aeffects wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:37 pm, Jason Burke<Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 12:53 PM, aeffects wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 4:35 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>>
>>>> Pat,
>>
>>>> Do you REALLY think that there is a huge difference in the back-wound
>>>> locations in the two photos shown below?
>>
>>>> Do you really think Specter's rod is NOT in just about the same place
>>>> as the real wound in JFK's upper back?
>>
>>> only a lone nut skankster would bring up someone's rod and where it
>>> is... you're pathetic, young man.
>>
>> Why am I not surprised that you have a fascination with rods?
>
> think trig, ya dumb fuck! course, the best part of you ran down your
> old man's leg--not much of a formula there! LMFAO.

Still fixated on asses and fucking, I see.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 20, 2012, 8:36:20 AM4/20/12
to
Now we've had your opinion, and mine just above it. Same weight.

> > > > > If they hadn't allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the junk
> > > > > accoustics "science", they would have nailed it. As it was, we can
> > > > > only give them partial credit.
>
> > > >   ROFLMAO!!!  You mean they only allowed themselves to be hoodwinked
> > > > by only ONE little thing?  Or actually the whole list of false
> > > > deductions...:)  They failed utterly in accomplishing what they were
> > > > empaneled for, which was to shut people up who were talking of
> > > > conspiracy to murder JFK and quell the growing unrest.
>
> > > You mean they failed to dismiss the evidence and reach conclusions
> > > based solely on assumptions, speculations, and most of all faith. For
> > > people who choose to rewrite history to their liking, following the
> > > evidence doesn seem like a strange endeavor. When one follows the
> > > evidence, the only place you can end up is where the WC did, with the
> > > 6 items mentioned above.
>
> >   A shame they didn't follow the evidence where it would lead and
> > investigate it legally.  Instead of following it, they stole it.
> > Federal agencies stole the body at gunpoint, they stole the limousine
> > and flew it off, and they took the bullets that might have come from
> > some rifle or other.  They performed a totally incompetent autopsy
> > which assured that certain evidence wouldn't be found, and they fell
> > all over the place trying to make it appear that only one little nut
> > was the shooter.
>
> One little nut was the shooter. But that's far too simple for a
> dumbfuck like you to figure out.

Yep, too simple for me. Here's a quote from the HSCA final report:

"While Hoover continued to press conspiracy leads, his apparent
atitude was reflected in a telephone conversation with President
Johnson on November 24, 1963, just hours after Oswald had been shot of
death by Ruby. Hoover said: The thing I'm most concerned about * * *
is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald
is the real assassin."
From: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0137b.htm

Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin', and they had to
make it look like he was. In either event, it's clear that at least
Hoover's purpose in the investigation was hoodwinking the idiotic
public into believing that Oswald was a 'lone nut assassin'. And he
did it so well, that some of the idiots still think that.
Aww, are you sure you're not just saying that? :)

> > > The followed the evidence and reached the above stated conclusions.
> > > Every investigation that followed using the same evidence reached the
> > > same conclusions. Does that tell you anything? Of course it doesn't.
> > > You're a dumbfuck.
>
> >   Aww...I'm hurt...:)  But at least you care enough about me to try
> > and make me get angry...it's just that I'm just not the type like
> > yourself to get all red in the face like you are right now...:)
>
> If I'm red in the face its' from laughing at what a dumbfuck you are.
>
You seem to be caught on that one word...but I don't want to try to
get you out of your rut, that's your problem.

> > You
> > can stop pretending that the WC or any of the failed panels that
> > succeeded them had any intention of following evidence.
>
> You can stop pretending you are smart enough to make such a judgement.
> Dumbfucks like you should leave the thinking to the intelligent people
> of the world.
>
LOL! See above to the my text copy of Hoover teliing the president
(LBJ) that they had to convince the public that LHO was a 'lone nut'.

> > They only did
> > that after the evidence was created or said what they wanted.  The
> > intent was to fool idiots that would swear on their family jewels that
> > the WC was honest to a fault...(pun intended)...:)
>
> The WC nailed it within 10 months of the assassination. Anyone who has
> varied from their story has done so at the cost of their own
> credibility and/or integrity.
>
I don't doubt that retribution was meted out to those that dared to
step outside of the party line. Truth be damned...:)

Here's a repeat of a quote from the HSCA final report:

"While Hoover continued to press conspiracy leads, his apparent
atitude was reflected in a telephone conversation with President
Johnson on November 24, 1963, just hours after Oswald had been shot of
death by Ruby. Hoover said: The thing I'm most concerned about * * *
is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald
is the real assassin."
From: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0137b.htm

Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin', and they had to
make it look like he was. In either event, it's clear that at least
Hoover's purpose in the investigation was hoodwinking the idiotic
public into believing that Oswald was a 'lone nut assassin'. And he
did it so well, that some of the idiots still think that.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 20, 2012, 8:37:14 AM4/20/12
to
That's ol' Backdoor bigdog...:)

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Apr 20, 2012, 12:07:17 PM4/20/12
to
On Apr 20, 8:36 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > >   Naah.  They all were trying to accomplish the same thing.  Not
> > > proving what actually happened, but to shut up all the complaining
> > > from the populace when they got no action by pointing how stupid the
> > > WC theories were.
>
> > I don't think any of them had any illusions about shutting anybody up.
> > They knew there are plenty of dumbfucks in this country who would
> > never accept the truth no matter how obvious it was.
>
>   Now we've had your opinion, and mine just above it.  Same weight.
>
We've had a reasoned opinion (mine) and a hairbrained opinion (yours).
A dumbfuck would think those had the same weight.

> > >   A shame they didn't follow the evidence where it would lead and
> > > investigate it legally.  Instead of following it, they stole it.
> > > Federal agencies stole the body at gunpoint, they stole the limousine
> > > and flew it off, and they took the bullets that might have come from
> > > some rifle or other.  They performed a totally incompetent autopsy
> > > which assured that certain evidence wouldn't be found, and they fell
> > > all over the place trying to make it appear that only one little nut
> > > was the shooter.
>
> > One little nut was the shooter. But that's far too simple for a
> > dumbfuck like you to figure out.
>
>   Yep, too simple for me.  Here's a quote from the HSCA final report:
>
> "While Hoover continued to press conspiracy leads, his apparent
> atitude was reflected in a telephone conversation with President
> Johnson on November 24, 1963, just hours after Oswald had been shot of
> death by Ruby.  Hoover said: The thing I'm most concerned about * * *
> is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald
> is the real assassin."

Of course he said that. He knew that. Only a dumbfuck could look at
what they had already gathered as of 11/24/63 and not know that Oswald
was the assassin. You dumbfucks look it at this as if it is some sort
of murder mystery. It was never a mystery. Within a couple hours, they
had enough to tell them Oswald was the prime suspect and within a
couple days they had enough evidence to tell them with absolute
certainty Oswald was the shooter. Hoover's comments did not close the
book on possible accomplices. But he did know Oswald had pulled the
trigger. He and everyone who saw the evidence could have no doubts
about that part. That was a stone cold mortal lock. But yes, it is too
simple for dumbfucks to figure out. 48 years later and you morons
still haven't caught a clue.

> From:http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Repo...
>
>   Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
> public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
> Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin',

No, it makes a dumbfuck like you think that. That is how a dumbfuck
thinks. He sees looks at black and sees white. Nothing is ever so
obvious that it can't sail right over the head of dumbfucks like you.

> and they had to
> make it look like he was.

Of course they did. he was the assassin.

> In either event, it's clear that at least
> Hoover's purpose in the investigation was hoodwinking the idiotic
> public into believing that Oswald was a 'lone nut assassin'.  And he
> did it so well, that some of the idiots still think that.
>
Since when is laying out the obvious conclusion hoodwinking the
public? The only people who have been hoodwinked are morons like you
who have kept the JFK conspiracy cottage industry in business. The
conspiracy authors see dumbfucks like you coming and think "CHA-
CHING!!!".
>
>
> > > > >   LOL!  We seem to differ in our viewpoints...very American of us...:)
>
> > Yes it is. Dumbfucks like you are as entitled to their opinions as the
> > intelligent people.
>
>   Aww, are you sure you're not just saying that?  :)
>
> > > > The followed the evidence and reached the above stated conclusions.
> > > > Every investigation that followed using the same evidence reached the
> > > > same conclusions. Does that tell you anything? Of course it doesn't.
> > > > You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > >   Aww...I'm hurt...:)  But at least you care enough about me to try
> > > and make me get angry...it's just that I'm just not the type like
> > > yourself to get all red in the face like you are right now...:)
>
> > If I'm red in the face its' from laughing at what a dumbfuck you are.
>
>    You seem to be caught on that one word...but I don't want to try to
> get you out of your rut, that's your problem.
>
I used to use the term retard but than I realized how insulting that
was to the real retards to be lumped with dumbfucks like you. They
deserve more respect than that.

> > > You
> > > can stop pretending that the WC or any of the failed panels that
> > > succeeded them had any intention of following evidence.
>
> > You can stop pretending you are smart enough to make such a judgement.
> > Dumbfucks like you should leave the thinking to the intelligent people
> > of the world.
>
>   LOL!  See above to the my text copy of Hoover teliing the president
> (LBJ) that they had to convince the public that LHO was a 'lone nut'.
>
It wasn't hard to convicne the intelligent people in the country of
that because it was so obvious. Hoover underestimated how hard it
would be to convince the dumbfucks.

> > > They only did
> > > that after the evidence was created or said what they wanted.  The
> > > intent was to fool idiots that would swear on their family jewels that
> > > the WC was honest to a fault...(pun intended)...:)
>
> > The WC nailed it within 10 months of the assassination. Anyone who has
> > varied from their story has done so at the cost of their own
> > credibility and/or integrity.
>
>   I don't doubt that retribution was meted out to those that dared to
> step outside of the party line.  Truth be damned...:)
>
> Here's a repeat of a quote from the HSCA final report:
>
> "While Hoover continued to press conspiracy leads, his apparent
> atitude was reflected in a telephone conversation with President
> Johnson on November 24, 1963, just hours after Oswald had been shot of
> death by Ruby.  Hoover said: The thing I'm most concerned about * * *
> is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald
> is the real assassin."
> From:http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Repo...
>
>   Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
> public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
> Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin', and they had to
> make it look like he was.  In either event, it's clear that at least
> Hoover's purpose in the investigation was hoodwinking the idiotic
> public into believing that Oswald was a 'lone nut assassin'.  And he
> did it so well, that some of the idiots still think that.
>
You won't find a single record conversation or any statement on the
record by Hoover in which he expresses any doubt about Oswald's guilt.
He knew Oswald was the assassin and convincing the public of that was
his duty because that was the one and only truth.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 20, 2012, 1:21:10 PM4/20/12
to

>>> "You won't find a single record conversation or any statement on the record by Hoover in which he expresses any doubt about Oswald's guilt. He knew Oswald was the assassin and convincing the public of that was his duty because that was the one and only truth." <<<

Dang straight.

And to think that Hoover, of ALL people on this Earth, would have
wanted to frame an INNOCENT Lee Oswald is so silly a notion, it's not
even worth considering....and for obvious reasons, like the one
discussed here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 20, 2012, 6:48:08 PM4/20/12
to
On Apr 20, 1:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You won't find a single record conversation or any statement on the record by Hoover in which he expresses any doubt about Oswald's guilt. He knew Oswald was the assassin and convincing the public of that was his duty because that was the one and only truth." <<<
>
> Dang straight.
>
> And to think that Hoover, of ALL people on this Earth, would have
> wanted to frame an INNOCENT Lee Oswald is so silly a notion, it's not
> even worth considering....and for obvious reasons, like the one
> discussed here:
>
Sorry, I avoid going to sites run by the opposition. Can't be
trusted. I read Hoover's comments to LBJ as making sure he had the go
ahead to so all necessary to convince the public that the patsy was
the only guilty party. When it was attempted to assassinate Reagan,
the pubvlic wasn't rabid to get the truth out of the government, but
the JFK murder was so fraught with holes and othewr motives and facts
thjat the public knew that something stunk in the whole mess. Hoover
read that and expressed it to LBJ and the need to 'convince' the
public.

You can play it anyway you want, but it sounds like he wanted the
'scenario' previously planned out to be accepted with no squawks.

Don't put Hoover on as a saint either. We all know he was at the
least a blackmailer of major figures in government and elsewhere, as
well as a cross dresser and who knows what else.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 20, 2012, 7:09:39 PM4/20/12
to
On Apr 20, 12:07 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 8:36 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > >   Naah.  They all were trying to accomplish the same thing.  Not
> > > > proving what actually happened, but to shut up all the complaining
> > > > from the populace when they got no action by pointing how stupid the
> > > > WC theories were.
>
> > > I don't think any of them had any illusions about shutting anybody up.
> > > They knew there are plenty of dumbfucks in this country who would
> > > never accept the truth no matter how obvious it was.
>
> >   Now we've had your opinion, and mine just above it.  Same weight.
>
> We've had a reasoned opinion (mine) and a hairbrained opinion (yours).
> A dumbfuck would think those had the same weight.
>
Ah! Back to your limited vocabulary...:) More opinions that carry
no weight.
Whoa! What a lotta text! That must have stung! You're really
trying to defend that blackmailer with everything you've got! Given
what was gathered in the hours after the murder, an awful lot of it
pointed to the possibility of a multiple shooter case. Of course,
much of the important evidence was stolenm away from the fightdul
authorities that should have done the investigation.

If there was no mystery, there wouldn't have been any need to con
the public into believing LHO was alone. It would have been obvious
as in the Reagan attempt.

> >   Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
> > public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
> > Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin',
>
> No, it makes a dumbfuck like you think that. That is how a dumbfuck
> thinks. He sees looks at black and sees white. Nothing is ever so
> obvious that it can't sail right over the head of dumbfucks like you.
>
Such an amazing psychoanalyst!! The things you know...LOL!

Just the added use of the word 'real' gives it away. Hoover was
talking to LBJ, who should have had the details by then and known LHO
was the 'real' assassin. But it was said to him anyway. I think the
many readers of this thread will read that a few different ways, one
of which will be that Hoover was saying 'we have to get busy and cover
up the whole thing and make it clear it was the patsy'.

> > and they had to
> > make it look like he was.
>
> Of course they did. he was the assassin.
>
Naah.

> > In either event, it's clear that at least
> > Hoover's purpose in the investigation was hoodwinking the idiotic
> > public into believing that Oswald was a 'lone nut assassin'.  And he
> > did it so well, that some of the idiots still think that.
>
> Since when is laying out the obvious conclusion hoodwinking the
> public? The only people who have been hoodwinked are morons like you
> who have kept the JFK conspiracy cottage industry in business.  The
> conspiracy authors see dumbfucks like you coming and think "CHA-
> CHING!!!".
>
Why would Hoover lay out an obvious conclusion to LBJ? He knew LBJ
was no fool when it casme to politics and infighting. Nope. He was
making it clear they had to get going with the set up.

And as to your 'accusation' that I keep a 'cottage industry' going,
you seem to conveniently forget that YOU are a major factor in keeping
the story alive and thriving. All the people that believe the
evidence shows a multiple shooting ordered from high up keep trying
tpo convince you and your ilk that a crime was committed and you are
helping to cover it up...:)


> > > > > >   LOL!  We seem to differ in our viewpoints...very American of us...:)
>
> > > Yes it is. Dumbfucks like you are as entitled to their opinions as the
> > > intelligent people.
>
> >   Aww, are you sure you're not just saying that?  :)
>
> > > > > The followed the evidence and reached the above stated conclusions.
> > > > > Every investigation that followed using the same evidence reached the
> > > > > same conclusions. Does that tell you anything? Of course it doesn't.
> > > > > You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > > >   Aww...I'm hurt...:)  But at least you care enough about me to try
> > > > and make me get angry...it's just that I'm just not the type like
> > > > yourself to get all red in the face like you are right now...:)
>
> > > If I'm red in the face its' from laughing at what a dumbfuck you are.
>
> >    You seem to be caught on that one word...but I don't want to try to
> > get you out of your rut, that's your problem.
>
> I used to use the term retard but than I realized how insulting that
> was to the real retards to be lumped with dumbfucks like you. They
> deserve more respect than that.
>
LOL! I didn't think you had any respect for anyone besides yourself
and your opinions...:)
Ah! You agree with me that Hoover wa smart enough not to be caught
by saying the wrong thing in front of a microphone, or in a
document...:)

You really sound like you idolize Hoover! 'that was his duty' 'one
and only truth'. You missed waving a flag with the speech...Yep,
Hoover did his job well, since you're still praising him...:)

Chris


bigdog

unread,
Apr 20, 2012, 10:12:06 PM4/20/12
to
Of course simpleton like you would think that everything Hoover
touched was evil. Despite Hoover's faults and well documented abuses
of power, the FBI under Hoover did a lot of outstanding work during
his time as its director. There was no hard evidence of any shooter
except Oswald and no evidence he had any accomplices. There wasn't in
the hours and days following the shooting and no one has produced any
in almost 50 years since. I've given up asking you assholes to list
evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved because it has become
an absolute certainty you will be unable to do so and will instead
take the coward's way out and use the lame and dishonest excuse that
the evidence has already been presented. It never has and never will
and you certainly aren't going to give us any now.
.
>    If there was no mystery, there wouldn't have been any need to con
> the public into believing LHO was alone.  It would have been obvious
> as in the Reagan attempt.
>
It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.

> > >   Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
> > > public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
> > > Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin',
>
> > No, it makes a dumbfuck like you think that. That is how a dumbfuck
> > thinks. He sees looks at black and sees white. Nothing is ever so
> > obvious that it can't sail right over the head of dumbfucks like you.
>
>   Such an amazing psychoanalyst!!  The things you know...LOL!
>
>     Just the added use of the word 'real' gives it away.  Hoover was
> talking to LBJ, who should have had the details by then and known LHO
> was the 'real' assassin.

Hey, dumbass, Hoover was LBJ's source of information. Whatever details
he got, he got from Hoover.

> But it was said to him anyway.  I think the
> many readers of this thread will read that a few different ways, one
> of which will be that Hoover was saying 'we have to get busy and cover
> up the whole thing and make it clear it was the patsy'.
>
That may be true. You aren't the only dumbfuck on this board. And
since Waltard as returned. You're back to being #2.

> > > and they had to
> > > make it look like he was.
>
> > Of course they did. he was the assassin.
>
>   Naah.
>
> > > In either event, it's clear that at least
> > > Hoover's purpose in the investigation was hoodwinking the idiotic
> > > public into believing that Oswald was a 'lone nut assassin'.  And he
> > > did it so well, that some of the idiots still think that.
>
> > Since when is laying out the obvious conclusion hoodwinking the
> > public? The only people who have been hoodwinked are morons like you
> > who have kept the JFK conspiracy cottage industry in business.  The
> > conspiracy authors see dumbfucks like you coming and think "CHA-
> > CHING!!!".
>
>   Why would Hoover lay out an obvious conclusion to LBJ?

Why the hell wouldn't he.

> He knew LBJ
> was no fool when it casme to politics and infighting.  Nope.  He was
> making it clear they had to get going with the set up.
>
Amazing how you can read one thing and dream up all sorts of things
they weren't said or remotely hinted at.

>    And as to your 'accusation' that I keep a 'cottage industry' going,
> you seem to conveniently forget that YOU are a major factor in keeping
> the story alive and thriving.  All the people that believe the
> evidence shows a multiple shooting ordered from high up keep trying
> tpo convince you and your ilk that a crime was committed and you are
> helping to cover it up...:)
>
But amazingly, none of those people can cite any such evidence when
pressed to do so. It is the LNs who believe what the evidence says and
it is the CTs that throw out the evidence and dream up fairy tales out
of thin air.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > >   LOL!  We seem to differ in our viewpoints...very American of us...:)
>
> > > > Yes it is. Dumbfucks like you are as entitled to their opinions as the
> > > > intelligent people.
>
> > >   Aww, are you sure you're not just saying that?  :)
>
> > > > > > The followed the evidence and reached the above stated conclusions.
> > > > > > Every investigation that followed using the same evidence reached the
> > > > > > same conclusions. Does that tell you anything? Of course it doesn't.
> > > > > > You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > > > >   Aww...I'm hurt...:)  But at least you care enough about me to try
> > > > > and make me get angry...it's just that I'm just not the type like
> > > > > yourself to get all red in the face like you are right now...:)
>
> > > > If I'm red in the face its' from laughing at what a dumbfuck you are.
>
> > >    You seem to be caught on that one word...but I don't want to try to
> > > get you out of your rut, that's your problem.
>
> > I used to use the term retard but than I realized how insulting that
> > was to the real retards to be lumped with dumbfucks like you. They
> > deserve more respect than that.
>
>   LOL!  I didn't think you had any respect for anyone besides yourself
> and your opinions...:)
>
Actually, I have a lot of respect for people with different opinions
than me if they have the intellectual honesty to back up what they say
with hard facts and evidence and don't resort to cowardly dodges when
they are challenged to supply such. No one on this board falls into
that category and I've met few CTs who do.
Amazing the things you can imagine.

>   You really sound like you idolize Hoover!  'that was his duty' 'one
> and only truth'.  You missed waving a flag with the speech...Yep,
> Hoover did his job well, since you're still praising him...:)
>
His agency did their job extremely well in this case. That is not to
say Hoover or his agency did so in all cases. One doesn't have to
endorse everything Hoover and the FBI did during his tenure to
recognize that they did an outstanding job in the JFK assassination.
The fact that despite their work having been scrutinized more than any
other investigation in history, no one has come up with a single piece
of credible evidence to contradict their findings.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 21, 2012, 9:12:39 AM4/21/12
to
Well now, I'm glad you can admit that Hoover had 'abuses of power'.
Why do you not think some of that was shown in the covering up of the
crime of the century?

> There was no hard evidence of any shooter
> except Oswald and no evidence he had any accomplices. There wasn't in
> the hours and days following the shooting and no one has produced any
> in almost 50 years since.

You've gotten lists and reams of evidence over the years, but (of
course) you always find some phony excuse that it doesn't exist or
some other blather and you run away. Part of that problem however, is
that the federal authorities stole the body and the limousine, both of
which were important for evidence as to where the bullets came from.
They also had custody of the bullets which then got messed with.
People seeing shooters on the GK were ignored. Experts see a Mauser
in the TSBD and you and the WC look the other way and say 'I don't see
a Mauser' I see an LHO gun.

> I've given up asking you assholes to list
> evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved because it has become
> an absolute certainty you will be unable to do so and will instead
> take the coward's way out and use the lame and dishonest excuse that
> the evidence has already been presented. It never has and never will
> and you certainly aren't going to give us any now.

Give it up. You've had evidence shoved down your throat and you run
away from it and make phony excuses. And the next thread will start
the same way, with you crowing that you've never seen any evidence.
It ain't that it hasn't been shown to you, it's that you refuse to see
it, like an ostrich with its head in the sand. If you can't see it,
it doesn't exist...:)

> .>    If there was no mystery, there wouldn't have been any need to con
> > the public into believing LHO was alone.  It would have been obvious
> > as in the Reagan attempt.
>
> It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
> die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
> tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
> have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
> Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
> conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.
>
LOL! Well, that's true at least! I'll give you 1 point for truth
this time. Now you're up to 1 point altogether. Actually, even a
failed attempt on a president has news value and can be spun for a
long after with many different slants, so your contention is
discarded.

> > > >   Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
> > > > public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
> > > > Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin',
>
> > > No, it makes a dumbfuck like you think that. That is how a dumbfuck
> > > thinks. He sees looks at black and sees white. Nothing is ever so
> > > obvious that it can't sail right over the head of dumbfucks like you.
>
> >   Such an amazing psychoanalyst!!  The things you know...LOL!
>
> >     Just the added use of the word 'real' gives it away.  Hoover was
> > talking to LBJ, who should have had the details by then and known LHO
> > was the 'real' assassin.
>
> Hey, dumbass, Hoover was LBJ's source of information. Whatever details
> he got, he got from Hoover.
>
Right...:) No one in all of Washington was talking to LBJ, and ol'
LBJ was a trusting soul who listened only to Hoover...sure.

> > But it was said to him anyway.  I think the
> > many readers of this thread will read that a few different ways, one
> > of which will be that Hoover was saying 'we have to get busy and cover
> > up the whole thing and make it clear it was the patsy'.
>
> That may be true. You aren't the only dumbfuck on this board. And
> since Waltard as returned. You're back to being #2.
>
Well, you left out your superior position in the list...we must not
have seen you all bent over like that...:)

> > > > and they had to
> > > > make it look like he was.
>
> > > Of course they did. he was the assassin.
>
> >   Naah.
>
> > > > In either event, it's clear that at least
> > > > Hoover's purpose in the investigation was hoodwinking the idiotic
> > > > public into believing that Oswald was a 'lone nut assassin'.  And he
> > > > did it so well, that some of the idiots still think that.
>
> > > Since when is laying out the obvious conclusion hoodwinking the
> > > public? The only people who have been hoodwinked are morons like you
> > > who have kept the JFK conspiracy cottage industry in business.  The
> > > conspiracy authors see dumbfucks like you coming and think "CHA-
> > > CHING!!!".
>
> >   Why would Hoover lay out an obvious conclusion to LBJ?
>
> Why the hell wouldn't he.
>
He wouldn't waste words if LBJ already knew something, Hoover
wouldn't bother him with repetition.

> > He knew LBJ
> > was no fool when it came to politics and infighting.  Nope.  He was
> > making it clear they had to get going with the set up.
>
> Amazing how you can read one thing and dream up all sorts of things
> they weren't said or remotely hinted at.
>
I think they were obvious and obviously hinted at. Equal opinion,

> >    And as to your 'accusation' that I keep a 'cottage industry' going,
> > you seem to conveniently forget that YOU are a major factor in keeping
> > the story alive and thriving.  All the people that believe the
> > evidence shows a multiple shooting ordered from high up keep trying
> > to convince you and your ilk that a crime was committed and you are
> > helping to cover it up...:)
>
> But amazingly, none of those people can cite any such evidence when
> pressed to do so. It is the LNs who believe what the evidence says and
> it is the CTs that throw out the evidence and dream up fairy tales out
> of thin air.
>
Previously discussed.

> > > > > > > >   LOL!  We seem to differ in our viewpoints...very American of us...:)
>
> > > > > Yes it is. Dumbfucks like you are as entitled to their opinions as the
> > > > > intelligent people.
>
> > > >   Aww, are you sure you're not just saying that?  :)
>
> > > > > > > The followed the evidence and reached the above stated conclusions.
> > > > > > > Every investigation that followed using the same evidence reached the
> > > > > > > same conclusions. Does that tell you anything? Of course it doesn't.
> > > > > > > You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > > > > >   Aww...I'm hurt...:)  But at least you care enough about me to try
> > > > > > and make me get angry...it's just that I'm just not the type like
> > > > > > yourself to get all red in the face like you are right now...:)
>
> > > > > If I'm red in the face its' from laughing at what a dumbfuck you are.
>
> > > >    You seem to be caught on that one word...but I don't want to try to
> > > > get you out of your rut, that's your problem.
>
> > > I used to use the term retard but than I realized how insulting that
> > > was to the real retards to be lumped with dumbfucks like you. They
> > > deserve more respect than that.
>
> >   LOL!  I didn't think you had any respect for anyone besides yourself
> > and your opinions...:)
>
> Actually, I have a lot of respect for people with different opinions
> than me if they have the intellectual honesty to back up what they say
> with hard facts and evidence and don't resort to cowardly dodges when
> they are challenged to supply such. No one on this board falls into
> that category and I've met few CTs who do.
>
Whether someone uses a 'dodge' or not, if they do it up front and in
the clear, it ain't cowardice. It's when some one is sneaky and
trying to ghet away with something they think they won't have to face
later that you get cowardice. So don't run away anymore. Evidence
preciously discussed.
So you believe that it's imagination that a long term politician
would be careful of what he would say or do that might be heard or
seen? Weird.

> >   You really sound like you idolize Hoover!  'that was his duty' 'one
> > and only truth'.  You missed waving a flag with the speech...Yep,
> > Hoover did his job well, since you're still praising him...:)
>
> His agency did their job extremely well in this case. That is not to
> say Hoover or his agency did so in all cases. One doesn't have to
> endorse everything Hoover and the FBI did during his tenure to
> recognize that they did an outstanding job in the JFK assassination.
> The fact that despite their work having been scrutinized more than any
> other investigation in history, no one has come up with a single piece
> of credible evidence to contradict their findings.

There is no doubt the FBI did what they were told and messed things
up considerably. Who would think the JFK assassination where a
government agency would want to do its very best work, could screw up
so much with the evidence and custody. Along with others, the FBI
actions (or lack of them) were part of the reason there had to be so
many failed panels to examine the same evidence and efforts. Because
no one believed the whacky story from the WC and the efforts to force
it down people's throats.

Chris


aeffects

unread,
Apr 21, 2012, 3:07:08 PM4/21/12
to
TOP POST

leave the troll a little face, we'd like him here for the 2013
anniversary.... lmfao! ! ! !

bigdog

unread,
Apr 21, 2012, 3:12:29 PM4/21/12
to
Because Hoover had no reason to cover up anything and there is no
evidence that he or the FBI did, with the exception of Hosty who
destroyed a note believed to have been from Oswald, but that was to
cover his ass against Hoover's wrath, not to conceal anything from the
public.

> > There was no hard evidence of any shooter
> > except Oswald and no evidence he had any accomplices. There wasn't in
> > the hours and days following the shooting and no one has produced any
> > in almost 50 years since.
>
>    You've gotten lists and reams of evidence over the years, but (of
> course) you always find some phony excuse that it doesn't exist or
> some other blather and you run away.  Part of that problem however, is
> that the federal authorities stole the body and the limousine, both of
> which were important for evidence as to where the bullets came from.
> They also had custody of the bullets which then got messed with.
> People seeing shooters on the GK were ignored.  Experts see a Mauser
> in the TSBD and you and the WC look the other way and say 'I don't see
> a Mauser'  I see an LHO gun.
>
Thank you for proving what I wrote in the following paragraph was
true. Once again you failed ot produce a shred of evidence that
anybody but Oswald was invovled, just the bullshit claim that it's
been done in the past. The only person to have claimed to have seen a
shooter on the GK was Ed Hoffman who first made that claim in 1967. He
waits over three years to tell his story and couldn't have seen what
he claimed to have seen from where he claimed to be but you find him
credible. Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.

> > I've given up asking you assholes to list
> > evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved because it has become
> > an absolute certainty you will be unable to do so and will instead
> > take the coward's way out and use the lame and dishonest excuse that
> > the evidence has already been presented. It never has and never will
> > and you certainly aren't going to give us any now.
>
>   Give it up.  You've had evidence shoved down your throat and you run
> away from it and make phony excuses.

You're a liar. And a dumbfuck.

> And the next thread will start
> the same way, with you crowing that you've never seen any evidence.
> It ain't that it hasn't been shown to you, it's that you refuse to see
> it, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.  If you can't see it,
> it doesn't exist...:)
>
You could prove me wrong by listing just a few pieces of evidence that
someone other than Oswald was involved. But we all know you won't do
that because you are a liar and a dumbfuck.

> > .>    If there was no mystery, there wouldn't have been any need to con
> > > the public into believing LHO was alone.  It would have been obvious
> > > as in the Reagan attempt.
>
> > It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
> > die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
> > tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
> > have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
> > Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
> > conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.
>
>   LOL!  Well, that's true at least!  I'll give you 1 point for truth
> this time.  Now you're up to 1 point altogether.  Actually, even a
> failed attempt on a president has news value and can be spun for a
> long after with many different slants, so your contention is
> discarded.
>
It has new value. Nobody gets rich selling news. Once Reagan
recovered, there was no money to be made from the failed Reagan
assassination attempt, so the hucksters moved on to find other ways of
seperating you dumbfucks from your money.
>
>
>
>
> > > > >   Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
> > > > > public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
> > > > > Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin',
>
> > > > No, it makes a dumbfuck like you think that. That is how a dumbfuck
> > > > thinks. He sees looks at black and sees white. Nothing is ever so
> > > > obvious that it can't sail right over the head of dumbfucks like you.
>
> > >   Such an amazing psychoanalyst!!  The things you know...LOL!
>
> > >     Just the added use of the word 'real' gives it away.  Hoover was
> > > talking to LBJ, who should have had the details by then and known LHO
> > > was the 'real' assassin.
>
> > Hey, dumbass, Hoover was LBJ's source of information. Whatever details
> > he got, he got from Hoover.
>
>   Right...:)  No one in all of Washington was talking to LBJ, and ol'
> LBJ was a trusting soul who listened only to Hoover...sure.
>
Name one other person who was giving details about the assassination
to LBJ. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
LBJ knew what Hoover told him.

> > > He knew LBJ
> > > was no fool when it came to politics and infighting.  Nope.  He was
> > > making it clear they had to get going with the set up.
>
> > Amazing how you can read one thing and dream up all sorts of things
> > they weren't said or remotely hinted at.
>
>   I think they were obvious and obviously hinted at.  Equal opinion,
>
Of course you think that. You're a dumbfuck.

> > >    And as to your 'accusation' that I keep a 'cottage industry' going,
> > > you seem to conveniently forget that YOU are a major factor in keeping
> > > the story alive and thriving.  All the people that believe the
> > > evidence shows a multiple shooting ordered from high up keep trying
> > > to convince you and your ilk that a crime was committed and you are
> > > helping to cover it up...:)
>
> > But amazingly, none of those people can cite any such evidence when
> > pressed to do so. It is the LNs who believe what the evidence says and
> > it is the CTs that throw out the evidence and dream up fairy tales out
> > of thin air.
>
>   Previously discussed.
>
When you previously got your ass kicked.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Apr 21, 2012, 4:30:48 PM4/21/12
to
The 2 FBI Agents at the Autopsy did not believe the magic bullet theory.
Fact. Why? Because the wound was to low at T3,no. 1, and no. 2,
according to Dr. Finck did not penetrate. After they left the Bethesda
Morgue..conveniently, the Autopsy Doctors and WC Lawyers could
hypothesize that the bullet transited Kennedy's neck and exited his
neck, but the back's not part of the neck and there is ZERO hard
forensic evidence the back wound did exit JFK'S neck. I will grant you
it is a POSSIBILITY, though that the EOP shot did exit JFK's neck per
Capt. Lipsey's ARRB/HSCA testimony, though I can't say conclusively,
this does not seem as likely as a frontal throat wound...Laz

bigdog

unread,
Apr 21, 2012, 5:17:28 PM4/21/12
to
On Apr 21, 4:30 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> The 2 FBI Agents at the Autopsy did not believe the magic bullet theory.
> Fact.

Ever wonder why FBI agents aren't asked to do autopsies?

> Why? Because the wound was to low at T3,no. 1, and no. 2,
> according to Dr. Finck did not penetrate. After they left the Bethesda
> Morgue..conveniently, the Autopsy Doctors and WC Lawyers could
> hypothesize that the bullet transited Kennedy's neck and exited his
> neck, but the back's not part of the neck and there is ZERO hard
> forensic evidence the back wound did exit JFK'S neck.

The bullet hole in his throat and the fact no bullets were found in
his chest were pretty good clues.

> I will grant you
> it is a POSSIBILITY,

You think?

> though that the EOP shot did exit JFK's neck per
> Capt. Lipsey's ARRB/HSCA testimony, though I can't say conclusively,
> this does not seem  as likely as a frontal throat wound...Laz

Just how high up would the shooter have to be to fire a shot that
entered the EOP and exited at the base of the throat?
You really have to be nuts to propose something so goofy even Laz
isn't buying it.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 21, 2012, 7:25:49 PM4/21/12
to
Aww git away! You now can read the mind of Hoover the devious
little blackmailer? You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
could read it 45 years later? I don't think so.

> > > There was no hard evidence of any shooter
> > > except Oswald and no evidence he had any accomplices. There wasn't in
> > > the hours and days following the shooting and no one has produced any
> > > in almost 50 years since.
>
> >    You've gotten lists and reams of evidence over the years, but (of
> > course) you always find some phony excuse that it doesn't exist or
> > some other blather and you run away.  Part of that problem however, is
> > that the federal authorities stole the body and the limousine, both of
> > which were important for evidence as to where the bullets came from.
> > They also had custody of the bullets which then got messed with.
> > People seeing shooters on the GK were ignored.  Experts see a Mauser
> > in the TSBD and you and the WC look the other way and say 'I don't see
> > a Mauser'  I see an LHO gun.
>
> Thank you for proving what I wrote in the following paragraph was
> true. Once again you failed ot produce a shred of evidence that
> anybody but Oswald was invovled, just the bullshit claim that it's
> been done in the past. The only person to have claimed to have seen a
> shooter on the GK was Ed Hoffman who first made that claim in 1967. He
> waits over three years to tell his story and couldn't have seen what
> he claimed to have seen from where he claimed to be but you find him
> credible.
What an ass you can make of yourself when left to your own devices!
I never mentioned a Hoffman, but I'll look him up. I've talked more
of other witnesses that were around the GK and environs. You, of
course, have forgotten every one.

> Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > > I've given up asking you assholes to list
> > > evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved because it has become
> > > an absolute certainty you will be unable to do so and will instead
> > > take the coward's way out and use the lame and dishonest excuse that
> > > the evidence has already been presented. It never has and never will
> > > and you certainly aren't going to give us any now.
>
> >   Give it up.  You've had evidence shoved down your throat and you run
> > away from it and make phony excuses.
>
> You're a liar. And a dumbfuck.
>
> > And the next thread will start
> > the same way, with you crowing that you've never seen any evidence.
> > It ain't that it hasn't been shown to you, it's that you refuse to see
> > it, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.  If you can't see it,
> > it doesn't exist...:)
>
> You could prove me wrong by listing just a few pieces of evidence that
> someone other than Oswald was involved. But we all know you won't do
> that because you are a liar and a dumbfuck.
>
I've done it. I'm not your lackey. You didn't like the evidence
and avoided it, so why shouls I go to th effort to peroduce ot all
over again? And don't give me that b aloney that you expected me to
say that.

> > > .>    If there was no mystery, there wouldn't have been any need to con
> > > > the public into believing LHO was alone.  It would have been obvious
> > > > as in the Reagan attempt.
>
> > > It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
> > > die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
> > > tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
> > > have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
> > > Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
> > > conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.
>
> >   LOL!  Well, that's true at least!  I'll give you 1 point for truth
> > this time.  Now you're up to 1 point altogether.  Actually, even a
> > failed attempt on a president has news value and can be spun for a
> > long after with many different slants, so your contention is
> > discarded.
>
> It has new value. Nobody gets rich selling news. Once Reagan
> recovered, there was no money to be made from the failed Reagan
> assassination attempt, so the hucksters moved on to find other ways of
> seperating you dumbfucks from your money.
>
Ah! You've never bought a paper, or read the news online, or read/
memorized a book on the WC?

> > > > > >   Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
> > > > > > public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
> > > > > > Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin',
>
> > > > > No, it makes a dumbfuck like you think that. That is how a dumbfuck
> > > > > thinks. He sees looks at black and sees white. Nothing is ever so
> > > > > obvious that it can't sail right over the head of dumbfucks like you.
>
> > > >   Such an amazing psychoanalyst!!  The things you know...LOL!
>
> > > >     Just the added use of the word 'real' gives it away.  Hoover was
> > > > talking to LBJ, who should have had the details by then and known LHO
> > > > was the 'real' assassin.
>
> > > Hey, dumbass, Hoover was LBJ's source of information. Whatever details
> > > he got, he got from Hoover.
>
> >   Right...:)  No one in all of Washington was talking to LBJ, and ol'
> > LBJ was a trusting soul who listened only to Hoover...sure.
>
> Name one other person who was giving details about the assassination
> to LBJ. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
>
LOL! You ought to wait until I answer so you can try flapping your
arms and squawking...:) I'll do some of your work for you with the
following 23 conversations between LBJ and many other people who he
wanted advice from, and he asked for it from before he made up the
Waren commission.
http://www.wyzant.com/Help/History/HPOL/LBJ/Warren/
Poor ol' model 'T' Ford...stuck in a rut...:)

> > > >    And as to your 'accusation' that I keep a 'cottage industry' going,
> > > > you seem to conveniently forget that YOU are a major factor in keeping
> > > > the story alive and thriving.  All the people that believe the
> > > > evidence shows a multiple shooting ordered from high up keep trying
> > > > to convince you and your ilk that a crime was committed and you are
> > > > helping to cover it up...:)
>
> > > But amazingly, none of those people can cite any such evidence when
> > > pressed to do so. It is the LNs who believe what the evidence says and
> > > it is the CTs that throw out the evidence and dream up fairy tales out
> > > of thin air.
>
> >   Previously discussed.
>
> When you previously got your ass kicked.


Naah...:)

Chris


bigdog

unread,
Apr 21, 2012, 10:42:09 PM4/21/12
to
This from the stupid motherfucker who wrote "Now when a major factor
in the investigation says 'convince the
public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin', and they had to
make it look like he was." Hoover said one thing and you pretend to
know he meant just the opposite. So who's trying to read read Hoover's
mind.

> You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
> up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
> could read it 45 years later?  I don't think so.
>
Typical of the lame bullshit you come up with when you can't cite any
evidence to support the stupid things you say, which is just about
everything you say.
And of course, you can't name anyone who claims to have seen a shooter
on the GK. It's because you lied when you said that. You're a liar, a
chickenshit, and a dumbfuck. That's what we call a three time loser.

> > Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> > they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> > testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> > shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> > floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > > > I've given up asking you assholes to list
> > > > evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved because it has become
> > > > an absolute certainty you will be unable to do so and will instead
> > > > take the coward's way out and use the lame and dishonest excuse that
> > > > the evidence has already been presented. It never has and never will
> > > > and you certainly aren't going to give us any now.
>
> > >   Give it up.  You've had evidence shoved down your throat and you run
> > > away from it and make phony excuses.
>
> > You're a liar. And a dumbfuck.
>
> > > And the next thread will start
> > > the same way, with you crowing that you've never seen any evidence.
> > > It ain't that it hasn't been shown to you, it's that you refuse to see
> > > it, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.  If you can't see it,
> > > it doesn't exist...:)
>
> > You could prove me wrong by listing just a few pieces of evidence that
> > someone other than Oswald was involved. But we all know you won't do
> > that because you are a liar and a dumbfuck.
>
>   I've done it.

You're a liar. You've been called out and you've backed down.
AGAIN!!!

I'm not your lackey.

No, you're your mommy's lackey.

> You didn't like the evidence
> and avoided it,

It's hard to avoid something that doesn't exist. I'd really be
embarassed if I'd been called out so many times and had to back down
each and every time. But you've probably been a chickenshit your whole
life so you are probably used to getting humiliated.

> so why shouls I go to th effort to peroduce ot all
> over again?  And don't give me that b aloney that you expected me to
> say that.
>
To show the people who have been reading this thread that you aren't
the chickenshit liar you have so far demonstrated yourself to be.

> > > > .>    If there was no mystery, there wouldn't have been any need to con
> > > > > the public into believing LHO was alone.  It would have been obvious
> > > > > as in the Reagan attempt.
>
> > > > It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
> > > > die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
> > > > tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
> > > > have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
> > > > Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
> > > > conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.
>
> > >   LOL!  Well, that's true at least!  I'll give you 1 point for truth
> > > this time.  Now you're up to 1 point altogether.  Actually, even a
> > > failed attempt on a president has news value and can be spun for a
> > > long after with many different slants, so your contention is
> > > discarded.
>
> > It has new value. Nobody gets rich selling news. Once Reagan
> > recovered, there was no money to be made from the failed Reagan
> > assassination attempt, so the hucksters moved on to find other ways of
> > seperating you dumbfucks from your money.
>
>   Ah!  You've never bought a paper, or read the news online, or read/
> memorized a book on the WC?
>
Back to mind reading I see.

> > > > > > >   Now when a major factor in the investigation says 'convince the
> > > > > > > public that Oswald is the real assassin', it makes you think that
> > > > > > > Hoover knew that Oswald WASN'T the 'real assassin',
>
> > > > > > No, it makes a dumbfuck like you think that. That is how a dumbfuck
> > > > > > thinks. He sees looks at black and sees white. Nothing is ever so
> > > > > > obvious that it can't sail right over the head of dumbfucks like you.
>
> > > > >   Such an amazing psychoanalyst!!  The things you know...LOL!
>
> > > > >     Just the added use of the word 'real' gives it away.  Hoover was
> > > > > talking to LBJ, who should have had the details by then and known LHO
> > > > > was the 'real' assassin.
>
> > > > Hey, dumbass, Hoover was LBJ's source of information. Whatever details
> > > > he got, he got from Hoover.
>
> > >   Right...:)  No one in all of Washington was talking to LBJ, and ol'
> > > LBJ was a trusting soul who listened only to Hoover...sure.
>
> > Name one other person who was giving details about the assassination
> > to LBJ. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
>
>   LOL!  You ought to wait until I answer so you can try flapping your
> arms and squawking...:)

I quit waiting for you to support what you say a long time ago. That
bus ain't coming around.

>  I'll do some of your work for you with the
> following 23 conversations between LBJ and many other people who he
> wanted advice from, and he asked for it from before he made up the
> Waren commission.http://www.wyzant.com/Help/History/HPOL/LBJ/Warren/
>
Way to go, chickenboy. When you have no answer, you change the fucking
question. I asked you to name one person other than Hoover who was
giving LBJ details about the assassination and you give me a list of
people who advised him on who should be on the WC. Should we have
expected anything less from you?
You really are a glutton for punishment. I'll bet you love it when
your mommy spanks you.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 22, 2012, 8:11:36 AM4/22/12
to
I take his words that he said out loud as meaning a certain thing
because I believe Hoover was fully aware of the plot, and may have
contributed to it. But you're reading his mind without him saying
anything. There's a difference, but you have to be of average
intelligence to see it.

> > You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
> > up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
> > could read it 45 years later?  I don't think so.
>
> Typical of the lame bullshit you come up with when you can't cite any
> evidence to support the stupid things you say, which is just about
> everything you say.
>
So as usual, you have fallen down to your normal level of ad hominem
comments when you have no facts of sensible logic to provide.
LOL! This seems to be getting to you. One needs a certain amount
of stability to debate in this fashion. When you get tired, you begin
to blab out any old nasty that's available to you. Sort of like
living in a mud mire and getting nowhere trying to get out...:) I've
already mentioned a number of witnesses that saw folks including the
smoke from other than smoking behind the fence on the GK. Look back
if you're not too lazy.

> > > Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> > > they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> > > testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> > > shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> > > floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
Roger Craig said they found a Mauser, and he said so clearly.
I don't feel humiliated. I feel uplifted in watching you devolve
into a puddle of dirty plate washings after trying to be on top of the
discussion...:)

> > so why shouls I go to th effort to peroduce ot all
> > over again?  And don't give me that b aloney that you expected me to
> > say that.
>
> To show the people who have been reading this thread that you aren't
> the chickenshit liar you have so far demonstrated yourself to be.
>
Well now, THEY might be able to remember what I had said and what
witnesses I put forward. You might want to look into the name
'Rosemary Willis' and see if you turn up anything that the HSCA gave
some credence to.

> > > > > .>    If there was no mystery, there wouldn't have been any need to con
> > > > > > the public into believing LHO was alone.  It would have been obvious
> > > > > > as in the Reagan attempt.
>
> > > > > It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
> > > > > die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
> > > > > tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
> > > > > have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
> > > > > Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
> > > > > conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.
>
> > > >   LOL!  Well, that's true at least!  I'll give you 1 point for truth
> > > > this time.  Now you're up to 1 point altogether.  Actually, even a
> > > > failed attempt on a president has news value and can be spun for a
> > > > long after with many different slants, so your contention is
> > > > discarded.
>
> > > It has news value. Nobody gets rich selling news.

You might want to look into a guy named Randolph Hearst...:)

> > > Once Reagan
> > > recovered, there was no money to be made from the failed Reagan
> > > assassination attempt, so the hucksters moved on to find other ways of
> > > seperating you dumbfucks from your money.
>
> >   Ah!  You've never bought a paper, or read the news online, or read/
> > memorized a book on the WC?
>
> Back to mind reading I see.
>
LOL! There's a question mark on my comment above. Did you miss
it? So you think that if Reagan had died it would have made a better
story that would last longer? Would there have been conspiracies
about the shooters? Or would no one give a damn because they didn't
think there was a conspiracy involved at all?
Oh sorry. I figure that LBJ wouldn't want anyone to know that he
needed people to tell him what was going on. After JFK got murdered,
Johnson took over and "Bundy continued to bring detailed information
to the new president and worked to integrate policy, functions that
had once been a product of the NSC system." So Ol' McGeorge was one
of the people that brought information to Johnson. Obviously, no
serious politician, especiallly as paranoid as Johnson would get
information from just one person. He would feel he could too easily
be manipulated.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/National-Security-Council-The-kennedy-and-johnson-years.html
It taught me how to do it to you, and I have been finding that very
satisfying. Since I'm the main provider of backup and information,
and you just throw in an occasional low class insult...:)

Chris



bigdog

unread,
Apr 22, 2012, 10:00:36 AM4/22/12
to
Mind reading.

> But you're reading his mind without him saying
> anything.  There's a difference, but you have to be of average
> intelligence to see it.
>
Yes there's a difference. I read what Hoover said and believe he meant
what he said. You read what he said and claim he meant exactly the
opposite of what he said. And I will agree with you that it only takes
a person of average intelligence to figure out which one of us is
engaging in mind reading.
> > > You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
> > > up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
> > > could read it 45 years later?  I don't think so.
>
> > Typical of the lame bullshit you come up with when you can't cite any
> > evidence to support the stupid things you say, which is just about
> > everything you say.
>
>   So as usual, you have fallen down to your normal level of ad hominem
> comments when you have no facts of sensible logic to provide.
>
You have earned everyone of the ad hominem attacks. You are a coward,
a liar, and a dumbfuck. Hell of a combination.
Yes, I am tired of your lies and cowardly evasions.

> Sort of like
> living in a mud mire and getting nowhere trying to get out...:)  I've
> already mentioned a number of witnesses that saw folks including the
> smoke from other than smoking behind the fence on the GK.  Look back
> if you're not too lazy.
>
You have provided no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the GK. You
have provided no weapon that was fired from the GK. You have provided
no bullets fired from the GK. You have provided no spent shells that
were found on the GK. You can provide no qualified medical examiner
who claims there is any medical evidence of shots fired from anywhere
except the TSBD. We have all those things for the shooter in the TSBD.
We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
continue to swing and miss.
> > > > Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> > > > they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> > > > testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> > > > shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> > > > floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
>   Roger Craig said they found a Mauser, and he said so clearly.
>
Roger Craig said a lot of ridiculous things, none of which can be
corroborated. The guy was on the outside looking in on the crime of
the century and he made up a whole shitload of stuff to try to make it
seem like he was involved. If he hadn't made up all that crap, nobody
would know who Roger Craig was. He fed the CTs the bullshit they
wanted to hear and you guys ate it up and licked the bowl.
As I was saying, you are so used to being humiliated that it doesn't
even bother you anymore. Situation normmal.

> > > so why shouls I go to th effort to peroduce ot all
> > > over again?  And don't give me that b aloney that you expected me to
> > > say that.
>
> > To show the people who have been reading this thread that you aren't
> > the chickenshit liar you have so far demonstrated yourself to be.
>
>   Well now, THEY might be able to remember what I had said and what
> witnesses I put forward.

Nobody remembers things you have never provided.

> You might want to look into the name
> 'Rosemary Willis' and see if you turn up anything that the HSCA gave
> some credence to.
>
Once again you fail to provide a scrap of hard evidence that anyone
except Oswald was involved. Just like CTs of the present, the HSCA
cherry picked witnesses to bolster their phantom shooter on the GK. If
the best you've got is that some witnesses said they thought the shots
sounded like they came from the GK, you've got nothing of value
because sound is a poor indicator of the direction of gunfire. If you
could reliably determine the source of gunfire from the sound, there
would be a consensus among the witnesses as to where the shots came
from. As it is, all we can say for sure based on what the earwitnesses
said is that a large group of them were wrong. The eyewitnesses all
placed the shooter in the TSBD.

>
> > > > > > It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
> > > > > > die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
> > > > > > tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
> > > > > > have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
> > > > > > Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
> > > > > > conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.
>
> > > > >   LOL!  Well, that's true at least!  I'll give you 1 point for truth
> > > > > this time.  Now you're up to 1 point altogether.  Actually, even a
> > > > > failed attempt on a president has news value and can be spun for a
> > > > > long after with many different slants, so your contention is
> > > > > discarded.
>
> > > > It has news value. Nobody gets rich selling news.
>
>   You might want to look into a guy named Randolph Hearst...:)

You might want to watch Citizen Kane whose title character was based
on Hearst. I don't remember the exact quote but it went something like
this. "I lost a million dollars last year. I will lose a million
dollars this year. I will lose a million dollars next year. At that
rate, I will go broke in 40 years",
> > > > Once Reagan
> > > > recovered, there was no money to be made from the failed Reagan
> > > > assassination attempt, so the hucksters moved on to find other ways of
> > > > seperating you dumbfucks from your money.
>
> > >   Ah!  You've never bought a paper, or read the news online, or read/
> > > memorized a book on the WC?
>
> > Back to mind reading I see.
>
>   LOL!  There's a question mark on my comment above.  Did you miss
> it?  So you think that if Reagan had died it would have made a better
> story that would last longer?

I'm not at all surprised that you think it wouldn't.

> Would there have been conspiracies
> about the shooters?

Probably. The circumstances of the RFK shooting and the circumstances
of the Reagan shooting are very similar. Shot at close range with a
small caliber handgun and the shooter was immediately wrestled to the
ground and arrested. That didn't stop conspiracy theories from being
sprouted from the RFK shooting and if Reagan had died, there would
have been conspiracy theories about that. Probably not as many because
liberals are more prone to dream up conspiracy theories when one of
theirs is shot, but there would have been some. As it was, a loser who
failed to kill Reagan while trying to impress Jodi Foster was
interesting enough for the supermarket tabloids.

> Or would no one give a damn because they didn't
> think there was a conspiracy involved at all?
>
Conspiracy theories aren't born because people think there was a
conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are born because people want to
believe there was a conspiracy.
The question was who but Hoover was feeding information to LBJ about
THE ASSASSINATION. Try to focus.for once.

> Obviously, no
> serious politician, especiallly as paranoid as Johnson would get
> information from just one person.  He would feel he could too easily
> be manipulated.http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/National-Security-Council...
>
If it is so fucking obvious, why can't you name a single person other
than Hoover who was providing infromation to LBJ about THE
ASSASSINATION. As is typical for your ilk, when you can't answer a
question, you resort to "it was obvious". So obvious you can't tell
us.<snicker>
>
> > > > When you previously got your ass kicked.
>
> > > Naah...:)
>
> > You really are a glutton for punishment. I'll bet you love it when
> > your mommy spanks you.
>
>   It taught me how to do it to you, and I have been finding that very
> satisfying.

I'm sure that is true. Not often we get honesty from you.

> Since I'm the main provider of backup and information,
> and you just throw in an occasional low class insult...:)
>
Your continued refusal to provide a shred of evidence that anybody but
Oswald was involved is duly noted.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 23, 2012, 8:50:01 AM4/23/12
to
Nope. Just my belief, which I openly stated.

> > But you're reading his mind without him saying
> > anything.  There's a difference, but you have to be of average
> > intelligence to see it.
>
> Yes there's a difference. I read what Hoover said and believe he meant
> what he said. You read what he said and claim he meant exactly the
> opposite of what he said.

Hmm. And I remember you agreeing that politicians lie, and yet
you're ready to believe whatever ol' Hoover said. Naah, not logical.
Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as you
know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like the
'Freudian slip'...:)

> And I will agree with you that it only takes
> a person of average intelligence to figure out which one of us is
> engaging in mind reading.

> > > You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
> > > > up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
> > > > could read it 45 years later?  I don't think so.
>
> > > Typical of the lame bullshit you come up with when you can't cite any
> > > evidence to support the stupid things you say, which is just about
> > > everything you say.
>
> >   So as usual, you have fallen down to your normal level of ad hominem
> > comments when you have no facts ofrsensible logic to provide.
>
> You have earned everyone of the ad hominem attacks. You are a coward,
> a liar, and a dumbfuck. Hell of a combination.
>
LOL! You've got it so bad, you respond from an accusation of ad
hominem with more of the same...:)
Wait! Wait! Don't run away! I was looking forward to a full and
serious discussion on the whacky WC theories and their addicted
believers...I was hoping we could also convince newbies and onlookers
which set of facts is worth looking into in the JFK murder.

> > Sort of like
> > living in a mud mire and getting nowhere trying to get out...:)  I've
> > already mentioned a number of witnesses that saw folks including the
> > smoke from other than smoking behind the fence on the GK.  Look back
> > if you're not too lazy.
>
> You have provided no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the GK. You
> have provided no weapon that was fired from the GK. You have provided
> no bullets fired from the GK. You have provided no spent shells that
> were found on the GK. You can provide no qualified medical examiner
> who claims there is any medical evidence of shots fired from anywhere
> except the TSBD.

Actually, neither can you as far as the 'nest' is concerned. All
the evidence was co-opted by the FBI who showed themselves notorious
at losing things and misplacing bullets and such.

We have all those things for the shooter in the TSBD.

Nope. See above.

> We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
> continue to swing and miss.

I don't remember saying the GK was the one and only place a shooter
could be, though it's one of the better possibilities, since there
were so many witnesses that felt the shots came from there. We know a
few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we know that
smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a cigarette,
and we know that there was a person there that told a police officer
that he was Secret Service, but there was no SS people there at the
time. And all sorts of other evidence.

> > > > Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> > > > > they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> > > > > testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> > > > > shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> > > > > floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
> >   Roger Craig said they found a Mauser, and he said so clearly.
>
> Roger Craig said a lot of ridiculous things, none of which can be
> corroborated. The guy was on the outside looking in on the crime of
> the century and he made up a whole shitload of stuff to try to make it
> seem like he was involved. If he hadn't made up all that crap, nobody
> would know who Roger Craig was. He fed the CTs the bullshit they
> wanted to hear and you guys ate it up and licked the bowl.
>
Ah! Do you have backup for that destruction of Roger Craig's
reputation? No? I didn't think so. If Craig made all that up he
could have gotten his life back by just saying so and going on. They
would have been glad to hear it. Instead he put up with all the
whackos that stuck to the crazy WC theories and made his life
miserable.
> > > > so why should I go to the effort to produce it all
> > > > over again?  And don't give me that baloney that you expected me to
> > > > say that.
>
> > > To show the people who have been reading this thread that you aren't
> > > the chickenshit liar you have so far demonstrated yourself to be.
>
> >   Well now, THEY might be able to remember what I had said and what
> > witnesses I put forward.
>
> Nobody remembers things you have never provided.
>
> > You might want to look into the name
> > 'Rosemary Willis' and see if you turn up anything that the HSCA gave
> > some credence to.
>
> Once again you fail to provide a scrap of hard evidence that anyone
> except Oswald was involved. Just like CTs of the present, the HSCA
> cherry picked witnesses to bolster their phantom shooter on the GK.

Interesting. So you admit that the HSCA was willing to manipulate
testimony or be selective to give an impression they wanted to give.
And yet, if you were told that the WC did that, and the other panels
did that, you'd make some stupid low class comment\ and deny it.

The hard evidence was stolen and much of it destroyed by the federal
authorities after they stole the limo and the body and took possession
of other evidence. However, what was left was enough for thinking
people in America to know that a scam was being perpetrated by those
authorities. And to this day the 5 or maore panels hasn't convinced
anyone and the need for another is still there and being demanded.

I certainly appreciate your help in that, since once peope get a
load of your statements, they begfin to wonder what really happened
back then.

> If
> the best you've got is that some witnesses said they thought the shots
> sounded like they came from the GK, you've got nothing of value
> because sound is a poor indicator of the direction of gunfire. If you
> could reliably determine the source of gunfire from the sound, there
> would be a consensus among the witnesses as to where the shots came
> from. As it is, all we can say for sure based on what the earwitnesses
> said is that a large group of them were wrong. The eyewitnesses all
> placed the shooter in the TSBD.
>
Nope. It looks like more witnessses heard the shots coming from the
GK area, including DPD officers that were right in front of the TSBD.

> > > > > > > It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
> > > > > > > die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
> > > > > > > tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
> > > > > > > have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
> > > > > > > Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
> > > > > > > conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.
>
> > > > > >   LOL!  Well, that's true at least!  I'll give you 1 point for truth
> > > > > > this time.  Now you're up to 1 point altogether.  Actually, even a
> > > > > > failed attempt on a president has news value and can be spun for a
> > > > > > long after with many different slants, so your contention is
> > > > > > discarded.
>
> > > > > It has news value. Nobody gets rich selling news.
>
> >   You might want to look into a guy named Randolph Hearst...:)
>
> You might want to watch Citizen Kane whose title character was based
> on Hearst. I don't remember the exact quote but it went something like
> this. "I lost a million dollars last year. I will lose a million
> dollars this year. I will lose a million dollars next year. At that
> rate, I will go broke in 40 years",
>
LOL! So you present a fictional movie to prove that Hearst was
broke in real life? I wonder how you will explain his huge property
'Hearst Castle' ('San Simeon'). Which was worth more than a fortune,
and could have supported him the rest of his life by now and then
selling a 'knick-knack'.

> > > > > Once Reagan
> > > > > recovered, there was no money to be made from the failed Reagan
> > > > > assassination attempt, so the hucksters moved on to find other ways of
> > > > > seperating you dumbfucks from your money.
>
> > > >   Ah!  You've never bought a paper, or read the news online, or read/
> > > > memorized a book on the WC?
>
> > > Back to mind reading I see.
>
> >   LOL!  There's a question mark on my comment above.  Did you miss
> > it?  So you think that if Reagan had died it would have made a better
> > story that would last longer?
>
> I'm not at all surprised that you think it wouldn't.
>
> > Would there have been conspiracies
> > about the shooters?
>
> Probably. The circumstances of the RFK shooting and the circumstances
> of the Reagan shooting are very similar. Shot at close range with a
> small caliber handgun and the shooter was immediately wrestled to the
> ground and arrested. That didn't stop conspiracy theories from being
> sprouted from the RFK shooting and if Reagan had died, there would
> have been conspiracy theories about that. Probably not as many because
> liberals are more prone to dream up conspiracy theories when one of
> theirs is shot, but there would have been some. As it was, a loser who
> failed to kill Reagan while trying to impress Jodi Foster was
> interesting enough for the supermarket tabloids.
>
Hmm. Sounds like you'e conservative...yes? Love Nixon, Reagan the
Bush's? The war in th middle east that we started?

> > Or would no one give a damn because they didn't
> > think there was a conspiracy involved at all?
>
> Conspiracy theories aren't born because people think there was a
> conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are born because people want to
> believe there was a conspiracy.
>
Think about what you just said...:)
Oh, you were asking only about the assassination. Well, neither you
nor I were there in the W.H. so neither you nor I know if Hoover was
the only passer of information to LBJ. LBJ wasn't a fool as a
politician, so he would have had a backup he could trust to verify to
him whatever Hoover, the little blackmailer, told him. But I'm just
spitballing like you were in saying that Hoover was the only conduit
to LBJ. We just don't have any evidence of that one way or the other.

> > Obviously, no
> > serious politician, especiallly as paranoid as Johnson would get
> > information from just one person.  He would feel he could too easily
> > be manipulated.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/National-Security-Council...
>
> If it is so fucking obvious, why can't you name a single person other
> than Hoover who was providing infromation to LBJ about THE
> ASSASSINATION.  As is typical for your ilk, when you can't answer a
> question, you resort to "it was obvious". So obvious you can't tell
> us.<snicker>
Actually, neither you nor I can say one way or theother, as noted
above. Ya see, you don't kniow either ans are just guessing. Neither
LBJ noe Hoover would pass on to us who else was talking to LBJ. You
can be sure that if LBJ was part of the conspiracy, or even the main
man, he would be talking to others in the cabal about the efforts to
cover it all up.

>
> > > > > When you previously got your ass kicked.
>
> > > > Naah...:)
>
> > > You really are a glutton for punishment. I'll bet you love it when
> > > your mommy spanks you.
>
> >   It taught me how to do it to you, and I have been finding that very
> > satisfying.
>
> I'm sure that is true. Not often we get honesty from you.
>
> > Since I'm the main provider of backup and information,
> > and you just throw in an occasional low class insult...:)
>
> Your continued refusal to provide a shred of evidence that anybody but
> Oswald was involved is duly noted.

Bull. I've provided info until the cows come home. You are much
more likely to blat out something and not provide backup, and the
evidence has been spoken of through this thread. Let the onlookers
decide...:)

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Apr 23, 2012, 12:19:17 PM4/23/12
to
On Apr 23, 8:50 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:00 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 8:11 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 10:42 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 7:25 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 3:12 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 9:12 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 20, 10:12 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >  I take his words that he said out loud as meaning a certain thing
> > > because I believe Hoover was fully aware of the plot, and may have
> > > contributed to it.
>
> > Mind reading.
>
>   Nope.  Just my belief, which I openly stated.
>
I see. So when I read Hoover's words and believe he meant what he
said, I'm reading his mind, but you are free to read they saw words
and assume he meant exactly the opposite what he said. Typical of the
fucked up way you look at everything in this case.

> > > But you're reading his mind without him saying
> > > anything.  There's a difference, but you have to be of average
> > > intelligence to see it.
>
> > Yes there's a difference. I read what Hoover said and believe he meant
> > what he said. You read what he said and claim he meant exactly the
> > opposite of what he said.
>
>    Hmm.  And I remember you agreeing that politicians lie, and yet
> you're ready to believe whatever ol' Hoover said.

When politicians lie, it is usually when they are in public because
they are trying to deceive the public. That isn't the case with what
he was telling privately to LBJ. When Hoover told LBJ Oswald was the
assassin, I believe him because that is what the evidence dictates.

> Naah, not logical.
> Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as you
> know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like the
> 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.

> > And I will agree with you that it only takes
> > a person of average intelligence to figure out which one of us is
> > engaging in mind reading.
> > > > You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
> > > > > up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
> > > > > could read it 45 years later?  I don't think so.
>
> > > > Typical of the lame bullshit you come up with when you can't cite any
> > > > evidence to support the stupid things you say, which is just about
> > > > everything you say.
>
> > >   So as usual, you have fallen down to your normal level of ad hominem
> > > comments when you have no facts ofrsensible logic to provide.
>
> > You have earned everyone of the ad hominem attacks. You are a coward,
> > a liar, and a dumbfuck. Hell of a combination.
>
>   LOL!  You've got it so bad, you respond from an accusation of ad
> hominem with more of the same...:)
>
Just calling a spade a spade and a cowardly lying dumbfuck a cowardly,
lying dumfuck.
You are doing just a bang up job of showing newbies and onlookers just
how fucked up the CT position is. You can't support one thing you've
claimed with solid evidence. You resort to the lame dodge that the
evidence has already been presented. Well those newbies and onlookers
haven't seen that evidence but you can't post it for them either. I
think they are having no trouble figuring you that you are full of
shit. Keep the bullshit coming.

> > > Sort of like
> > > living in a mud mire and getting nowhere trying to get out...:)  I've
> > > already mentioned a number of witnesses that saw folks including the
> > > smoke from other than smoking behind the fence on the GK.  Look back
> > > if you're not too lazy.
>
> > You have provided no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the GK. You
> > have provided no weapon that was fired from the GK. You have provided
> > no bullets fired from the GK. You have provided no spent shells that
> > were found on the GK. You can provide no qualified medical examiner
> > who claims there is any medical evidence of shots fired from anywhere
> > except the TSBD.
>
>   Actually, neither can you as far as the 'nest' is concerned.  All
> the evidence was co-opted by the FBI who showed themselves notorious
> at losing things and misplacing bullets and such.
>
Typical. The evidence won't support your position so you dismiss the
evidence. You have to conjure your beliefs out of thin air because you
have nothing to support them as you have demonstrated over and over
again with your continued evasions.

> We have all those things for the shooter in the TSBD.
>
>  Nope.  See above.
>
You are in denial. All that evidence exists and you simply can't deal
with it so you choose to ignore it. What an asshole!!!

> > We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
> > continue to swing and miss.
>
>   I don't remember saying the GK was the one and only place a shooter
> could be, though it's one of the better possibilities, since there
> were so many witnesses that felt the shots came from there.

You can't produce and ounce of hard evidence of a shooter anywhere
except in the TSBD. You've demonstrated that over and over again.
There were no EYEwitnesses to a shooter on the GK.

>  We know a
> few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we know that
> smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a cigarette,

You assume it wasn't a cigarette. People, including police officers
ran to the GK following the shooting from Elm St. The ran there from
the overpass. Lee Bowers had a clear view of the area during the
shooting. Not one of those people ever saw a gunman. There are no
eyewitnesses for a gunman on the GK and no physical evidence of a
gunman on the GK. Smoke and mirrors is all you've got because there
was no gunman on the GK.

> and we know that there was a person there that told a police officer
> that he was Secret Service, but there was no SS people there at the
> time.  And all sorts of other evidence.

No one told anyone he was Secret Service. A guy in plain clothes
showed an officer some credentials and the officer assumed he was
Secret Service because he didn't look closely at the ID and couldn't
give a name for the person he encountered because he hadn't looked
closely. His presence there would not have precluded anyone from
seeing a gunman if one had actually been there. Nobody stopped Lee
Bowers from seeing the area behind the fence and he saw no gunman. No
one stopped the officer on the overpass from looking behind the fence
and he saw nobody. No eyewitnesses. No photographic evidence, No
physical evidence. That's a great case you've made for a shooter on
the GK.
>
> > > > > Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> > > > > > they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> > > > > > testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> > > > > > shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> > > > > > floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > >   Roger Craig said they found a Mauser, and he said so clearly.
>
> > Roger Craig said a lot of ridiculous things, none of which can be
> > corroborated. The guy was on the outside looking in on the crime of
> > the century and he made up a whole shitload of stuff to try to make it
> > seem like he was involved. If he hadn't made up all that crap, nobody
> > would know who Roger Craig was. He fed the CTs the bullshit they
> > wanted to hear and you guys ate it up and licked the bowl.
>
>   Ah! Do you have backup for that destruction of Roger Craig's
> reputation?

Roger Craig did that himself. When a guy tells a story that doesn't
fit with any of the other evidence, it's a safe bet the guy is full of
shit. But he's all you've got.

> No?  I didn't think so.  If Craig made all that up he
> could have gotten his life back by just saying so and going on.  They
> would have been glad to hear it.  Instead he put up with all the
> whackos that stuck to the crazy WC theories and made his life
> miserable.
>
Right, asshole. Everybody else was lying and Roger Craig was the only
honest guy. <snicker>


> > > You might want to look into the name
> > > 'Rosemary Willis' and see if you turn up anything that the HSCA gave
> > > some credence to.
>
> > Once again you fail to provide a scrap of hard evidence that anyone
> > except Oswald was involved. Just like CTs of the present, the HSCA
> > cherry picked witnesses to bolster their phantom shooter on the GK.
>
>   Interesting.  So you admit that the HSCA was willing to manipulate
> testimony or be selective to give an impression they wanted to give.
> And yet, if you were told that the WC did that, and the other panels
> did that, you'd make some stupid low class comment\ and deny it.
>
>   The hard evidence was stolen and much of it destroyed by the federal
> authorities after they stole the limo and the body and took possession
> of other evidence.  However, what was left was enough for thinking
> people in America to know that a scam was being perpetrated by those
> authorities.   And to this day the 5 or maore panels hasn't convinced
> anyone and the need for another is still there and being demanded.
>
That's your answer to everything. The hard evidence and your beliefs
are at polar opposites so it must be the evidence that's wrong. It
couldn't be that you are just fucked up? <snicker>

>    I certainly appreciate your help in that, since once peope get a
> load of your statements, they begfin to wonder what really happened
> back then.
>
It they believe what the evidence tells them, they will believe my
position. If they prefer fairy tales, they will be on your side.

> > If
> > the best you've got is that some witnesses said they thought the shots
> > sounded like they came from the GK, you've got nothing of value
> > because sound is a poor indicator of the direction of gunfire. If you
> > could reliably determine the source of gunfire from the sound, there
> > would be a consensus among the witnesses as to where the shots came
> > from. As it is, all we can say for sure based on what the earwitnesses
> > said is that a large group of them were wrong. The eyewitnesses all
> > placed the shooter in the TSBD.
>
> Nope.  It looks like more witnessses heard the shots coming from the
> GK area, including DPD officers that were right in front of the TSBD.
>
I don't suppose you'd care to cite your source for the numbers who
thought the shots came from the GK as opposed to those who thought
they came from the direction of the TSBD. Of course you want. You say
things just because they sound good to you whether you can back them
up or not. The fact there is considerable disagreement about the
source of the shots shows just how unreliable an indicator sound was.
If it was a reliable indicator, most if not all of the witnesses would
have pointed to the same location. They didn't do that so that tells
us sound is not a reliable indicator. We know a large number of people
simply got it wrong. They can't possibly all be right.


> > > > > > > > It was as obvious as in the Reagan attempt but because Reagan didn't
> > > > > > > > die, the charlatans realized there was no money to be made by spinning
> > > > > > > > tales of a conspiracy in a failed assassination attempt. Oswald could
> > > > > > > > have been arrested at the scene with smoking gun in his, just as
> > > > > > > > Sirhan was, and you dumbfucks would still be claiming there was a
> > > > > > > > conspiracy, just as you've done with RFK's murder.
>
> > > > > > >   LOL!  Well, that's true at least!  I'll give you 1 point for truth
> > > > > > > this time.  Now you're up to 1 point altogether.  Actually, even a
> > > > > > > failed attempt on a president has news value and can be spun for a
> > > > > > > long after with many different slants, so your contention is
> > > > > > > discarded.
>
> > > > > > It has news value. Nobody gets rich selling news.
>
> > >   You might want to look into a guy named Randolph Hearst...:)
>
> > You might want to watch Citizen Kane whose title character was based
> > on Hearst. I don't remember the exact quote but it went something like
> > this. "I lost a million dollars last year. I will lose a million
> > dollars this year. I will lose a million dollars next year. At that
> > rate, I will go broke in 40 years",
>
>   LOL!  So you present a fictional movie to prove that Hearst was
> broke in real life?  I wonder how you will explain his huge property
> 'Hearst Castle' ('San Simeon').  Which was worth more than a fortune,
> and could have supported him the rest of his life by now and then
> selling a 'knick-knack'.
>
Hearst was born into wealth. He didn't get it from his newspaper
empire. He use his inherited wealth to acquire that empire and he used
his newspapers to influence public opinion. I never claimed that
Hearst said what Kane did in the movie. The point was that he was
already rich before he got into the newspaper business and he didn't
rely on his newpapers to build his wealth.
Amazing how many things you assume that are wrong. You got one right.
I'll let you try to figure out which one.

> > > Or would no one give a damn because they didn't
> > > think there was a conspiracy involved at all?
>
> > Conspiracy theories aren't born because people think there was a
> > conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are born because people want to
> > believe there was a conspiracy.
>
>   Think about what you just said...:)
>
I thought about it BEFORE I wrote it. The only reason people believe
there was a conspiracy to kill JFK is because they want to believe
that. That don't want to believe that something so awful could have
happened because a little loser stuck a cheap rifle out a window and
shot him. But that is what the evidence tells us. There is no reason
to believe there was anything more to it than that.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Apr 23, 2012, 1:50:38 PM4/23/12
to
You can't have a reasonable conversation with Bigdog-did he actually
say there was no evidence Hoover covered anything up? You might as well
say there is no evidence the single bullet theory is anything but100%
fact and anyone who says otherwise is a communist he! he!...Laz

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 23, 2012, 3:07:40 PM4/23/12
to
In article <4591-4F95...@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>You can't have a reasonable conversation with Bigdog


Of course not!

You can't have a "reasonable" conversation with *ANYONE* who's willing to lie to
retain their faith.

That's why most of the kooks are on my killfile list. They *willingly* lie to
promote their theory. But theories based on lies are worthless.


>-did he actually
>say there was no evidence Hoover covered anything up? You might as well
>say there is no evidence the single bullet theory is anything but 100%
>fact and anyone who says otherwise is a communist he! he!...Laz

Say... that's a pretty good emulation of a kook! :)


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

bigdog

unread,
Apr 23, 2012, 7:23:40 PM4/23/12
to
OK, Laz, here's your chance to strut your stuff. List three things
Hoover covered up. Can't do it? How about just one?

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 23, 2012, 7:55:40 PM4/23/12
to
On Apr 23, 12:19 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:50 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 10:00 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 8:11 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 10:42 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 7:25 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:12 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 9:12 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 20, 10:12 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >  I take his words that he said out loud as meaning a certain thing
> > > > because I believe Hoover was fully aware of the plot, and may have
> > > > contributed to it.
>
> > > Mind reading.
>
> >   Nope.  Just my belief, which I openly stated.
>
> I see. So when I read Hoover's words and believe he meant what he
> said, I'm reading his mind, but you are free to read they saw words
> and assume he meant exactly the opposite what he said. Typical of the
> fucked up way you look at everything in this case.
>
Nope. Once again you wandered off into Wonderland. You heard what
he said and acted like you knew what he was thinking, that he was
being completely on the up and up. But earlier you admitted that
politicians lie, so that means that you had to read his mind to know
if he was telling the truth or not. I saw his wi=ords and they were
said in such a way as to suggest duplicity, a matrural political kind
of action. Try and stay with it, eh?

> > > > But you're reading his mind without him saying
> > > > anything.  There's a difference, but you have to be of average
> > > > intelligence to see it.
>
> > > Yes there's a difference. I read what Hoover said and believe he meant
> > > what he said. You read what he said and claim he meant exactly the
> > > opposite of what he said.
>
> >    Hmm.  And I remember you agreeing that politicians lie, and yet
> > you're ready to believe whatever ol' Hoover said.
>
> When politicians lie, it is usually when they are in public because
> they are trying to deceive the public. That isn't the case with what
> he was telling privately to LBJ. When Hoover told LBJ Oswald was the
> assassin, I believe him because that is what the evidence dictates.
>
'Usually'? So there are cases that they lie and they're not in
public? OK, was this one of them? First, he didn't say "Oswald was
the assassin". He said the people had to be convinced that Oswald was
the 'real' assassin. Big difference. You tried to say it like it was
so, and Hoover said it like it wasn't and had to be impressed on
people. To be sure of what we're talking about, that you wiped out,
here it is again:
"Hoover noted the need to have "something issued so we can convince
the public that Oswald is the real assassin,"


> > Naah, not logical.
> > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as you
> > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like the
> > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
Nope. But maybe by Hoover.

> > > And I will agree with you that it only takes
> > > a person of average intelligence to figure out which one of us is
> > > engaging in mind reading.
> > > > > You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
> > > > > > up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
> > > > > > could read it 45 years later?  I don't think so.
>
> > > > > Typical of the lame bullshit you come up with when you can't cite any
> > > > > evidence to support the stupid things you say, which is just about
> > > > > everything you say.
>
> > > >   So as usual, you have fallen down to your normal level of ad hominem
> > > > comments when you have no facts ofrsensible logic to provide.
>
> > > You have earned everyone of the ad hominem attacks. You are a coward,
> > > a liar, and a dumbfuck. Hell of a combination.
>
> >   LOL!  You've got it so bad, you respond from an accusation of ad
> > hominem with more of the same...:)
>
> Just calling a spade a spade and a cowardly lying dumbfuck a cowardly,
> lying dumfuck.
>
And full of repetition besides! Really losing it there ol'
fella...:)
OK. But if I take over your job like that, what'll you do? Not
that you did so much anyway, but I hate to see you sit idly by...:)

> > > > Sort of like
> > > > living in a mud mire and getting nowhere trying to get out...:)  I've
> > > > already mentioned a number of witnesses that saw folks including the
> > > > smoke from other than smoking behind the fence on the GK.  Look back
> > > > if you're not too lazy.
>
> > > You have provided no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the GK. You
> > > have provided no weapon that was fired from the GK. You have provided
> > > no bullets fired from the GK. You have provided no spent shells that
> > > were found on the GK. You can provide no qualified medical examiner
> > > who claims there is any medical evidence of shots fired from anywhere
> > > except the TSBD.
>
> >   Actually, neither can you as far as the 'nest' is concerned.  All
> > the evidence was co-opted by the FBI who showed themselves notorious
> > at losing things and misplacing bullets and such.
>
> Typical. The evidence won't support your position so you dismiss the
> evidence. You have to conjure your beliefs out of thin air because you
> have nothing to support them as you have demonstrated over and over
> again with your continued evasions.
>
I didn't dismiss the evidence, your best buddies the FBI did, or
lost it or mixed it up or whatever.

> > We have all those things for the shooter in the TSBD.
>
> >  Nope.  See above.
>
> You are in denial. All that evidence exists and you simply can't deal
> with it so you choose to ignore it. What an asshole!!!
>
All kinds of evidence exists, but you won't look at it, or you
dismiss it, or fall asleep when it's being discussed. What a loser.

> > > We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
> > > continue to swing and miss.
>
> >   I don't remember saying the GK was the one and only place a shooter
> > could be, though it's one of the better possibilities, since there
> > were so many witnesses that felt the shots came from there.
>
> You can't produce and ounce of hard evidence of a shooter anywhere
> except in the TSBD. You've demonstrated that over and over again.
> There were no EYEwitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
>
Whoa! Getting a bit up tight, eh? There is not evidence that a
shooter took out JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Maybe from the
Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.

> >  We know a
> > few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we know that
> > smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a cigarette,
>
> You assume it wasn't a cigarette. People, including police officers
> ran to the GK following the shooting from Elm St. The ran there from
> the overpass. Lee Bowers had a clear view of the area during the
> shooting. Not one of those people ever saw a gunman. There are no
> eyewitnesses for a gunman on the GK and no physical evidence of a
> gunman on the GK. Smoke and mirrors is all you've got because there
> was no gunman on the GK.
>
Well, I found a big list of the people that sw stuff on the GK on
the murder day. Here it is...record the names as they go by:
Why do you suppose Lee Bowers said that he saw so little when others
saw more? He had a good view, though a bit far away. Here's the full
story of Lee Bowers, with all the friends of his commenting on what he
said beyond what he was afraid to say to the WC, and his untimely
death, where he told ambulance attendants he felt 'drugged' before he
hit an abutment on the highway.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt Lee Bowers full story

> > and we know that there was a person there that told a police officer
> > that he was Secret Service, but there was no SS people there at the
> > time.  And all sorts of other evidence.
>
> No one told anyone he was Secret Service. A guy in plain clothes
> showed an officer some credentials and the officer assumed he was
> Secret Service because he didn't look closely at the ID and couldn't
> give a name for the person he encountered because he hadn't looked
> closely. His presence there would not have precluded anyone from
> seeing a gunman if one had actually been there. Nobody stopped Lee
> Bowers from seeing the area behind the fence and he saw no gunman. No
> one stopped the officer on the overpass from looking behind the fence
> and he saw nobody. No eyewitnesses. No photographic evidence, No
> physical evidence. That's a great case you've made for a shooter on
> the GK.
>
See video above. Many people agree...they 'corroborate' each
other...:) So a DPD officer sees a guy with 'credentials' and you
think that's nothing? What 'credentials'? What's the guy doing
there? Who is he? The Secret Service said they had no one there.

>
> > > > > > Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> > > > > > > they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> > > > > > > testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> > > > > > > shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> > > > > > > floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > > >   Roger Craig said they found a Mauser, and he said so clearly.
>
> > > Roger Craig said a lot of ridiculous things, none of which can be
> > > corroborated. The guy was on the outside looking in on the crime of
> > > the century and he made up a whole shitload of stuff to try to make it
> > > seem like he was involved. If he hadn't made up all that crap, nobody
> > > would know who Roger Craig was. He fed the CTs the bullshit they
> > > wanted to hear and you guys ate it up and licked the bowl.
>
> >   Ah! Do you have backup for that destruction of Roger Craig's
> > reputation?
>
> Roger Craig did that himself. When a guy tells a story that doesn't
> fit with any of the other evidence, it's a safe bet the guy is full of
> shit. But he's all you've got.

Nope. Won't do. You tried to scuttle out of a question with bul l
for an answer. When a guy tells a story that doesn't fit with other
evidence, look for a whistleblower and something wrong going on. As to
all I've got, check the video with all the names:
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

>
> > No?  I didn't think so.  If Craig made all that up he
> > could have gotten his life back by just saying so and going on.  They
> > would have been glad to hear it.  Instead he put up with all the
> > whackos that stuck to the crazy WC theories and made his life
> > miserable.
>
> Right, asshole. Everybody else was lying and Roger Craig was the only
> honest guy. <snicker>
>
Or the only whistleblower that wasn't afraid to tel lthe truth even
when his life was threatened.

> > > > You might want to look into the name
> > > > 'Rosemary Willis' and see if you turn up anything that the HSCA gave
> > > > some credence to.
>
> > > Once again you fail to provide a scrap of hard evidence that anyone
> > > except Oswald was involved. Just like CTs of the present, the HSCA
> > > cherry picked witnesses to bolster their phantom shooter on the GK.
>
> >   Interesting.  So you admit that the HSCA was willing to manipulate
> > testimony or be selective to give an impression they wanted to give.
> > And yet, if you were told that the WC did that, and the other panels
> > did that, you'd make some stupid low class comment and deny it.
>
> >   The hard evidence was stolen and much of it destroyed by the federal
> > authorities after they stole the limo and the body and took possession
> > of other evidence.  However, what was left was enough for thinking
> > people in America to know that a scam was being perpetrated by those
> > authorities.   And to this day the 5 or maore panels hasn't convinced
> > anyone and the need for another is still there and being demanded.
>
> That's your answer to everything. The hard evidence and your beliefs
> are at polar opposites so it must be the evidence that's wrong. It
> couldn't be that you are just fucked up? <snicker>
>
So you're not able to admit that the limo was stolen against the
law, and the body was stolen at gunpoint against the law, and the
federal authorities had control of all evidence they could get their
sweaty little hands on?
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

> >    I certainly appreciate your help in that, since once people get a
> > load of your statements, they begin to wonder what really happened
> > back then.
>
> It they believe what the evidence tells them, they will believe my
> position. If they prefer fairy tales, they will be on your side.
>
> > > If
> > > the best you've got is that some witnesses said they thought the shots
> > > sounded like they came from the GK, you've got nothing of value
> > > because sound is a poor indicator of the direction of gunfire. If you
> > > could reliably determine the source of gunfire from the sound, there
> > > would be a consensus among the witnesses as to where the shots came
> > > from. As it is, all we can say for sure based on what the earwitnesses
> > > said is that a large group of them were wrong. The eyewitnesses all
> > > placed the shooter in the TSBD.
>
> > Nope.  It looks like more witnessses heard the shots coming from the
> > GK area, including DPD officers that were right in front of the TSBD.
>
> I don't suppose you'd care to cite your source for the numbers who
> thought the shots came from the GK as opposed to those who thought
> they came from the direction of the TSBD. Of course you want. You say
> things just because they sound good to you whether you can back them
> up or not. The fact there is considerable disagreement about the
> source of the shots shows just how unreliable an indicator sound was.
> If it was a reliable indicator, most if not all of the witnesses would
> have pointed to the same location. They didn't do that so that tells
> us sound is not a reliable indicator. We know a large number of people
> simply got it wrong. They can't possibly all be right.
>
That's odd. I was thinking that you were the one that said things
because they sounded good to you without providing any backup. When
you read the various DPD testimonies, most of them say they headed for
the GK because the shots seemed to come from there and most people
were heading up that way, or looking up there.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
Better check Hearst's bio. He built a nespaper and media empire,
the nhe built San Simeon. Either way, he had the money and he wasn't
crying poverty as you suggested.
Easy. You loved Richard Nixon. He had a cute smile. And I didn't
assume anything, fool. Look carefully and see the question marks in
the sentence, giving you an opportunity to say it ain't so.

> > > > Or would no one give a damn because they didn't
> > > > think there was a conspiracy involved at all?
>
> > > Conspiracy theories aren't born because people think there was a
> > > conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are born because people want to
> > > believe there was a conspiracy.
>
> >   Think about what you just said...:)
>
> I thought about it BEFORE I wrote it. The only reason people believe
> there was a conspiracy to kill JFK is because they want to believe
> that. That don't want to believe that something so awful could have
> happened because a little loser stuck a cheap rifle out a window and
> shot him. But that is what the evidence tells us. There is no reason
> to believe there was anything more to it than that.

If the evidence was so clear cut, no one would have questioned it.
But it was a mess. They screwed up trying to implicate Oswald in
Mexico City and elsewhere, and then they made a mess of the evidence,
having to steal it away so no innocent person would find the wrong
things. People thought that the excuse for a lone nut was so thin and
full of crap they were on the verge of rioting. The WC kept it down,
but was so badly done that the people soon arose again...and again,
etc.
So obvious I shouldn't have to tell you. But the obvious part is
that it would be kept quiet andso not be available for us to see.
Use your head.

> >   Actually, neither you nor I can say one way or the other, as noted
> > above.  Ya see, you don't know either and are just guessing.  Neither
> > LBJ nor Hoover would pass on to us who else was talking to LBJ.  You
> > can be sure that if LBJ was part of the conspiracy, or even the main
> > man, he would be talking to others in the cabal about the efforts to
> > cover it all up.
>
> > > > > > > When you previously got your ass kicked.
>
> > > > > > Naah...:)
>
> > > > > You really are a glutton for punishment. I'll bet you love it when
> > > > > your mommy spanks you.
>
> > > >   It taught me how to do it to you, and I have been finding that very
> > > > satisfying.
>
> > > I'm sure that is true. Not often we get honesty from you.
>
> > > > Since I'm the main provider of backup and information,
> > > > and you just throw in an occasional low class insult...:)
>
> > > Your continued refusal to provide a shred of evidence that anybody but
> > > Oswald was involved is duly noted.
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

> >    Bull.  I've provided info until the cows come home.  You are much
> > more likely to blat out something and not provide backup, and the
> > evidence has been spoken of through this thread.  Let the onlookers
> > decide...:)
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Apr 23, 2012, 9:25:22 PM4/23/12
to
On Apr 23, 7:55 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:19 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 8:50 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 10:00 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 8:11 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 10:42 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 7:25 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:12 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 9:12 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 20, 10:12 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >  I take his words that he said out loud as meaning a certain thing
> > > > > because I believe Hoover was fully aware of the plot, and may have
> > > > > contributed to it.
>
> > > > Mind reading.
>
> > >   Nope.  Just my belief, which I openly stated.
>
> > I see. So when I read Hoover's words and believe he meant what he
> > said, I'm reading his mind, but you are free to read they saw words
> > and assume he meant exactly the opposite what he said. Typical of the
> > fucked up way you look at everything in this case.
>
>   Nope.  Once again you wandered off into Wonderland.  You heard what
> he said and acted like you knew what he was thinking, that he was
> being completely on the up and up.

This from the dumbfuck who thinks Hoover meant just the opposite of
what he actually said.

> But earlier you admitted that
> politicians lie, so that means that you had to read his mind to know
> if he was telling the truth or not.

First of all, Hoover was not a politician. He was a bureaucrat, but I
wouldn't expect someone of your limited mental faculties to understand
the difference. I don't need to be able to read Hoover's mind to know
what he was teilling LBJ was accurate because there is a shitload of
evidence that tells us Oswald was the assassin. You on the other hand
take the illogical leap of faith that Hoover was lying to LBJ with no
evidence whatsoever to support that belief. But that's what dumbfucks
do.

>I saw his wi=ords and they were
> said in such a way as to suggest duplicity, a matrural political kind
> of action.  Try and stay with it, eh?
>
This last statement is ludicrous even by your exceptional low
standards of reason and logic. How the fuck can you tell how somebody
said something by reading a transcript. Just one ridiculous assumption
after another. I'm sorry for having underestimated you. When I saw
Waltards had returned, I demoted you to the #2 dumbest person on this
board. I realize now I was too hasty. You have risen to the top.
Congratulations.

> > > > > But you're reading his mind without him saying
> > > > > anything.  There's a difference, but you have to be of average
> > > > > intelligence to see it.
>
> > > > Yes there's a difference. I read what Hoover said and believe he meant
> > > > what he said. You read what he said and claim he meant exactly the
> > > > opposite of what he said.
>
> > >    Hmm.  And I remember you agreeing that politicians lie, and yet
> > > you're ready to believe whatever ol' Hoover said.
>
> > When politicians lie, it is usually when they are in public because
> > they are trying to deceive the public. That isn't the case with what
> > he was telling privately to LBJ. When Hoover told LBJ Oswald was the
> > assassin, I believe him because that is what the evidence dictates.
>
>   'Usually'? So there are cases that they lie and they're not in
> public?  OK, was this one of them?  First, he didn't say "Oswald was
> the assassin".  He said the people had to be convinced that Oswald was
> the 'real' assassin.  Big difference.  You tried to say it like it was
> so, and Hoover said it like it wasn't and had to be impressed on
> people.  To be sure of what we're talking about, that you wiped out,
> here it is again:

Keep up the illogical thought process. It should keep you in the dark
for another 48 years.

> "Hoover noted the need to have "something issued so we can convince
> the public that Oswald is the real assassin,"
>
Gee, I don't suppose it crossed that dysfunctional mind of yours that
Hoover wanted to convince the American people that Oswald was the
assassin because Oswald was the assassin. Of course it didn't because
that is the logical explaination.

> > > Naah, not logical.
> > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as you
> > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like the
> > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
>   Nope.  But maybe by Hoover.
>
No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.

> > > > And I will agree with you that it only takes
> > > > a person of average intelligence to figure out which one of us is
> > > > engaging in mind reading.
> > > > > > You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
> > > > > > > up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
> > > > > > > could read it 45 years later?  I don't think so.
>
> > > > > > Typical of the lame bullshit you come up with when you can't cite any
> > > > > > evidence to support the stupid things you say, which is just about
> > > > > > everything you say.
>
> > > > >   So as usual, you have fallen down to your normal level of ad hominem
> > > > > comments when you have no facts ofrsensible logic to provide.
>
> > > > You have earned everyone of the ad hominem attacks. You are a coward,
> > > > a liar, and a dumbfuck. Hell of a combination.
>
> > >   LOL!  You've got it so bad, you respond from an accusation of ad
> > > hominem with more of the same...:)
>
> > Just calling a spade a spade and a cowardly lying dumbfuck a cowardly,
> > lying dumfuck.
>
>   And full of repetition besides!  Really losing it there ol'
> fella...:)
>
Well yes, I guess it does go without saying that you are a cowardly
lying dumbfuck.
This sounds like a rewording of the schoolyard comeback, "Oh yeah, so
are you". is this really the best you've got.

> > > > > Sort of like
> > > > > living in a mud mire and getting nowhere trying to get out...:)  I've
> > > > > already mentioned a number of witnesses that saw folks including the
> > > > > smoke from other than smoking behind the fence on the GK.  Look back
> > > > > if you're not too lazy.
>
> > > > You have provided no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the GK. You
> > > > have provided no weapon that was fired from the GK. You have provided
> > > > no bullets fired from the GK. You have provided no spent shells that
> > > > were found on the GK. You can provide no qualified medical examiner
> > > > who claims there is any medical evidence of shots fired from anywhere
> > > > except the TSBD.
>
> > >   Actually, neither can you as far as the 'nest' is concerned.  All
> > > the evidence was co-opted by the FBI who showed themselves notorious
> > > at losing things and misplacing bullets and such.
>
> > Typical. The evidence won't support your position so you dismiss the
> > evidence. You have to conjure your beliefs out of thin air because you
> > have nothing to support them as you have demonstrated over and over
> > again with your continued evasions.
>
>   I didn't dismiss the evidence, your best buddies the FBI did, or
> lost it or mixed it up or whatever.
>
No they presented it. You rejected it. You wanted to believe something
that there was no evidence of.

> > > We have all those things for the shooter in the TSBD.
>
> > >  Nope.  See above.
>
> > You are in denial. All that evidence exists and you simply can't deal
> > with it so you choose to ignore it. What an asshole!!!
>
>   All kinds of evidence exists, but you won't look at it, or you
> dismiss it, or fall asleep when it's being discussed.  What a loser.
>
<snicker, snicker> You keep saying that without ever being able to
state what that evidence is. You just keep lying and evading. You
remind me of the Kevin Costner character Ray in Field of Dreams when
he tries to kidnap Terrence Mann played by James Earl Jones. He put
his finger in his jacket pocket and tried to pretend he had a gun.
When Mann called his bluff and said "Show me your gun", Ray responded,
"I'm not going to show you my gun". That's you in a nutshell. You have
nothing but a finger in your pocket and you're trying to pretend you
have a gun. You are fooling nobody.

> > > > We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
> > > > continue to swing and miss.
>
> > >   I don't remember saying the GK was the one and only place a shooter
> > > could be, though it's one of the better possibilities, since there
> > > were so many witnesses that felt the shots came from there.
>
> > You can't produce and ounce of hard evidence of a shooter anywhere
> > except in the TSBD. You've demonstrated that over and over again.
> > There were no EYEwitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
>
>   Whoa!  Getting a bit up tight, eh?  There is not evidence that a
> shooter took out JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

You mean other than shells, bullets, the rifle, fingerprints, fiber
evidence, medical evidence, and oh, yeah, several eyewitnesses who
actually saw a gunman there.

> Maybe from the
> Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
> and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.
>
We have everything we would expect to have as evidence of a shooter in
the TSBD and no evidence whatsoever of a shooter on the GK or in the
Dal-Tex but you choose to believe the shooter was in the Dal-Tex or on
the GK. Once a dumbfuck, always a dumbfuck.

> > >  We know a
> > > few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we know that
> > > smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a cigarette,
>
> > You assume it wasn't a cigarette. People, including police officers
> > ran to the GK following the shooting from Elm St. The ran there from
> > the overpass. Lee Bowers had a clear view of the area during the
> > shooting. Not one of those people ever saw a gunman. There are no
> > eyewitnesses for a gunman on the GK and no physical evidence of a
> > gunman on the GK. Smoke and mirrors is all you've got because there
> > was no gunman on the GK.
>
>   Well, I found a big list of the people that sw stuff on the GK on
> the murder day.  Here it is...record the names as they go by:

I'm sure people saw a lot of things on the GK that day.. None of them
saw a shooter or any evidence of one.

>   Why do you suppose Lee Bowers said that he saw so little when others
> saw more?  He had a good view, though a bit far away.  Here's the full
> story of Lee Bowers, with all the friends of his commenting on what he
> said beyond what he was afraid to say to the WC, and his untimely
> death, where he told ambulance attendants he felt 'drugged' before he
> hit an abutment on the highway.http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt  Lee Bowers full story
>
Of course you don't believe what Bowers told the WC, UNDER OATH, and
make wild assumptions about what he really saw with nothing to support
those assumptions. That is what dumbfucks do. And that's a great way
to rub somebody out. Drug him and hope a highway abutment gets in his
way. I guess they would have been screwed if he just ran his car into
a ditch. <snicker>

> > > and we know that there was a person there that told a police officer
> > > that he was Secret Service, but there was no SS people there at the
> > > time.  And all sorts of other evidence.
>
> > No one told anyone he was Secret Service. A guy in plain clothes
> > showed an officer some credentials and the officer assumed he was
> > Secret Service because he didn't look closely at the ID and couldn't
> > give a name for the person he encountered because he hadn't looked
> > closely. His presence there would not have precluded anyone from
> > seeing a gunman if one had actually been there. Nobody stopped Lee
> > Bowers from seeing the area behind the fence and he saw no gunman. No
> > one stopped the officer on the overpass from looking behind the fence
> > and he saw nobody. No eyewitnesses. No photographic evidence, No
> > physical evidence. That's a great case you've made for a shooter on
> > the GK.
>
>   See video above.  Many people agree...they 'corroborate' each
> other...:)

How does one person's guess corroborate another person's guess. Nobody
saw a gunman on the GK. Deal with it.

> So a DPD officer sees a guy with 'credentials' and you
> think that's nothing?  What 'credentials'?  What's the guy doing
> there?  Who is he?  The Secret Service said they had no one there.
>
We don't know for sure who he was because the cop never IDed him, but
Bugliosi offers several plausible explainations of who it could have
been. Plain clothes guys who were known to have been there. A rational
person doesn't take unknowns and make assumptions as to what the
answer is. That's what dumbfucks do.
>
>
> > > > > > > Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> > > > > > > > they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> > > > > > > > testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> > > > > > > > shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> > > > > > > > floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > > > >   Roger Craig said they found a Mauser, and he said so clearly.
>
> > > > Roger Craig said a lot of ridiculous things, none of which can be
> > > > corroborated. The guy was on the outside looking in on the crime of
> > > > the century and he made up a whole shitload of stuff to try to make it
> > > > seem like he was involved. If he hadn't made up all that crap, nobody
> > > > would know who Roger Craig was. He fed the CTs the bullshit they
> > > > wanted to hear and you guys ate it up and licked the bowl.
>
> > >   Ah! Do you have backup for that destruction of Roger Craig's
> > > reputation?
>
> > Roger Craig did that himself. When a guy tells a story that doesn't
> > fit with any of the other evidence, it's a safe bet the guy is full of
> > shit. But he's all you've got.
>
> Nope.  Won't do.  You tried to scuttle out of a question with bul l
> for an answer.  When a guy tells a story that doesn't fit with other
> evidence, look for a whistleblower and something wrong going on. As to
> all I've got, check the video with all the names:http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
No sensible person is going to believe a whisteblower whose story
doesn't fit the evidence. Only dumbfucks do that. Name one
whistleblower who ever made a case based on nothing but there own
claims. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
The limo was not stolen against the law. It was federal property. No
warrant had been issued for it. It was taken back to Washington and
searched for evidence by law enforcement personnel.

> and the body was stolen at gunpoint against the law,

Another bald faced lie. Nobody drew their guns at Parkland.

> and the
> federal authorities had control of all evidence they could get their
> sweaty little hands on?http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
Let me give you a primer on logical thinking. When two groups of
people give differing versions of an event that are mutually
exclusive, we know at least one of those two groups has to be wrong.
It is possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible they
could both be right. So how can we tell which group, if any is
correct. We could just assume the group that supports what we want to
believe is the group that is right. That is the dumbfuck approach. Or
we can look at other forms of evidence to figure out which group is
right. In this case we have one large group of EARwitnesses who say
all the shots came from the GK and another large group of EARwitnesses
that say all the shots came from the direction of the TBSD. Mutual
exclusivity. At least one of them is wrong. Do we have other forms of
evidence. Yes we do!!! We have several EYEwitnesses who saw a shooter
at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor of the TSDB. Lo and
behold, they found three spent shells at that window. Lo and behold,
they found a rifle across the floor from that window. Lo and behold,
it was proven that rifle fired those spent shells. Lo and behold, that
rifle also fired the two bullets that were recovered. Lo and behold,
that rifle belonged to a TSBD employee whose fingerprints were at the
window, on a bag found next to the window large enough to hold the
rifle, and an eyewitness IDed him as the shooter. Pretty good
corroboration for those who say the shots came from the TSBD. And what
do we have to corroborate those who say the shots came from the GK.
Zero, Zip. Nada. Just a whole shitload of assumptions by a whole
shitload of dumbfucks.

> When
> you read the various DPD testimonies, most of them say they headed for
> the GK because the shots seemed to come from there and most people
> were heading up that way, or looking up there.http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
Why don't you quote some of those witnesses' testimony and let us see
what they really said.
I'll bet you a million dollars you can't cite one thing I said that
suggests Hearst was crying poverty.
BBBBBBUZZZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

> He had a cute smile.  And I didn't
> assume anything, fool.  Look carefully and see the question marks in
> the sentence, giving you an opportunity to say it ain't so.
>
> > > > > Or would no one give a damn because they didn't
> > > > > think there was a conspiracy involved at all?
>
> > > > Conspiracy theories aren't born because people think there was a
> > > > conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are born because people want to
> > > > believe there was a conspiracy.
>
> > >   Think about what you just said...:)
>
> > I thought about it BEFORE I wrote it. The only reason people believe
> > there was a conspiracy to kill JFK is because they want to believe
> > that. That don't want to believe that something so awful could have
> > happened because a little loser stuck a cheap rifle out a window and
> > shot him. But that is what the evidence tells us. There is no reason
> > to believe there was anything more to it than that.
>
>   If the evidence was so clear cut, no one would have questioned it.

Complete bullshit. You must believe the evidence isn't clear that 9/11
was a terrorist attack since a whole lot of people have questioned
that.

> But it was a mess.  They screwed up trying to implicate Oswald in
> Mexico City and elsewhere, and then they made a mess of the evidence,

Why would they even bother trying to prove Oswald went to Mexico if it
wasn't so. It does little if anything to make the case against him. If
they never found out about his Mexico trip, the case against him would
be just as strong.

> having to steal it away so no innocent person would find the wrong
> things.  People thought that the excuse for a lone nut was so thin and
> full of crap they were on the verge of rioting.  The WC kept it down,
> but was so badly done that the people soon arose again...and again,
> etc.
>
They keep rising and failing to provide any evidence that anyone
except Oswald was resposible.
Oh, I see. The dog ate your evidence.

> > >   Actually, neither you nor I can say one way or the other, as noted
> > > above.  Ya see, you don't know either and are just guessing.  Neither
> > > LBJ nor Hoover would pass on to us who else was talking to LBJ.  You
> > > can be sure that if LBJ was part of the conspiracy, or even the main
> > > man, he would be talking to others in the cabal about the efforts to
> > > cover it all up.
>
> > > > > > > > When you previously got your ass kicked.
>
> > > > > > > Naah...:)
>
> > > > > > You really are a glutton for punishment. I'll bet you love it when
> > > > > > your mommy spanks you.
>
> > > > >   It taught me how to do it to you, and I have been finding that very
> > > > > satisfying.
>
> > > > I'm sure that is true. Not often we get honesty from you.
>
> > > > > Since I'm the main provider of backup and information,
> > > > > and you just throw in an occasional low class insult...:)
>
> > > > Your continued refusal to provide a shred of evidence that anybody but
> > > > Oswald was involved is duly noted.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> > >    Bull.  I've provided info until the cows come home.  You are much
> > > more likely to blat out something and not provide backup, and the
> > > evidence has been spoken of through this thread.  Let the onlookers
> > > decide...:)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
So the best you can do is support your own wild assumptions with
somebody else's wil assumptions. I suppose you think a YouTube video
constitutes evidence.
Way to go, dumbfuck.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 24, 2012, 9:40:34 AM4/24/12
to
Nope. I didn't say Hoover lied to LBJ. It's unknown whether Hoover
and/or LBJ were in on giving the orders to carry out the murder, so I
can't say that.

> >I saw his words and they were
> > said in such a way as to suggest duplicity, a natural political kind
Nope. The whole story looked at objectively (logically) makes clear
that it was multiple shooters ordered from high up. It was clear LHO
was the patsy. They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.

> > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as you
> > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like the
> > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> >   Nope.  But maybe by Hoover.
>
> No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
You meaan that I pushed you aside and took over in your place? How
could you let it happen? Too weak to hold your position? :))
Well then, I'll leave this for folks to review:
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
Oh OK. here:
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

> > > > > We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
> > > > > continue to swing and miss.
>
> > > >   I don't remember saying the GK was the one and only place a shooter
> > > > could be, though it's one of the better possibilities, since there
> > > > were so many witnesses that felt the shots came from there.
>
> > > You can't produce and ounce of hard evidence of a shooter anywhere
> > > except in the TSBD. You've demonstrated that over and over again.
> > > There were no EYEwitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
>
> >   Whoa!  Getting a bit up tight, eh?  There is not evidence that a
> > shooter took out JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
> You mean other than shells, bullets, the rifle, fingerprints, fiber
> evidence, medical evidence, and oh, yeah, several eyewitnesses who
> actually saw a gunman there.
>
They didn't see LHO there. He was the patsy, so he would be
elsewhere and not know they were setting him up. And the guy that saw
someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
without some help from the DPD. All that to try and corroborate a
whacky WC theory.

> > Maybe from the
> > Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
> > and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.
>
> We have everything we would expect to have as evidence of a shooter in
> the TSBD and no evidence whatsoever of a shooter on the GK or in the
> Dal-Tex but you choose to believe the shooter was in the Dal-Tex or on
> the GK. Once a dumbfuck, always a dumbfuck.
>
Naah. Oswald proved that the didn't wantto be caught by anyone and
he ran away and told folks he was innocent when he had the chance. He
wasn't self-destructing. So why would he lay out all the evidence in
the 'nest and the 6th floor to be found and prove that he was guilty?
Why would they terty to set him up in advance? They were incompetent
at doing that and it fell through, but it all shows LHO as the patsy
and innocent. Besides, too many other people wanted JFK out of the
way permanently to let a little do-nothing like Oswald take the shot.
They needed a serious, competent shooter to do it and make it stick.

> > > >  We know a
> > > > few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we know that
> > > > smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a cigarette,
>
> > > You assume it wasn't a cigarette. People, including police officers
> > > ran to the GK following the shooting from Elm St. The ran there from
> > > the overpass. Lee Bowers had a clear view of the area during the
> > > shooting. Not one of those people ever saw a gunman. There are no
> > > eyewitnesses for a gunman on the GK and no physical evidence of a
> > > gunman on the GK. Smoke and mirrors is all you've got because there
> > > was no gunman on the GK.
>
> >   Well, I found a big list of the people that sw stuff on the GK on
> > the murder day.  Here it is...record the names as they go by:
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

Hmm. That link got erased. I guess I'll just put it back.

> I'm sure people saw a lot of things on the GK that day.. None of them
> saw a shooter or any evidence of one.
>
> >   Why do you suppose Lee Bowers said that he saw so little when others
> > saw more?  He had a good view, though a bit far away.  Here's the full
> > story of Lee Bowers, with all the friends of his commenting on what he
> > said beyond what he was afraid to say to the WC, and his untimely
> > death, where he told ambulance attendants he felt 'drugged' before he
> > hit an abutment on the highway.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> Of course you don't believe what Bowers told the WC, UNDER OATH, and
> make wild assumptions about what he really saw with nothing to support
> those assumptions. That is what dumbfucks do. And that's a great way
> to rub somebody out. Drug him and hope a highway abutment gets in his
> way. I guess they would have been screwed if he just ran his car into
> a ditch. <snicker>
Welp, the story doesn't make wild assumptions, certain people make
statements clearly with no motive other than to tell the truth of what
they knew. I'm sure they also (as friends of Lee Bowers) were unhappy
about the circumstances of his death. And the story includes a 'black
car' that may have helped Bowers' car off the road into the abutment.
Given that there were many strange deaths of important witnesses, it's
not so far out.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

> > > > and we know that there was a person there that told a police officer
> > > > that he was Secret Service, but there was no SS people there at the
> > > > time.  And all sorts of other evidence.
>
> > > No one told anyone he was Secret Service. A guy in plain clothes
> > > showed an officer some credentials and the officer assumed he was
> > > Secret Service because he didn't look closely at the ID and couldn't
> > > give a name for the person he encountered because he hadn't looked
> > > closely. His presence there would not have precluded anyone from
> > > seeing a gunman if one had actually been there. Nobody stopped Lee
> > > Bowers from seeing the area behind the fence and he saw no gunman. No
> > > one stopped the officer on the overpass from looking behind the fence
> > > and he saw nobody. No eyewitnesses. No photographic evidence, No
> > > physical evidence. That's a great case you've made for a shooter on
> > > the GK.
>
> >   See video above.  Many people agree...they 'corroborate' each
> > other...:)
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

>
> How does one person's guess corroborate another person's guess. Nobody
> saw a gunman on the GK. Deal with it.
Many saw something clearly suggesting a gunman on the GK. Deal with
it.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

>
> > So a DPD officer sees a guy with 'credentials' and you
> > think that's nothing?  What 'credentials'?  What's the guy doing
> > there?  Who is he?  The Secret Service said they had no one there.
>
> We don't know for sure who he was because the cop never IDed him, but
> Bugliosi offers several plausible explainations of who it could have
> been. Plain clothes guys who were known to have been there. A rational
> person doesn't take unknowns and make assumptions as to what the
> answer is. That's what dumbfucks do.
I caught Bugliosi lying about the entrance wound in JFK's neck, and
I haven't been too interested in much of anything he said after that.
He's a wannabee that saw Spector get a Senate seat for playing along
with the 'powers that be', and he wants something too. But if there
had been plainsclothes guy there, who did he work for? Wouldn't
someone come forward and say 'he was one of our guys'? They never did
though. Maybe a shooter that put his gun down somewhere? Who knows.
You certainly don't. There was certaily activity in the area of the
GK, as Lee Bowers said the the WC. and here:
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
Nope. Won't do. You have to wait for the answer before you go off
half-cocked. Now let's see: Jeffrey Wigand had all the evidence
against his statement that the cigarette companies knew that
cigarettes were dangerous and were addictive and could kill. The
studies said no, the advertising said no, and other experts said no,
but he put it out there and was proved right. Now, that's one, but
there's plenty more and you know it.
No, the limo was an important piece of evidence in a crime of
murder. Doesn't matter whose property it was, it stays in the venue
where the crime was committed. And because it was stolen, we have no
way of knowing how much evidence was wiped away, and what it might
have shown to law enforcement in Dallas. they were actually washing
the car off while they found the bullet fragments on the front floor!
And at the time there was no federal law about assassinating the
president to give them jurisdiction over the case.

They stole the limo, and they stole the body...at gunpoint even!
Why at gunpoint? Because someone knew that the body could show much
of what really happened. Instead, it was put in the hands of
incompetents to do an autopsy that was a travesty of foolishness and
lost much of the evidence. Was that intentional? Could be. How
could it be done that badly otherwise? Normally, the murder of a
president would have everyone doing ther utmost to do their job
perfectly, or as close to perfect as possible. Humes and his crew
would have begged off doing an autopsy of a shooting death becasue the
knew enough to know they didn't know what to do in such a case. But
they didn't. They were military and had to follow their orders.
Another autopsy specialist castigated them for the incompetent job
they did.

> > and the body was stolen at gunpoint against the law,
>
> Another bald faced lie. Nobody drew their guns at Parkland.

LOL! Well, you walked into that one. Your favorite author V.
Bugliosi in his book "Reclaiming History" says they took the body and
had the Medical Examiner at gunpoint against the wall at Parkland and
then they stole the body. It was also against the wishes of a Judge
Theron Ward who was a justice of the peace there at the time. Look at
page 110 at 2:04pm at:
http://tinyurl.com/cgjqd8s
Ah well. I guess you won't look at the witness statements that
speak of shooters at the GK.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt

>
> > When
> > you read the various DPD testimonies, most of them say they headed for
> > the GK because the shots seemed to come from there and most people
> > were heading up that way, or looking up there.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> Why don't you quote some of those witnesses' testimony and let us see
> what they really said.
>
Oh alright. Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI

That video contains many witnesees at the shooting coming from the
GK, including Gordon Arnold, who had his film confiscated by a guy in
DPD uniform. Mary Ann Moorman, and a lady named Beverly who had her
film taken from her and never returned. Plus others. Rnjoy...:)
No problem. First, you stated "Nobody gets rich selling news.", then
you quoted from the Citizen Kane movie as follows: I lost a million
dollars last year. I will lose a million dollars this year. I will
lose a million dollars next year. At that rate, I will go broke in 40
years". Anyone would take your comments to mean that Hearst wasn't
making any money at the newspaper business, which is total bull.
Oh Shucks! You mean it was Reagan that raised taxes so much?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-we-should-too-echoes.html

>
> > He had a cute smile.  And I didn't
> > assume anything, fool.  Look carefully and see the question marks in
> > the sentence, giving you an opportunity to say it ain't so.
>
> > > > > > Or would no one give a damn because they didn't
> > > > > > think there was a conspiracy involved at all?
>
> > > > > Conspiracy theories aren't born because people think there was a
> > > > > conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are born because people want to
> > > > > believe there was a conspiracy.
>
> > > >   Think about what you just said...:)
>
> > > I thought about it BEFORE I wrote it. The only reason people believe
> > > there was a conspiracy to kill JFK is because they want to believe
> > > that. That don't want to believe that something so awful could have
> > > happened because a little loser stuck a cheap rifle out a window and
> > > shot him. But that is what the evidence tells us. There is no reason
> > > to believe there was anything more to it than that.
>
> >   If the evidence was so clear cut, no one would have questioned it.
>
> Complete bullshit. You must believe the evidence isn't clear that 9/11
> was a terrorist attack since a whole lot of people have questioned
> that.
>
True.

> > But it was a mess.  They screwed up trying to implicate Oswald in
> > Mexico City and elsewhere, and then they made a mess of the evidence,
>
> Why would they even bother trying to prove Oswald went to Mexico if it
> wasn't so. It does little if anything to make the case against him. If
> they never found out about his Mexico trip, the case against him would
> be just as strong.
>
You have to remember you're dealing with incompetent federal
authorities. They thought they would get away with the faking ofr
Oswald going to Mexico City, but they didn't do their job very well
and they weren't believed.
> > that it would be kept quiet and so not be available for us to see.
A video is impressive and people can se whether a witness is honest
or false. Harder to see in a record of testimony, which you like so
much.

For those new to the subjext, here are some videos of witrnesses at
or near the Grassy Knoll, one of the possible locations of shooters:
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Apr 24, 2012, 2:00:07 PM4/24/12
to
So you don't even know what you believe. Why am I not surprised.
That is "clear" only to people who believe things on faith and not
hard evidence. That hard evidence points to LHO alone.

>It was clear LHO
> was the patsy.

As I was saying...

> They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
There's that fucking "They" again.

> > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as you
> > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like the
> > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > >   Nope.  But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
>   You meaan that I pushed you aside and took over in your place?  How
> could you let it happen?  Too weak to hold your position?  :))
>
When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
Now that's hysterical. I ask for evidence and you give us a YouTube
video with 7 minutes of assumptions, inuendos, and hearsay. Not one
witness who testified to seeing a gunman. Not one ounce of physical
evdidence of a shooter on the GK. People who said they though it
sounded like the shots came from the GK. BFD. We have lots of other
people who said the shots all the shots came from the TSBD. Those
people are corroborated by hard physical evidence. There is no
physical evidence to corroborate the witnesses who thought the shots
came from the GK. So why do you choose to believe the witnesses who
aren't corroborated and reject the ones that are? You give us a guy
who claims Bower told him he saw shooters. That is completely at odds
with what he testified to. He didn't even tell Mark Lane that. Yet we
are supposed to believe that Bozo. That's the nice thing about
claiming dead people have said something to you. They won't be able to
contradict you. Not one thing in that video would have been admitted
in court because not one thing in there constitutes evidence. Now I
know why you wanted to keep your finger in your pocket. Once you
showed it, we could see it wasn't a gun.

> > > > > > We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
> > > > > > continue to swing and miss.
>
> > > > >   I don't remember saying the GK was the one and only place a shooter
> > > > > could be, though it's one of the better possibilities, since there
> > > > > were so many witnesses that felt the shots came from there.
>
> > > > You can't produce and ounce of hard evidence of a shooter anywhere
> > > > except in the TSBD. You've demonstrated that over and over again.
> > > > There were no EYEwitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
>
> > >   Whoa!  Getting a bit up tight, eh?  There is not evidence that a
> > > shooter took out JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
> > You mean other than shells, bullets, the rifle, fingerprints, fiber
> > evidence, medical evidence, and oh, yeah, several eyewitnesses who
> > actually saw a gunman there.
>
>   They didn't see LHO there.  He was the patsy, so he would be
> elsewhere and not know they were setting him up.

That's why his fingerprints are all over the place. Just what evidence
do you have that Oswald was elsewhere. As if there's any chance you
will even attempt to answer that.

> And the guy that saw
> someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> without some help from the DPD.  All that to try and corroborate a
> whacky WC theory.
>
He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.

> > > Maybe from the
> > > Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
> > > and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.
>
> > We have everything we would expect to have as evidence of a shooter in
> > the TSBD and no evidence whatsoever of a shooter on the GK or in the
> > Dal-Tex but you choose to believe the shooter was in the Dal-Tex or on
> > the GK. Once a dumbfuck, always a dumbfuck.
>
>   Naah.  Oswald proved that the didn't wantto be caught by anyone and
> he ran away and told folks he was innocent when he had the chance.  He
> wasn't self-destructing.  So why would he lay out all the evidence in
> the 'nest and the 6th floor to be found and prove that he was guilty?

You think it would make more sense to try to sneak out of the TSBD
carrying all that incriminating evidence. That is how a dumbfuck would
think. Oswald wasn't a dumbfuck.

> Why would they terty to set him up in advance?  They were incompetent
> at doing that and it fell through, but it all shows LHO as the patsy
> and innocent.  Besides, too many other people wanted JFK out of the
> way permanently to let a little do-nothing like Oswald take the shot.
> They needed a serious, competent shooter to do it and make it stick.
>
You make the assumption that because JFK had enemies, they would try
to kill him. Every president has enemies. But it is almost always the
screwballs who try to kill them and they do it all by themselves.
Guiteay. Czolgolz, Fromme, Moore, Hinckley. And Oswald.

> > > > >  We know a
> > > > > few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we know that
> > > > > smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a cigarette,
>
> > > > You assume it wasn't a cigarette. People, including police officers
> > > > ran to the GK following the shooting from Elm St. The ran there from
> > > > the overpass. Lee Bowers had a clear view of the area during the
> > > > shooting. Not one of those people ever saw a gunman. There are no
> > > > eyewitnesses for a gunman on the GK and no physical evidence of a
> > > > gunman on the GK. Smoke and mirrors is all you've got because there
> > > > was no gunman on the GK.
>
> > >   Well, I found a big list of the people that sw stuff on the GK on
> > > the murder day.  Here it is...record the names as they go by:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
Those people didn't see anything that shows there was a gunman. A
modern rifle gives off very little smoke. Much less than a person
exhaling a cigarette. They found cigarette butts on the GK. Nobody
found a rifle.

> Hmm.  That link got erased.  I guess I'll just put it back.
>
> > I'm sure people saw a lot of things on the GK that day.. None of them
> > saw a shooter or any evidence of one.
>
> > >   Why do you suppose Lee Bowers said that he saw so little when others
> > > saw more?  He had a good view, though a bit far away.  Here's the full
> > > story of Lee Bowers, with all the friends of his commenting on what he
> > > said beyond what he was afraid to say to the WC, and his untimely
> > > death, where he told ambulance attendants he felt 'drugged' before he
> > > hit an abutment on the highway.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> > Of course you don't believe what Bowers told the WC, UNDER OATH, and
> > make wild assumptions about what he really saw with nothing to support
> > those assumptions. That is what dumbfucks do. And that's a great way
> > to rub somebody out. Drug him and hope a highway abutment gets in his
> > way. I guess they would have been screwed if he just ran his car into
> > a ditch. <snicker>
>
>   Welp, the story doesn't make wild assumptions, certain people make
> statements clearly with no motive other than to tell the truth of what
> they knew.  I'm sure they also (as friends of Lee Bowers) were unhappy
> about the circumstances of his death.  And the story includes a 'black
> car' that may have helped Bowers' car off the road into the abutment.
> Given that there were many strange deaths of important witnesses, it's
> not so far out.http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> > > > > and we know that there was a person there that told a police officer
> > > > > that he was Secret Service, but there was no SS people there at the
> > > > > time.  And all sorts of other evidence.
>
> > > > No one told anyone he was Secret Service. A guy in plain clothes
> > > > showed an officer some credentials and the officer assumed he was
> > > > Secret Service because he didn't look closely at the ID and couldn't
> > > > give a name for the person he encountered because he hadn't looked
> > > > closely. His presence there would not have precluded anyone from
> > > > seeing a gunman if one had actually been there. Nobody stopped Lee
> > > > Bowers from seeing the area behind the fence and he saw no gunman. No
> > > > one stopped the officer on the overpass from looking behind the fence
> > > > and he saw nobody. No eyewitnesses. No photographic evidence, No
> > > > physical evidence. That's a great case you've made for a shooter on
> > > > the GK.
>
> > >   See video above.  Many people agree...they 'corroborate' each
> > > other...:)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
>
>
> > How does one person's guess corroborate another person's guess. Nobody
> > saw a gunman on the GK. Deal with it.
>
>   Many saw something clearly suggesting a gunman on the GK.  Deal with
> it.http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
> speak of shooters at the GK.http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>   Oh Shucks!  You mean it was Reagan that raised taxes so much?http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-...
I'm not surprised you are impressed by a 7 minute video with no
evidence of a gunman.

>   For those new to the subjext, here are some videos of witrnesses at
> or near the Grassy Knoll, one of the possible locations of shooters:http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI
>
And note not one of them shows someone saying they saw a shooter on
the GK.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 24, 2012, 7:06:32 PM4/24/12
to
The mess of the 'hard' evidence was part of the reason no one
believed the stupid WC theories. It didn't make sense except to WC
sycophants.


> >It was clear LHO
> > was the patsy.
>
> As I was saying...
>
> > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> There's that fucking "They" again.
>
Yep. Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you. That must
feel terribly lonely.

> > > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as you
> > > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like the
> > > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > > >   Nope.  But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
> >   You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place?  How
> > could you let it happen?  Too weak to hold your position?  :))
>
> When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
Or in any other way.
LOL! Now I know I'm on the right track! Once you start running
someone or something down, I know it's the right stuff and I know you
think so too. Thanks! Now that you hear that Bowers may have said
something to friends that made more sense than the stupid WC theories,
you're bothered...:) The reason that Bowers didn't 'testify' to the
information given to you, is given in the video also. Fear of
retribution from high up.

> > > > > > > We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
> > > > > > > continue to swing and miss.
>
> > > > > >   I don't remember saying the GK was the one and only place a shooter
> > > > > > could be, though it's one of the better possibilities, since there
> > > > > > were so many witnesses that felt the shots came from there.
>
> > > > > You can't produce and ounce of hard evidence of a shooter anywhere
> > > > > except in the TSBD. You've demonstrated that over and over again.
> > > > > There were no EYEwitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
>
> > > >   Whoa!  Getting a bit up tight, eh?  There is not evidence that a
> > > > shooter took out JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
> > > You mean other than shells, bullets, the rifle, fingerprints, fiber
> > > evidence, medical evidence, and oh, yeah, several eyewitnesses who
> > > actually saw a gunman there.
>
> >   They didn't see LHO there.  He was the patsy, so he would be
> > elsewhere and not know they were setting him up.
>
> That's why his fingerprints are all over the place. Just what evidence
> do you have that Oswald was elsewhere. As if there's any chance you
> will even attempt to answer that.
>
First off, LHO worked at the TSBD, so you would expect his prints to
be all over there. But on the rifle? I personally think that LHO
bought that rifle and brought it in to the TSBD and left it. That
could get his prints on it. I'm not saying that he used it
though...:)

> > And the guy that saw
> > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> > without some help from the DPD.  All that to try and corroborate a
> > whacky WC theory.
>
> He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
Sure. He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
WC attorney. He got the description screwy. He was able to see
fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope. Sure.

> > > > Maybe from the
> > > > Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
> > > > and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.
>
> > > We have everything we would expect to have as evidence of a shooter in
> > > the TSBD and no evidence whatsoever of a shooter on the GK or in the
> > > Dal-Tex but you choose to believe the shooter was in the Dal-Tex or on
> > > the GK. Once a dumbfuck, always a dumbfuck.
>
> >   Naah.  Oswald proved that the didn't want to be caught by anyone and
> > he ran away and told folks he was innocent when he had the chance.  He
> > wasn't self-destructing.  So why would he lay out all the evidence in
> > the 'nest and the 6th floor to be found and prove that he was guilty?
>
> You think it would make more sense to try to sneak out of the TSBD
> carrying all that incriminating evidence. That is how a dumbfuck would
> think. Oswald wasn't a dumbfuck.
No, stupe. The shooter could have arranged a better hiding place if
desired. It wasn't a barebones building. But you keep pretending
that Oswald was the shooter, so you get these wild ideas like the WC.
If Oswald was the shooter, he would have worked out a hiding place in
advance.
>
> > Why would they try to set him up in advance?  They were incompetent
> > at doing that and it fell through, but it all shows LHO as the patsy
> > and innocent.  Besides, too many other people wanted JFK out of the
> > way permanently to let a little do-nothing like Oswald take the shot.
> > They needed a serious, competent shooter to do it and make it stick.
>
> You make the assumption that because JFK had enemies, they would try
> to kill him. Every president has enemies. But it is almost always the
> screwballs who try to kill them and they do it all by themselves.
> Guiteay. Czolgolz, Fromme, Moore, Hinckley. And Oswald.
>
Odd. You forgot to mention Sirhan...:) If there is a lone nut that
was successful at murdering a public figure, fine. But those that are
not nuts have reasons and they have plans and think about ewhat they
are doing. LHO was pretty clear when being questioned by the press.
He didn't appear very nuts.

> > > > > >  We know a
> > > > > > few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we know that
> > > > > > smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a cigarette,
>
> > > > > You assume it wasn't a cigarette. People, including police officers
> > > > > ran to the GK following the shooting from Elm St. The ran there from
> > > > > the overpass. Lee Bowers had a clear view of the area during the
> > > > > shooting. Not one of those people ever saw a gunman. There are no
> > > > > eyewitnesses for a gunman on the GK and no physical evidence of a
> > > > > gunman on the GK. Smoke and mirrors is all you've got because there
> > > > > was no gunman on the GK.
>
> > > >   Well, I found a big list of the people that saw stuff on the GK on
> > > > the murder day.  Here it is...record the names as they go by:
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> Those people didn't see anything that shows there was a gunman. A
> modern rifle gives off very little smoke. Much less than a person
> exhaling a cigarette. They found cigarette butts on the GK. Nobody
> found a rifle.
>
Where were you when that was discussed. A competent shooter would
know how to do his own loads, and might well use black powder to slow
the bullets down for greater damage. Black powder leaves smoke.
> > had been a plainsclothes guy there, who did he work for?  Wouldn't
> > someone come forward and say 'he was one of our guys'?  They never did
> > though.  Maybe a shooter that put his gun down somewhere?  Who knows.
> > You certainly don't.  There was certaily activity in the area of the
> > GK, as Lee Bowers said to the WC.  and here:
What? No complaint? Falling apart, I guess.
> > would have begged off doing an autopsy of a shooting death because they
> > knew enough to know they didn't know what to do in such a case.  But
> > they didn't.  They were military and had to follow their orders.
> > Another autopsy specialist castigated them for the incompetent job
> > they did.
>
> > > > and the body was stolen at gunpoint against the law,
>
> > > Another bald faced lie. Nobody drew their guns at Parkland.
>
> >   LOL!  Well, you walked into that one.  Your favorite author V.
> > Bugliosi in his book "Reclaiming History" says they took the body and
> > had the Medical Examiner at gunpoint against the wall at Parkland and
> > then they stole the body.  It was also against the wishes of a Judge
> > Theron Ward who was a justice of the peace there at the time.  Look at
> > page 110 at 2:04pm at:
http://tinyurl.com/cgjqd8s

Hmmm. Falling apart again! Or do you now disbelieve Bugliosi the
righteous?
Wasn't necessary. We all know what they meant by their statements.

I see you're falling sown on the job of goingthrough the post and
inserting your comments and theories wherever you can. Try to keep up
and keep the flow going. Thanks!

Chris

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 24, 2012, 9:07:07 PM4/24/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fe908b6-ad23-4d12...@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
How silly.Those who have looked at the evidence objectively can only come to
one conclusion. Oswald did it alone. Almost 50 years on you conspiranoids
are still floundering. Still rehashing old canards like Roger Craig and
Gordon Arnold. Neither of whoms stories can be corroborated. Doesn't that
bother you?


> >It was clear LHO
> > was the patsy.
>
> As I was saying...
>
> > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> There's that fucking "They" again.
>
Yep. Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you. That must
feel terribly lonely.


Nah. I'd like some names to assign to your moniker "they". Got any?


> > > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > > > Nope. But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
> > You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place? How
> > could you let it happen? Too weak to hold your position? :))
>
> When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.


Or in any other way.

Odd, because John is certainly handing you your arse on a plate so far.
Retribution from whom? Can you give us a name? Anything? Didn't think so.
How convenient. What are you saying? Did the rifle fire itself or did
someone other than Oswald shoot it and destroy Kennedy's pretty head? If so.
can we have a name? Didn't think so. C'mon little lady, times a wastin'.


> > And the guy that saw
> > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> > without some help from the DPD. All that to try and corroborate a
> > whacky WC theory.
>
> He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
Sure. He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
WC attorney. He got the description screwy. He was able to see
fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope. Sure.

He identifyed Ossie as the shooter. Deal with it. Why would he be looking
for a scope? Memories are not photographs dummy. Not all the details will be
exact.


> > > > Maybe from the
> > > > Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
> > > > and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.
>
> > > We have everything we would expect to have as evidence of a shooter in
> > > the TSBD and no evidence whatsoever of a shooter on the GK or in the
> > > Dal-Tex but you choose to believe the shooter was in the Dal-Tex or on
> > > the GK. Once a dumbfuck, always a dumbfuck.
>
> > Naah. Oswald proved that the didn't want to be caught by anyone and
> > he ran away and told folks he was innocent when he had the chance. He
> > wasn't self-destructing. So why would he lay out all the evidence in
> > the 'nest and the 6th floor to be found and prove that he was guilty?
>
> You think it would make more sense to try to sneak out of the TSBD
> carrying all that incriminating evidence. That is how a dumbfuck would
> think. Oswald wasn't a dumbfuck.

No, stupe. The shooter could have arranged a better hiding place if
desired. It wasn't a barebones building. But you keep pretending
that Oswald was the shooter, so you get these wild ideas like the WC.
If Oswald was the shooter, he would have worked out a hiding place in
advance.

Indulging in more mind-reading. How silly. Unless of course you can supply
evidence as to what Oswald "would have" done. Seems you have none. Just more
silly guesswork on your part. D-


>
> > Why would they try to set him up in advance? They were incompetent
> > at doing that and it fell through, but it all shows LHO as the patsy
> > and innocent. Besides, too many other people wanted JFK out of the
> > way permanently to let a little do-nothing like Oswald take the shot.
> > They needed a serious, competent shooter to do it and make it stick.
>
> You make the assumption that because JFK had enemies, they would try
> to kill him. Every president has enemies. But it is almost always the
> screwballs who try to kill them and they do it all by themselves.
> Guiteay. Czolgolz, Fromme, Moore, Hinckley. And Oswald.
>
Odd. You forgot to mention Sirhan...:) If there is a lone nut that
was successful at murdering a public figure, fine. But those that are
not nuts have reasons and they have plans and think about ewhat they
are doing. LHO was pretty clear when being questioned by the press.
He didn't appear very nuts.


And you're are qualified to identify "nuts"? Does Anders Brievek appear
"nuts" to you? It occurred to me that had Oswald survived to face trial he
may have conducted himself in a similar manner. The opportunity to spout his
own political nonsense to the world in a packed courtroom. That smirking
little shit would have loved that. Just my opinion of course.
Oswald was a "competent shooter" and was identified as the assassin. Yet you
prefer to rely on vague testimony of "smoke"? Laughable.
LOL You mean kooks like you make things up.


I see you're falling sown on the job of goingthrough the post and
inserting your comments and theories wherever you can.


It's quite obvious who has fallen *down* on the job and it certainly isn't
John. Don't you have the Twin Towers thing to solve? Maybe you'll do better
if you don't try to spread your spartan talents too thin. Just a bit of
advice :)

Try to keep up
and keep the flow going. Thanks!

Chris


Absolutely John KUTGW. This twerp writes like Ben Holmes, hiding, dodging,
refusing to answer direct questions.


bigdog

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 7:40:23 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24, 9:07 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>

>
>   Try to keep up
> and keep the flow going.  Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
> Absolutely John KUTGW. This twerp writes like Ben Holmes, hiding, dodging,
> refusing to answer direct questions.

Thanks, Sam. My pleasure. It's amazing and amusing how these idiots
think they are fooling anybody with their constant refusal to present
any evidence to support their beliefs.

bigdog

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 7:28:43 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24, 7:06 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:00 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 9:40 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 9:25 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, >
> > >   Nope.  The whole story looked at objectively (logically) makes clear
> > > that it was multiple shooters ordered from high up.
>
> > That is "clear" only to people who believe things on faith and not
> > hard evidence. That hard evidence points to LHO alone.
>
>   The mess of the 'hard' evidence was part of the reason no one
> believed the stupid WC theories.  It didn't make sense except to WC
> sycophants.
>
The hard evidence is only a mess to people who want to take something
that is amazingly simple and make it incredibly complicated. There is
nothing compicated about this case. A guy stuck a rilfe out a window
and shot another guy in the head.

> > >It was clear LHO
> > > was the patsy.
>
> > As I was saying...
>
> > > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> > There's that fucking "They" again.
>
>   Yep.  Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you.  That must
> feel terribly lonely.
>
< snicker> Looks like you've put your finger back in your pocket an
are pretending you have a gun. Everybody wouldn't know who "they" is
by listening to you dumbfucks because you never say who "they" are.
"They" is just your nebulous gang of conspirators that you don't want
to identify simply because you have no evidence they exist. It's much
better to be vague when you are trying to run a bluff.

>
> > >   You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place?  How
> > > could you let it happen?  Too weak to hold your position?  :))
>
> > When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
>
>   Or in any other way.
>
You are the one who is on the receiving end of this ass kicking.

>
> > >   Oh OK. here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> > Now that's hysterical. I ask for evidence and you give us a YouTube
> > video with 7 minutes of assumptions, inuendos, and hearsay. Not one
> > witness who testified to seeing a gunman. Not one ounce of physical
> > evdidence of a shooter on the GK. People who said they though it
> > sounded like the shots came from the GK. BFD. We have lots of other
> > people who said the shots all the shots came from the TSBD. Those
> > people are corroborated by hard physical evidence. There is no
> > physical evidence to corroborate the witnesses who thought the shots
> > came from the GK. So why do you choose to believe the witnesses who
> > aren't corroborated and reject the ones that are? You give us a guy
> > who claims Bower told him he saw shooters. That is completely at odds
> > with what he testified to. He didn't even tell Mark Lane that. Yet we
> > are supposed to believe that Bozo. That's the nice thing about
> > claiming dead people have said something to you. They won't be able to
> > contradict you. Not one thing in that video would have been admitted
> > in  court because not one thing in there constitutes evidence. Now I
> > know why you wanted to keep your finger in your pocket. Once you
> > showed it, we could see it wasn't a gun.
>
>   LOL!  Now I know I'm on the right track!  Once you start running
> someone or something down, I know it's the right stuff and I know you
> think so too.  Thanks!  Now that you hear that Bowers may have said

If I wanted an example of what a dumbfuck thinks is evidence, I
couldn't have asked for a better example. "....Bowers may have
said...". Try taking that one to the grand jury. < snicker>

> something to friends that made more sense than the stupid WC theories,
> you're bothered...:)  The reason that Bowers didn't 'testify' to the
> information given to you, is given in the video also.  Fear of
> retribution from high up.
>
So you are accusing Bowers of perjury.

>
> > That's why his fingerprints are all over the place. Just what evidence
> > do you have that Oswald was elsewhere. As if there's any chance you
> > will even attempt to answer that.
>
>   First off, LHO worked at the TSBD, so you would expect his prints to
> be all over there.  But on the rifle?  I personally think that LHO
> bought that rifle and brought it in to the TSBD and left it.  That
> could get his prints on it.  I'm not saying that he used it
> though...:)
>
Of course you think that. There is no evidence of that. In addition to
his prints on the rifle and the boxes and the rifle bag, we have his
shirt fibers on the butt plate of the rifle. One more piece of hard
evidence you have to ignore to believe he was just a patsy.

> > > And the guy that saw
> > > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> > > without some help from the DPD.  All that to try and corroborate a
> > > whacky WC theory.
>
> > He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> > before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> > rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
>    Sure.  He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
> WC attorney.  He got the description screwy.  He was able to see
> fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope.  Sure.
>
Nobody says he saw everything. Few witnesses do. He saw enough to be
able to pinpoint the very window where the cops would later find the
spent shells. Just a lucky guess I suppose.

> > > > > Maybe from the
> > > > > Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
> > > > > and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.
>
> > > > We have everything we would expect to have as evidence of a shooter in
> > > > the TSBD and no evidence whatsoever of a shooter on the GK or in the
> > > > Dal-Tex but you choose to believe the shooter was in the Dal-Tex or on
> > > > the GK. Once a dumbfuck, always a dumbfuck.
>
> > >   Naah.  Oswald proved that the didn't want to be caught by anyone and
> > > he ran away and told folks he was innocent when he had the chance.  He
> > > wasn't self-destructing.  So why would he lay out all the evidence in
> > > the 'nest and the 6th floor to be found and prove that he was guilty?
>
> > You think it would make more sense to try to sneak out of the TSBD
> > carrying all that incriminating evidence. That is how a dumbfuck would
> > think. Oswald wasn't a dumbfuck.
>
>   No, stupe.  The shooter could have arranged a better hiding place if
> desired.  It wasn't a barebones building.  But you keep pretending
> that Oswald was the shooter, so you get these wild ideas like the WC.
> If Oswald was the shooter, he would have worked out a hiding place in
> advance.
>
So now you are reading Oswald's mind. <snicker>
I don't think we need to second guess Lee. For the first time in his
life, he accomplished what he set out to do and all you want to do is
nitpick about the choices he made. Give the guy some credit.

> > > Why would they try to set him up in advance?  They were incompetent
> > > at doing that and it fell through, but it all shows LHO as the patsy
> > > and innocent.  Besides, too many other people wanted JFK out of the
> > > way permanently to let a little do-nothing like Oswald take the shot.
> > > They needed a serious, competent shooter to do it and make it stick.
>
> > You make the assumption that because JFK had enemies, they would try
> > to kill him. Every president has enemies. But it is almost always the
> > screwballs who try to kill them and they do it all by themselves.
> > Guiteay. Czolgolz, Fromme, Moore, Hinckley. And Oswald.
>
>   Odd.  You forgot to mention Sirhan...:)

Which president did he shoot?

> If there is a lone nut that
> was successful at murdering a public figure, fine.  But those that are
> not nuts have reasons and they have plans and think about ewhat they
> are doing.  LHO was pretty clear when being questioned by the press.
> He didn't appear very nuts.
>
The assassination of Lincoln was a conspiracy. The attempt on Truman
was a conspiracy. These were conspiracies of small bands of
screwballs. None were carried out as part of a grand consipiracy.

>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> > Those people didn't see anything that shows there was a gunman. A
> > modern rifle gives off very little smoke. Much less than a person
> > exhaling a cigarette. They found cigarette butts on the GK. Nobody
> > found a rifle.
>
>   Where were you when that was discussed.  A competent shooter would
> know how to do his own loads, and might well use black powder to slow
> the bullets down for greater damage.  Black powder leaves smoke.
>
RIght dumbass, A shooter goes to the trouble of shooting the President
from a concealed location and then gives his position away by firing
ammo that will leave a cloud of smoke. Oswald wasn't a dumbfuck but
apparently your imaginary shooter was. Never mind that a slower bullet
would be less accurate and it isn't going to produce greater damage.
Slowing the bullet down would be dumbfuck thing to do.
>
>
>
> > > Nope.  Won't do.  You have to wait for the answer before you go off
> > > half-cocked.  Now let's see:  Jeffrey Wigand had all the evidence
> > > against his statement that the cigarette companies knew that
> > > cigarettes were dangerous and were addictive and could kill.  The
> > > studies said no, the advertising said no, and other experts said no,
> > > but he put it out there and was proved right.  Now, that's one, but
> > > there's plenty more and you know it.
>
>   What?  No complaint?  Falling apart, I guess.
>
If there was no evidnence to support his claim, how was he proven
right?
Sorry. I overlooked your obvious lie. Bubglioi's account is on page
110 of Reclaiming History. Nowhere does it say anyone drew a gun. You
might also learn that the District Attorney Wade had given permission
for the body to be removed. So now who's stepped in it.
>
>
>
> > > > >   Easy.  You loved Richard Nixon.
>
> > > > BBBBBBUZZZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
>
> > >   Oh Shucks!  You mean it was Reagan that raised taxes so much?
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-...
>
Nobody said Reagan was perfect. He admitted to Pat Buchannan that was
his worst mistake as President. I would disagree. His worst mistake
was Sandra Day O'Connor.

>
> > And note not one of them shows someone saying they saw a shooter on
> > the GK.
>
>  Wasn't necessary.  We all know what they meant by their statements.
>
More mind reading. You claim to know people meant something other than
what they actually said. So you admit that no one saw a gunman on the
GK. There is no physical evidence of a gunman GK. No photographic
evidence of a gunman on the GK. No medical evidence of a gunman on the
GK. So on just what do you base your belief of a gunman on the GK?

>   I see you're falling sown on the job of goingthrough the post and
> inserting your comments and theories wherever you can.  Try to keep up
> and keep the flow going.  Thanks!
>
Your bullshit has become so prolific I can't keep up with it all.

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 7:55:02 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 24, 9:07 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
Ah! The Travel Channel hostess! A new cruise coming, no doubt!
Naah. Corroboration is overrated. The general whacko theories of
the WC are enough on their own to generate suspicion that the powers
that be have played a wild card on everyone to make their own life
simpler. Further evidence is only addenda.

> > >It was clear LHO
> > > was the patsy.
>
> > As I was saying...
>
> > > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> > There's that fucking "They" again.
>
>   Yep.  Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you.  That must
> feel terribly lonely.
>
> Nah. I'd like some names to assign to your moniker "they". Got any?
>
Don't act the child, it becomes you.

> > > > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > > > > Nope. But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > > > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
> > > You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place? How
> > > could you let it happen? Too weak to hold your position? :))
>
> > When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
>
>   Or in any other way.
>
> Odd, because John is certainly handing you your arse on a plate so far.
>
LOL! Being an objective observer, what do you offer to make a point
for backdoor bigdog?
No need, unless you're a complete dimwit, and then you wouldn't
understand. Everyone else knows but you.
Hmm. Pushy little fella, eh? Use the head for thinking instead of
making walls smaller.
>
> > > And the guy that saw
> > > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> > > without some help from the DPD. All that to try and corroborate a
> > > whacky WC theory.
>
> > He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> > before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> > rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
>    Sure.  He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
> WC attorney.  He got the description screwy.  He was able to see
> fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope.  Sure.
>
> He identifyed Ossie as the shooter. Deal with it. Why would he be looking
> for a scope? Memories are not photographs dummy. Not all the details will be
> exact.
>
That's one of the problems. Even with good eyesight, looking up 150
feet and being able to identify a person in a lineup smacks of setup.
Especially when he had looked right at the rifle and didn't see a
scope until cued.

> > > > > Maybe from the
> > > > > Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
> > > > > and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.
>
> > > > We have everything we would expect to have as evidence of a shooter in
> > > > the TSBD and no evidence whatsoever of a shooter on the GK or in the
> > > > Dal-Tex but you choose to believe the shooter was in the Dal-Tex or on
> > > > the GK. Once a dumbfuck, always a dumbfuck.
>
> > > Naah. Oswald proved that the didn't want to be caught by anyone and
> > > he ran away and told folks he was innocent when he had the chance. He
> > > wasn't self-destructing. So why would he lay out all the evidence in
> > > the 'nest and the 6th floor to be found and prove that he was guilty?
>
> > You think it would make more sense to try to sneak out of the TSBD
> > carrying all that incriminating evidence. That is how a dumbfuck would
> > think. Oswald wasn't a dumbfuck.
>
>   No, stupe.  The shooter could have arranged a better hiding place if
> desired.  It wasn't a barebones building.  But you keep pretending
> that Oswald was the shooter, so you get these wild ideas like the WC.
> If Oswald was the shooter, he would have worked out a hiding place in
> advance, planning to come back later ro clean up. He worked there and didn't expect to be in jail.
>
> Indulging in more mind-reading. How silly. Unless of course you can supply
> evidence as to what Oswald "would have" done. Seems you have none. Just more
> silly guesswork on your part. D-
>
See above. And as to guesswork, what do you think the WC did when
trying to make up a story to fit their lone nut whacked theory?
>
>
> > > Why would they try to set him up in advance? They were incompetent
> > > at doing that and it fell through, but it all shows LHO as the patsy
> > > and innocent. Besides, too many other people wanted JFK out of the
> > > way permanently to let a little do-nothing like Oswald take the shot.
> > > They needed a serious, competent shooter to do it and make it stick.
>
> > You make the assumption that because JFK had enemies, they would try
> > to kill him. Every president has enemies. But it is almost always the
> > screwballs who try to kill them and they do it all by themselves.
> > Guiteay. Czolgolz, Fromme, Moore, Hinckley. And Oswald.
>
>   Odd.  You forgot to mention Sirhan...:)  If there is a lone nut that
> was successful at murdering a public figure, fine.  But those that are
> not nuts have reasons and they have plans and think about what they
> are doing.  LHO was pretty clear when being questioned by the press.
> He didn't appear very nuts.
>
> And you're are qualified to identify "nuts"? Does Anders Brievek appear
> "nuts" to you? It occurred to me that had Oswald survived to face trial he
> may have conducted himself in a similar manner. The opportunity to spout his
> own political nonsense to the world in a packed courtroom. That smirking
> little shit would have loved that. Just my opinion of course.
>
So you have opinions on the state of mind of LHO, and Anders
Breivik. So you have just insulted yourself. Ah well.

> > > > > > > We know a
> > > > > > > few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we
> > > > > > > know that
> > > > > > > smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a
> > > > > > > cigarette,
>
> > > > > > You assume it wasn't a cigarette. People, including police
> > > > > > officers
> > > > > > ran to the GK following the shooting from Elm St. The ran there
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > the overpass. Lee Bowers had a clear view of the area during the
> > > > > > shooting. Not one of those people ever saw a gunman. There are no
> > > > > > eyewitnesses for a gunman on the GK and no physical evidence of a
> > > > > > gunman on the GK. Smoke and mirrors is all you've got because
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > was no gunman on the GK.
>
> > > > > Well, I found a big list of the people that saw stuff on the GK on
> > > > > the murder day. Here it is...record the names as they go by:
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
>
>
> > Those people didn't see anything that shows there was a gunman. A
> > modern rifle gives off very little smoke. Much less than a person
> > exhaling a cigarette. They found cigarette butts on the GK. Nobody
> > found a rifle.
>
Oh c'mon. A shooter leaving his rifle? Not a chance. Same for
LHO.

>   Where were you when that was discussed.  A competent shooter would
> know how to do his own loads, and might well use black powder to slow
> the bullets down for greater damage.  Black powder leaves smoke.
>
> Oswald was a "competent shooter" and was identified as the assassin. Yet you
> prefer to rely on vague testimony of  "smoke"? Laughable.
>
Oswald was NOT a competent shooter. He only made Marksman on his
last go-round at the range. Competent shooters (trained snipers)
stated that Oswald could not have done the shooting at JFK. They even
tried it and failed to duplicate it. And the 'smoke' was seen by a
few people, not just one.

> > > > I'm sure people saw a lot of things on the GK that day.. None of them
> > > > saw a shooter or any evidence of one.
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
You think a competent shooter would be as incompetent as LHO? Naah.

> > > For those new to the subject, here are some videos of witrnesses at
> > > or near the Grassy Knoll, one of the possible locations of shooters:
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI
>
> > And note not one of them shows someone saying they saw a shooter on
> > the GK.
>
>  Wasn't necessary.  We all know what they meant by their statements.
>
> LOL You mean kooks like you make things up.
>
>   I see you're falling down on the job of going through the post and
> inserting your comments and theories wherever you can.
>
> It's quite obvious who has fallen *down* on the job and it certainly isn't
> John. Don't you have the Twin Towers thing to solve? Maybe you'll do better
> if you don't try to spread your spartan talents too thin. Just a bit of
> advice :)
>
Since we don't see you very often, except where you can be used for
effect, what's the occasion this time?

The 9-11 issue is solved. Just a matter of getting the information
in front of folks. Go to:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

They now have 1,684 architects and Engineers that have signed up as
beliving that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
It's a growing population, with thousands more general signatories.

>   Try to keep up
> and keep the flow going.  Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
> Absolutely John KUTGW. This twerp writes like Ben Holmes, hiding, dodging,
> refusing to answer direct questions.

As do you. We could all be little benny...what a concept...I could
charge to rent showers...:)

Chris




mainframetech

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 7:57:27 AM4/25/12
to
welp, the evidence is there and has been shown many times. Your
pretending it hasn't won't do. A childish way to try to get folks to
believe the whacky theories of the WC.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 12:30:59 PM4/25/12
to
Your bluff was called. You had your chance to show your cards and you
refused. Now you don't want somebody else to rake in the pot. Sorry,
that is how the game is played. It's called put up or shut up. All we
want is for you to do one or the other. Your choice.

bigdog

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 12:37:45 PM4/25/12
to
WOW!!! That statement alone speaks volumes. I could have made a dozen
posts and not demonstrated how flawed your thinking is better than you
did with this one sentence.

> The general whacko theories of
> the WC are enough on their own to generate suspicion that the powers
> that be have played a wild card on everyone to make their own life
> simpler.  Further evidence is only addenda.
>
The WC conclusions are based on hard evidence. Each piece of evidence
corroborates others. All the pieces fit to the point where they are
greater than the sum of the parts. Your idiotic beliefs are completely
disjointed. One piece doesn't fit with another. You've taken a bunch
of lose threads, put them together and come up with a pile of loose
threads.
>
>
>
>
> > > >It was clear LHO
> > > > was the patsy.
>
> > > As I was saying...
>
> > > > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > > > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > > > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> > > There's that fucking "They" again.
>
> >   Yep.  Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you.  That must
> > feel terribly lonely.
>
> > Nah. I'd like some names to assign to your moniker "they". Got any?
>
>   Don't act the child, it becomes you.
>
Being a dumbfuck becomes you.
>

aeffects

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 4:08:32 PM4/25/12
to
off your knees dipshit, justme1952 is gonna be pissed and YOU know it.
you're messing with hired help--what an idiot you are!

aeffects

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 4:33:47 PM4/25/12
to
bigdog-lil dickee <----- a legend in his own mind! R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 5:47:41 PM4/25/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d00d278-4137-4dee...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Only to kooks.



> > >It was clear LHO
> > > was the patsy.
>
> > As I was saying...
>
> > > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> > There's that fucking "They" again.
>
> Yep. Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you. That must
> feel terribly lonely.
>
> Nah. I'd like some names to assign to your moniker "they". Got any?

>
Don't act the child, it becomes you.


Asking you for names is childish? Nope, won't do. So you're just guessing,
thanks for clearing that up.


> > > > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > > > > Nope. But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > > > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
> > > You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place? How
> > > could you let it happen? Too weak to hold your position? :))
>
> > When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
>
> Or in any other way.
>
> Odd, because John is certainly handing you your arse on a plate so far.

>
LOL! Being an objective observer, what do you offer to make a point
for backdoor bigdog?


Who said I was objective. Oswald did it, alone. Does that clarify it for
you. Let me know if your struggling, we're here to help.
Who are these "everyone" else you refer to? Your fellow kooks?
I guess being asked to back up your nonsense is "pushy" to you. Especially
if you are completely unable to to do it.


>
> > > And the guy that saw
> > > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> > > without some help from the DPD. All that to try and corroborate a
> > > whacky WC theory.
>
> > He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> > before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> > rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
> Sure. He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
> WC attorney. He got the description screwy. He was able to see
> fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope. Sure.
>
> He identifyed Ossie as the shooter. Deal with it. Why would he be looking
> for a scope? Memories are not photographs dummy. Not all the details will
> be
> exact.
>
That's one of the problems. Even with good eyesight, looking up 150
feet and being able to identify a person in a lineup smacks of setup.
Especially when he had looked right at the rifle and didn't see a
scope until cued.


Having good eyesight has bugger all to do with it. Memories are nothing more
than mental representations of a particular event. Thats why you get so many
different interpretations of said event from different witnesses. This is
not rocket science Missy.
Again, more mindreading. I don't think the WC did any making up of stories.
That's your assertion which so far you have failed to establish. Quite the
pattern.

>
>
> > > Why would they try to set him up in advance? They were incompetent
> > > at doing that and it fell through, but it all shows LHO as the patsy
> > > and innocent. Besides, too many other people wanted JFK out of the
> > > way permanently to let a little do-nothing like Oswald take the shot.
> > > They needed a serious, competent shooter to do it and make it stick.
>
> > You make the assumption that because JFK had enemies, they would try
> > to kill him. Every president has enemies. But it is almost always the
> > screwballs who try to kill them and they do it all by themselves.
> > Guiteay. Czolgolz, Fromme, Moore, Hinckley. And Oswald.
>
> Odd. You forgot to mention Sirhan...:) If there is a lone nut that
> was successful at murdering a public figure, fine. But those that are
> not nuts have reasons and they have plans and think about what they
> are doing. LHO was pretty clear when being questioned by the press.
> He didn't appear very nuts.
>
> And you're are qualified to identify "nuts"? Does Anders Brievek appear
> "nuts" to you? It occurred to me that had Oswald survived to face trial he
> may have conducted himself in a similar manner. The opportunity to spout
> his
> own political nonsense to the world in a packed courtroom. That smirking
> little shit would have loved that. Just my opinion of course.
>
So you have opinions on the state of mind of LHO, and Anders
Breivik. So you have just insulted yourself. Ah well.


I have opinions of lots of things, unlike you who tries to pretend that your
opinions are fact. That's why I wrote "just my opinion of course". Did you
notice that qualification? Try and keep up. It's dull having to repeat
myself.
And do you think he put in as much effort on his last go round as he did
when he qualified as sharpshooter?


Competent shooters (trained snipers)


So you would describe a sniper as "competent"? LOL. Never been in the
military have you?



stated that Oswald could not have done the shooting at JFK. They even
tried it and failed to duplicate it. And the 'smoke' was seen by a
few people, not just one.


Citations please for both assertions.
Just for laughs. Your idiocy amuses me.


The 9-11 issue is solved. Just a matter of getting the information
in front of folks. Go to:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

They now have 1,684 architects and Engineers that have signed up as
beliving that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
It's a growing population, with thousands more general signatories.


There you go making me laugh again. Now snap to it and get it solved.
Because you are woefully inept at getting anywhere with JFK.

> Try to keep up
> and keep the flow going. Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
> Absolutely John KUTGW. This twerp writes like Ben Holmes, hiding, dodging,
> refusing to answer direct questions.

As do you. We could all be little benny...what a concept...I could
charge to rent showers...:)


Charge double for Holmes and Heely, they'll be in that same little cubicle
for hours :)


Chris







mainframetech

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 5:57:49 PM4/25/12
to
Nope. No refusal. You continually tried to waste my time by asking
for what you yourself never provide: Backup. I provided it many
times and finally told you you've seen it and I'm not running around
for you. If you want to pretend that you didn't get it, that's up to
you, but you'll look like an idiot that believes in fairy tales
written by the WC.

Now off you go, old fella...:)

Chris


mainframetech

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 6:29:00 PM4/25/12
to
Nope. Won't do. None of it fits. When you get so many people in
authority making such terrible blunders on the crime of the century,
things become more obvious. And what do you think got so many people
up in arms over the lousy job that was done by the government in
trying to figure out a way to sell the investigation of a single lone
nut, when it was obvious that there was much more to the crime than
one little misguided loser whio couldn't shoot very well. The furo
that arose from millions of people was the evidence that a lousy job
was done by the WC and realted authorities. And it took 5 or more
panels and there is still not satisfaction as to the lousy job done by
the authorities. The effort you are making is proof of how
incompetently the case was handled.

> > > > >It was clear LHO
> > > > > was the patsy.
>
> > > > As I was saying...
>
> > > > > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > > > > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > > > > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> > > > There's that fucking "They" again.
>
> > >   Yep.  Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you.  That must
> > > feel terribly lonely.
>
> > > Nah. I'd like some names to assign to your moniker "they". Got any?
>
> >   Don't act the child, it becomes you.
>
> Being a dumbfuck becomes you.

Interesting. There were a lot of links and videos that you erased.
I'll have to put them back for the folks looking on.

All these are witnesses at the Grassy Knoll:

http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_06iHdM3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJCCW7R2bZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqwKWDqRsg

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 6:58:51 PM4/25/12
to
Oh don't be an idiot. You've heard all the names if you hang around
here for only a short time.

> > > > > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > > > > > Nope. But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > > > > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
> > > > You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place? How
> > > > could you let it happen? Too weak to hold your position? :))
>
> > > When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
>
> > Or in any other way.
>
> > Odd, because John is certainly handing you your arse on a plate so far.
>
>   LOL!  Being an objective observer, what do you offer to make a point
> for backdoor bigdog?
>
> Who said I was objective. Oswald did it, alone. Does that clarify it for
> you. Let me know if your struggling, we're here to help.
>
Ah! I see your owner has got you saying all the wrong things.
All those on this board. They all know who's being talked about.
How come you don't? I mean half the population of the USA knows, and
has complained mightily at the travesty they beheld.
Not only have I done it already, but I will put a bunch of names and
statements at the end of this post for all to view. You will have to
wait until we get there though...:)

> > > > And the guy that saw
> > > > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > > > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> > > > without some help from the DPD. All that to try and corroborate a
> > > > whacky WC theory.
>
> > > He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> > > before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> > > rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
> > Sure. He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
> > WC attorney. He got the description screwy. He was able to see
> > fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope. Sure.
>
> > He identifyed Ossie as the shooter. Deal with it. Why would he be looking
> > for a scope? Memories are not photographs dummy. Not all the details will
> > be
> > exact.
>
Yep. And he couldn'tget the clothes right or the scope, but he
could see LHO's face exactly. Get off it. The DPD led him to make
the ID. It wasn't 'Law & Order'.

>   That's one of the problems.  Even with good eyesight, looking up 150
> feet and being able to identify a person in a lineup smacks of setup.
> Especially when he had looked right at the rifle and didn't see a
> scope until cued.
>
> Having good eyesight has bugger all to do with it. Memories are nothing more
> than mental representations of a particular event. Thats why you get so many
> different interpretations of said event from different witnesses. This is
> not rocket science Missy.
>
OK. Now you've eliminated eyesight, and made memories suspect. So
much for that witness...Thanks! :)
Get off it. You don't cover yourself when you come out with your
ridiculous guesses. Once in a while, but mostly not.
Since he did worse, he was lucky the first time.

>  Competent shooters (trained snipers)
>
> So you would describe a sniper as "competent"? LOL. Never been in the
> military have you?
>
Yep, I have. And when talking about shooters, a sniper is
'competent', whereas LHO wasn't.

> stated that Oswald could not have done the shooting at JFK.  They even
> tried it and failed to duplicate it.  And the 'smoke' was seen by a
> few people, not just one.
>
> Citations please for both assertions.
>
That too was provided here in a previous thread. Go find it. The
name of the competent shooters were Carlos Hathcock and Craig Roberts,
both trained snipers. Are you going to try demeaning their
contributions now?
Hmm. And since you seem up to date on certain items in JFK
conspiracy, perhaps you've been hanging around using another name.

>    The 9-11 issue is solved.  Just a matter of getting the information
> in front of folks.  Go to:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

>   They now have 1,684 architects and Engineers that have signed up as
> believing that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
> It's a growing population, with thousands more general signatories.
>
> There you go making me laugh again. Now snap to it and get it solved.
> Because you are woefully inept at getting anywhere with JFK.
>
Nope. The Twin Towers thing is done and moves on to the next
phase. I'm right here for the duration, as always. And I'm not
really trying to 'get anywhere with JFK', I'm trying to give the
onlookers some links to check and have them see some of the idiots
that are deeply in love with the WC to the degree that they are
willing to damage what little reputation they have left.

> > Try to keep up
> > and keep the flow going. Thanks!
>
> > Absolutely John KUTGW. This twerp writes like Ben Holmes, hiding, dodging,
> > refusing to answer direct questions.
>
>    As do you.  We could all be little benny...what a concept...I could
> charge to rent showers...:)
>
> Charge double for Holmes and Heely, they'll be in that same little cubicle
> for hours :)
>
For those that might have missed it, here are some names that were
witnesses to action at the Grassy Knoll:

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 8:19:54 PM4/25/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2eb93f0a-a201-4aa7...@d20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Oh don't be cowardly. I've been here for years and have yet to hear just one
of you loons come up with a name. Thanks for proving once again that you
can't back up your silly ideas.



> > > > > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person,
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > > > > > Nope. But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > > > > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
> > > > You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place? How
> > > > could you let it happen? Too weak to hold your position? :))
>
> > > When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
>
> > Or in any other way.
>
> > Odd, because John is certainly handing you your arse on a plate so far.
>
> LOL! Being an objective observer, what do you offer to make a point
> for backdoor bigdog?
>
> Who said I was objective. Oswald did it, alone. Does that clarify it for
> you. Let me know if your struggling, we're here to help.
>
Ah! I see your owner has got you saying all the wrong things.


Ah, saying things you cannot counter. Again can you name my "owner"? Or is
this yet another silly claim you can't back up?
Then it should be easy for you to name them. Get on with it.
Chubs Holmes says that a lot too.



but I will put a bunch of names and
statements at the end of this post for all to view. You will have to
wait until we get there though...:)


Looking forward to it. You will be required to provide proof for your
assertions though but we'll wait and see.

> > > > And the guy that saw
> > > > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > > > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> > > > without some help from the DPD. All that to try and corroborate a
> > > > whacky WC theory.
>
> > > He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> > > before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> > > rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
> > Sure. He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
> > WC attorney. He got the description screwy. He was able to see
> > fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope. Sure.
>
> > He identifyed Ossie as the shooter. Deal with it. Why would he be
> > looking
> > for a scope? Memories are not photographs dummy. Not all the details
> > will
> > be
> > exact.


>
Yep. And he couldn'tget the clothes right or the scope, but he
could see LHO's face exactly. Get off it. The DPD led him to make
the ID. It wasn't 'Law & Order'.


Don't watch it. At least you've admitted that he was identified as the
shooter. See? You can be taught.


> That's one of the problems. Even with good eyesight, looking up 150
> feet and being able to identify a person in a lineup smacks of setup.
> Especially when he had looked right at the rifle and didn't see a
> scope until cued.
>
> Having good eyesight has bugger all to do with it. Memories are nothing
> more
> than mental representations of a particular event. Thats why you get so
> many
> different interpretations of said event from different witnesses. This is
> not rocket science Missy.
>
OK. Now you've eliminated eyesight, and made memories suspect. So
much for that witness...Thanks! :)


How simplistic. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, surely
you've learned this? Some eyewitness testimony may be correct in part,
that's why we need physical evidence(of which the Oswald did it side has
plenty) to corroborate it. Your side has lots of guesswork and paranoia, try
taking that into a court and see how you go.


.> > > > > > Maybe from the
That comment makes no sense. Try again.
Or could it be that the last time he was tested he was already considering
leaving the Corp and had no interest in doing well. Mull that one over for a
while kook.


> Competent shooters (trained snipers)
>
> So you would describe a sniper as "competent"? LOL. Never been in the
> military have you?
>
Yep, I have. And when talking about shooters, a sniper is
'competent', whereas LHO wasn't.


A sniper is far more than "competent" and you know it. You really are
floundering.


> stated that Oswald could not have done the shooting at JFK. They even
> tried it and failed to duplicate it. And the 'smoke' was seen by a
> few people, not just one.
>
> Citations please for both assertions.
>
That too was provided here in a previous thread. Go find it.


Another Holmes ploy. You made the assertion, you find it. Don't be lazy.


The
name of the competent shooters were Carlos Hathcock and Craig Roberts,
both trained snipers. Are you going to try demeaning their
contributions now?


Not at all, I'm asking you to back up your assertions with citations, which
you have once again failed to do.
OK I'll help you out here just to be charitable, since you've made similar
moronic assertions in the past. I changed ISP's not that long ago. Look up
samjb...@optusnet.com.au. That should put you on the right track newbie.


> The 9-11 issue is solved. Just a matter of getting the information
> in front of folks. Go to:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

> They now have 1,684 architects and Engineers that have signed up as
> believing that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
> It's a growing population, with thousands more general signatories.
>
> There you go making me laugh again. Now snap to it and get it solved.
> Because you are woefully inept at getting anywhere with JFK.
>
Nope. The Twin Towers thing is done and moves on to the next
phase. I'm right here for the duration, as always. And I'm not
really trying to 'get anywhere with JFK', I'm trying to give the
onlookers some links to check and have them see some of the idiots
that are deeply in love with the WC to the degree that they are
willing to damage what little reputation they have left.



So far the "lurkers" of whom you speak don't seem to be jumping to your
defence. Does that tell you anything? Anything at all? ;)



> > Try to keep up
> > and keep the flow going. Thanks!
>
> > Absolutely John KUTGW. This twerp writes like Ben Holmes, hiding,
> > dodging,
> > refusing to answer direct questions.
>
> As do you. We could all be little benny...what a concept...I could
> charge to rent showers...:)
>
> Charge double for Holmes and Heely, they'll be in that same little cubicle
> for hours :)
>
For those that might have missed it, here are some names that were
witnesses to action at the Grassy Knoll:

http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_06iHdM3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJCCW7R2bZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqwKWDqRsg

Chris


"Action"? Who saw a gunman? Worthless youtube videos from worthless and
completely debunked doco's like 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Disappointing
but not unexpected.


bigdog

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 8:49:55 PM4/25/12
to
It has become obvious that you are a dumbfuck. But an unintentionally
amusing dumbfuck.

> And what do you think got so many people
> up in arms over the lousy job that was done by the government in
> trying to figure out a way to sell the investigation of a single lone
> nut, when it was obvious that there was much more to the crime than
> one little misguided loser whio couldn't shoot very well.

It shows how gullible the American public can be that they would have
bought any of that crap, from Mark Lane to Josiah Thompson to Oliver
Stone. Charlatans all who cleverly used propaganda to sell The Big
Lie. Most of the American people don't know the most rudimentary facts
of the case and such people are easily manipulated because they don't
know any better. You are a perfect example of that.

> The furo
> that arose from millions of people was the evidence that a lousy job
> was done by the WC and realted authorities.  And it took 5 or more
> panels and there is still not satisfaction as to the lousy job done by
> the authorities.  The effort you are making is proof of how
> incompetently the case was handled.
>
How many more panels do you need to tell you that it was Oswald who
shot JFK? That's what every panel has concluded.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > >It was clear LHO
> > > > > > was the patsy.
>
> > > > > As I was saying...
>
> > > > > > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > > > > > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > > > > > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> > > > > There's that fucking "They" again.
>
> > > >   Yep.  Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you.  That must
> > > > feel terribly lonely.
>
> > > > Nah. I'd like some names to assign to your moniker "they". Got any?
>
> > >   Don't act the child, it becomes you.
>
> > Being a dumbfuck becomes you.
>
>   Interesting.  There were a lot of links and videos that you erased.
> I'll have to put them back for the folks looking on.
>
>  All these are witnesses at the Grassy Knoll:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_06iHdM3Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJCCW7R2bZUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqwKWDqRsg
>
Without even looking at them, I'll bet the mortage payment that not
one of them will have somebody saying they saw a shooter on the GK.
How can I be so sure? Because nobody saw a shooter on the GK.

bigdog

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 8:54:46 PM4/25/12
to
You aren't doing it for me. You are doing it for your own credibility.
You have made claims that you can't support with evidence no matter
how many times you are challenged to produce such evidnece. You
refused to so the first time you were challenged to do it, the last
time you were challenged to do it, and every time in between. Anybody
who has followed this thread now knows you are nothing but a windbag
making outlandish claims that you can't back up. Like your latest
FUBAR that Bugliosi stated JFK's body was taken at gunpoint? <snicker,
snicker. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!>

bigdog

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 9:16:01 PM4/25/12
to
> Chris

Thanks again for another belly laugh. As I stated before I even looked
at the videos, there's not one person who saw a gunman fire from the
GK. The fact that you find Ed Hoffman credible is the biggest laugh of
all. Never mind that he didn't tell anyone his story until 1967. His
bullshit story refutes itself. He claims to have seen the gunman hand
the rifle to the accomplice who then walked away. Then he claims to
have seen JFK pass underneath him and that after seeing that he tried
to get the attention of a cop on the railroad overpass.. How could he
have seen that if he was watching the gunman and his accomplice hiding
the rifle and walking away. Why didn't Sam Holland, the cop on the
overpass and the other workers who immediately ran to the GK see these
two guys, Hoffman claims the rifleman WALKED to his accomplice and
hand him the rifle and that guy walked to the place where he
supposedly broke the rifle down and put it in a tool box. Do you
really think none of those other witnesses who were much closer than
Hoffman claimed to be would have missed a guy holding a rifle? And Sam
Holland is not your friend. He said he saw a puff of smoke that looked
like cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke is not evidence of a shooter.
Holland and the others got to the area behind the picket fence seconds
after the shooting but your imaginary shooter wasn't there. Lee Bowers
didn't see him either. Nobody who ran up the GK saw that shooter. But
we're supposed to believe a guy who claims he was watching from the
opposite side of the freeway saw what nobody else did? <snicker>

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 25, 2012, 9:18:33 PM4/25/12
to
In article <72528c97-888e-40af...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 25, 9:37=A0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 7:55=A0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 24, 9:07=A0pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:=
>> "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > =A0 =A0Ah! =A0The Travel Channel hostess! =A0A new cruise coming, no do=
>ubt!
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > I take his words that he said out loud as meaning a c=
>ertain
>> > > > > > > > > > > thing
>> > > > > > > > > > > because I believe Hoover was fully aware of the plot,=
> and
>> > > > > > > > > > > may have
>> > > > > > > > > > > contributed to it.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Mind reading.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Nope. Just my belief, which I openly stated.
>>
>> > > > > > > > I see. So when I read Hoover's words and believe he meant w=
>hat he
>> > > > > > > > said, I'm reading his mind, but you are free to read they s=
>aw
>> > > > > > > > words
>> > > > > > > > and assume he meant exactly the opposite what he said. Typi=
>cal of
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > fucked up way you look at everything in this case.
>>
>> > > > > > > Nope. Once again you wandered off into Wonderland. You heard =
>what
>> > > > > > > he said and acted like you knew what he was thinking, that he=
> was
>> > > > > > > being completely on the up and up.
>>
>> > > > > > This from the dumbfuck who thinks Hoover meant just the opposit=
>e of
>> > > > > > what he actually said.
>>
>> > > > > > > But earlier you admitted that
>> > > > > > > politicians lie, so that means that you had to read his mind =
>to know
>> > > > > > > if he was telling the truth or not.
>>
>> > > > > > First of all, Hoover was not a politician. He was a bureaucrat,=
> but I
>> > > > > > wouldn't expect someone of your limited mental faculties to und=
>erstand
>> > > > > > the difference. I don't need to be able to read Hoover's mind t=
>o know
>> > > > > > what he was teilling LBJ was accurate because there is a shitlo=
>ad of
>> > > > > > evidence that tells us Oswald was the assassin. You on the othe=
>r hand
>> > > > > > take the illogical leap of faith that Hoover was lying to LBJ w=
>ith no
>> > > > > > evidence whatsoever to support that belief. But that's what dum=
>bfucks
>> > > > > > do.
>>
>> > > > > Nope. I didn't say Hoover lied to LBJ. It's unknown whether Hoove=
>r
>> > > > > and/or LBJ were in on giving the orders to carry out the murder, =
>so I
>> > > > > can't say that.
>>
>> > > > So you don't even know what you believe. Why am I not surprised.
>>
>> > > > > > >I saw his words and they were
>> > > > > > > said in such a way as to suggest duplicity, a natural politic=
>al kind
>> > > > > > > of action. Try and stay with it, eh?
>>
>> > > > > > This last statement is ludicrous even by your exceptional low
>> > > > > > standards of reason and logic. How the fuck can you tell how so=
>mebody
>> > > > > > said something by reading a transcript. Just one ridiculous ass=
>umption
>> > > > > > after another. I'm sorry for having underestimated you. When I =
>saw
>> > > > > > Waltards had returned, I demoted you to the #2 dumbest person o=
>n this
>> > > > > > board. I realize now I was too hasty. You have risen to the top=
>.
>> > > > > > Congratulations.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > But you're reading his mind without him saying
>> > > > > > > > > > > anything. There's a difference, but you have to be of
>> > > > > > > > > > > average
>> > > > > > > > > > > intelligence to see it.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Yes there's a difference. I read what Hoover said and b=
>elieve
>> > > > > > > > > > he meant
>> > > > > > > > > > what he said. You read what he said and claim he meant =
>exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > opposite of what he said.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Hmm. And I remember you agreeing that politicians lie, an=
>d yet
>> > > > > > > > > you're ready to believe whatever ol' Hoover said.
>>
>> > > > > > > > When politicians lie, it is usually when they are in public
>> > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > they are trying to deceive the public. That isn't the case =
>with
>> > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > he was telling privately to LBJ. When Hoover told LBJ Oswal=
>d was
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > assassin, I believe him because that is what the evidence
>> > > > > > > > dictates.
>>
>> > > > > > > 'Usually'? So there are cases that they lie and they're not i=
>n
>> > > > > > > public? OK, was this one of them? First, he didn't say "Oswal=
>d was
>> > > > > > > the assassin". He said the people had to be convinced that Os=
>wald
>> > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > the 'real' assassin. Big difference. You tried to say it like=
> it was
>> > > > > > > so, and Hoover said it like it wasn't and had to be impressed=
> on
>> > > > > > > people. To be sure of what we're talking about, that you wipe=
>d out,
>> > > > > > > here it is again:
>>
>> > > > > > Keep up the illogical thought process. It should keep you in th=
>e dark
>> > > > > > for another 48 years.
>>
>> > > > > > > "Hoover noted the need to have "something issued so we can co=
>nvince
>> > > > > > > the public that Oswald is the real assassin,"
>>
>> > > > > > Gee, I don't suppose it crossed that dysfunctional mind of your=
>s that
>> > > > > > Hoover wanted to convince the American people that Oswald was t=
>he
>> > > > > > assassin because Oswald was the assassin. Of course it didn't b=
>ecause
>> > > > > > that is the logical explaination.
>>
>> > > > > Nope. The whole story looked at objectively (logically) makes cle=
>ar
>> > > > > that it was multiple shooters ordered from high up.
>>
>> > > > That is "clear" only to people who believe things on faith and not
>> > > > hard evidence. That hard evidence points to LHO alone.
>>
>> > > =A0 The mess of the 'hard' evidence was part of the reason no one
>> > > believed the stupid WC theories. =A0It didn't make sense except to WC
>> > > sycophants.
>>
>> > > How silly.Those who have looked at the evidence objectively can only =
>come to
>> > > one conclusion. Oswald did it alone. Almost 50 years on you conspiran=
>oids
>> > > are still floundering. Still rehashing old canards like Roger Craig a=
>nd
>> > > Gordon Arnold. Neither of whoms stories can be corroborated. Doesn't =
>that
>> > > bother you?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0Naah. =A0Corroboration is overrated.
>>
>> WOW!!! That statement alone speaks volumes. I could have made a dozen
>> posts and not demonstrated how flawed your thinking is better than you
>> did with this one sentence.
>>
>> >=A0The general whacko theories of
>> > the WC are enough on their own to generate suspicion that the powers
>> > that be have played a wild card on everyone to make their own life
>> > simpler. =A0Further evidence is only addenda.
>>
>> The WC conclusions are based on hard evidence.


If this were actually true, the kooks wouldn't have such a hard time giving
credible and non-conspiratorial explanations for it.

And the kooks, from John McAdams and Vincent Bugliosi, and many others; wouldn't
be forced to lie.


>> Each piece of evidence
>> corroborates others. All the pieces fit to the point where they are
>> greater than the sum of the parts.


Completely untrue.


>> Your idiotic beliefs are completely
>> disjointed. One piece doesn't fit with another. You've taken a bunch
>> of lose threads, put them together and come up with a pile of loose
>> threads.
>>
>> > > > >It was clear LHO
>> > > > > was the patsy.
>>
>> > > > As I was saying...
>>
>> > > > > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
>> > > > > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
>> > > > > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>>
>> > > > There's that fucking "They" again.
>>
>> > > =A0 Yep. =A0Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you. =A0Th=
>at must
>> > > feel terribly lonely.
>>
>> > > Nah. I'd like some names to assign to your moniker "they". Got any?
>>
>> > =A0 Don't act the child, it becomes you.
>>
>> Being a dumbfuck becomes you.
>
>bigdog-lil dickee <----- a legend in his own mind! R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O


mainframetech

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 7:37:04 AM4/26/12
to
Welp, you mised my addition of the list of many of the names at the
end of the last post, and this one as well. Now hurry along to the
end and find them.

> > > > > > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person,
> > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > > > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > > > > > > Nope. But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > > > > > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
> > > > > You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place? How
> > > > > could you let it happen? Too weak to hold your position? :))
>
> > > > When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
>
> > > Or in any other way.
>
> > > Odd, because John is certainly handing you your arse on a plate so far.
>
> > LOL! Being an objective observer, what do you offer to make a point
> > for backdoor bigdog?
>
> > Who said I was objective. Oswald did it, alone. Does that clarify it for
> > you. Let me know if your struggling, we're here to help.
>
>    Ah!  I see your owner has got you saying all the wrong things.
>
> Ah, saying things you cannot counter. Again can you name my "owner"?  Or is
> this yet another silly claim you can't back up?

No difference than before. You're hauled out at certain times as
before, and the evidence is just as telling now as then. Why a guy
would want to inhabit a female alter ego, is up to you. It's clear
you don't have any knowledge of your own.
LOL! Don't attempt to act like you have any say here. You don't
have any more than anyone else...:)
I won't be required to do anything. A wimpy little alter ego like
you is in no position to 'require' anything of anybody.

> > > > > And the guy that saw
> > > > > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > > > > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have remembered
> > > > > without some help from the DPD. All that to try and corroborate a
> > > > > whacky WC theory.
>
> > > > He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> > > > before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> > > > rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
> > > Sure. He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
> > > WC attorney. He got the description screwy. He was able to see
> > > fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope. Sure.
>
> > > He identifyed Ossie as the shooter. Deal with it. Why would he be
> > > looking
> > > for a scope? Memories are not photographs dummy. Not all the details
> > > will
> > > be
> > > exact.
>
>   Yep.  And he couldn'tget the clothes right or the scope, but he
> could see LHO's face exactly.  Get off it.  The DPD led him to make
> the ID.  It wasn't 'Law & Order'.
>
> Don't watch it. At least you've admitted that he was identified as the
> shooter. See? You can be taught.
>
LOL! I said nothing of the sort, and that's a rather lame tactic.
My words were in sarcastic mode, but perhaps you can't pick that out
of normal text?

> > That's one of the problems. Even with good eyesight, looking up 150
> > feet and being able to identify a person in a lineup smacks of setup.
> > Especially when he had looked right at the rifle and didn't see a
> > scope until cued.
>
> > Having good eyesight has bugger all to do with it. Memories are nothing
> > more
> > than mental representations of a particular event. Thats why you get so
> > many
> > different interpretations of said event from different witnesses. This is
> > not rocket science Missy.
>
>   OK.  Now you've eliminated eyesight, and made memories suspect.  So
> much for that witness...Thanks!  :)
>
> How simplistic. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, surely
> you've learned this? Some eyewitness testimony may be correct in part,
> that's why we need physical evidence(of which the Oswald did it side has
> plenty) to corroborate it. Your side has lots of guesswork and paranoia, try
> taking that into a court and see how you go.
>
Whoa! You've just made a leap of foolishness that's too far over
the edge. You have nothing that proves that LHO did any shooting from
the 6th floor. That he may have placed some evidence for others to
find and blame someone else, well, maybe. But no evidence to prove
that he did any shooting with a rifle that day. And there is the
evidence of someone going around trying to set up LHO as a guilty
party before the fact automaticaly makes him innocent...it's all too
much. Only fools would be taken in by it all.
Or maybe this or maybe that. Can you maybe up a shooter for JFK?

> > Competent shooters (trained snipers)
>
> > So you would describe a sniper as "competent"? LOL. Never been in the
> > military have you?
>
>   Yep, I have.  And when talking about shooters, a sniper is
> 'competent', whereas LHO wasn't.
>
> A sniper is far more than "competent" and you know it. You really are
> floundering.
>
You saying something makes sure that it ain't so. Look above and
see what the 'chat' has been. *I* was the one that said a sniper was
more competent, now you're saying it like I would argue with you.
Foolish. Attempting to make a point because you're saying that a
sniper is MORE than competent! Sheesh!

> > stated that Oswald could not have done the shooting at JFK. They even
> > tried it and failed to duplicate it. And the 'smoke' was seen by a
> > few people, not just one.
>
> > Citations please for both assertions.
>
>   That too was provided here in a previous thread.  Go find it.
>
> Another Holmes ploy. You made the assertion, you find it. Don't be lazy.
>
>  The
> name of the competent shooters were Carlos Hathcock and Craig Roberts,
> both trained snipers.  Are you going to try demeaning their
> contributions now?
>
> Not at all, I'm asking you to back up your assertions with citations, which
> you have once again failed to do.
>
Now you're falling back on trying to lie. That ain't nice. I've
profuced the text and information for both shooters. Of course, you
were unable to deal with it and made some inane comments. Now you're
welcome to hunt it up yourself. I bet you don't save a thing and
depend on your 'memory' that you say is fallible for people. A shame
yours has failed once again.
> samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au. That should put you on the right track newbie.
>
Ah! So you have that ID also? Like the one samjbrown@
bigpond.com? Used here recently.

> > The 9-11 issue is solved. Just a matter of getting the information
> > in front of folks. Go to:
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > They now have 1,684 architects and Engineers that have signed up as
> > believing that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
> > It's a growing population, with thousands more general signatories.
>
> > There you go making me laugh again. Now snap to it and get it solved.
> > Because you are woefully inept at getting anywhere with JFK.
>
>   Nope.  The Twin Towers thing is done and moves on to the next
> phase.  I'm right here for the duration, as always.  And I'm not
> really trying to 'get anywhere with JFK', I'm trying to give the
> onlookers some links to check and have them see some of the idiots
> that are deeply in love with the WC to the degree that they are
> willing to damage what little reputation they have left.
>
> So far the "lurkers" of whom you speak don't seem to be jumping to your
> defence. Does that tell you anything? Anything at all? ;)
>
Yep. Just what I would expect. I wouldn't jump into a silly,
childish thread like this myself.

> > > Try to keep up
> > > and keep the flow going. Thanks!
>
> > > Absolutely John KUTGW. This twerp writes like Ben Holmes, hiding,
> > > dodging,
> > > refusing to answer direct questions.
>
> > As do you. We could all be little benny...what a concept...I could
> > charge to rent showers...:)
>
> > Charge double for Holmes and Heely, they'll be in that same little cubicle
> > for hours :)
>
> For those that might have missed it, here are some names that were
> witnesses to action at the Grassy Knoll:
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_06iHdM3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJCCW7R2bZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqwKWDqRsg
>
>
> "Action"? Who saw a gunman? Worthless youtube videos from worthless and
> completely debunked doco's like 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Disappointing
> but not unexpected.

You were devoid of names, and there are just some of them for you.
You can do your usual attempt at trying to make them seem useless, but
the people in them are clearly speaking the truth and expected to be
believed. What a surprise to them to find that the authorities tried
to ignore them or select only the right witnessses that said what they
wanted or demean some, and even try to pay one of them to forget what
he saw.

During the videos, there was a fellow who saw 2 rifles fired over
the fence from the parking lot at JFK. When he saw that he commented
that one of them used a car to stand on, and later a different witness
went there to find the people he saw there, and saw dirt on a bumper
that wasobviously from someone using the bumper to stand on. Funny
how you and your great memory miss things like that...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 7:47:50 AM4/26/12
to
Ah! So you feel that most of the people are easily manipulated, yet
they come to the government and complain. Not being manipulated too
well, no doubt about that.

> > The furor
> > that arose from millions of people was the evidence that a lousy job
> > was done by the WC and related authorities.  And it took 5 or more
> > panels and there is still not satisfaction as to the lousy job done by
> > the authorities.  The effort you are making is proof of how
> > incompetently the case was handled.
>
> How many more panels do you need to tell you that it was Oswald who
> shot JFK? That's what every panel has concluded.
>
Well, of course! That's what they werre supposed to find. That's
why half the people across the country complained. They knew better.

> > > > > > >It was clear LHO
> > > > > > > was the patsy.
>
> > > > > > As I was saying...
>
> > > > > > > They even tried to set him up before the 'Big Event'
> > > > > > > by making him look like he was involved with the wrong people in
> > > > > > > Mexico City and then with Silvia Odio.
>
> > > > > > There's that fucking "They" again.
>
> > > > >   Yep.  Everybody watching knows who 'they' are except you.  That must
> > > > > feel terribly lonely.
>
> > > > > Nah. I'd like some names to assign to your moniker "they". Got any?
>
> > > >   Don't act the child, it becomes you.
>
> > > Being a dumbfuck becomes you.
>
>
For those that might have missed it, here are some names that were
witnesses to action at the Grassy Knoll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqwKWDqRsg

>
> Without even looking at them, I'll bet the mortage payment that not
> one of them will have somebody saying they saw a shooter on the GK.
> How can I be so sure? Because nobody saw a shooter on the GK.


Nope. You blew it again. At least one person on the videos saw 2
shooters fire rifles over the fence toward JFK.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 7:53:58 AM4/26/12
to
Odd that you would try to say that. It must be that you're feeling
very lost right about now and have to attempt to get back some of your
bluster and lying (like with the body at gunpoint).

When I say something that is new, that I haven't said before, I
back it up, and going back through the threads we've built, you will
see the proof of that. However, if I've proved something more than a
few times, I assume you're just trying to harass, and I'm not inclined
to go fetch as often. Now on the other hand, you often say all sorts
of outrageous things, and never back them up, you try to run away from
them or ignore them and move along.

So anyone following this thread can look back and see which of us
backs up his statements, and which one just uses ad hominem methods
frequently to get away when there is no comeback to legitimate
evidence.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 8:36:22 AM4/26/12
to
> Thanks again for another belly laugh. As I stated before I even looked
> at the videos, there's not one person who saw a gunman fire from the
> GK. The fact that you find Ed Hoffman credible is the biggest laugh of
> all. Never mind that he didn't tell anyone his story until 1967.

>
Interesting that you would lie so badly. If you had really seen the
videos, you saw Ed Hoffman say that he tried to tell authorities what
he saw and they weren't paying attention and wouldn't bother with
him. Later when other than authorities 'spoke' with him, his story
came out. Another victim of selective witness tampering.

> bullshit story refutes itself. He claims to have seen the gunman hand
> the rifle to the accomplice who then walked away. Then he claims to
> have seen JFK pass underneath him and that after seeing that he tried
> to get the attention of a cop on the railroad overpass.. How could he
> have seen that if he was watching the gunman and his accomplice hiding
> the rifle and walking away.

I wonder if it occurred to you (oh, of course it didn't) that
Hoffman saw what he saw AFTER the shots had been fired? From where he
was on the far side of the overpass, he could see the guy with the
rifle give it to the other, then the other walk toward the railroad
tracks where he could stop and break down the rifle and put it in the
tool box. That was some distance away from the overpass section of
the rail lines. If you look with Google Earth, you can see that there
is a place where a guy could walk onto the tracks from the parking lot
further away from the actual overpass, where people would be standing
to see JFK. If he carried the rifle along his side, it would be
inconspicuous until he laid it down to break apart. Most people would
be looking at the GK or the other things and not the gunman. This
particular story seems to bother you more than some others. Why is
that? It's more obvious as to what happened, and Ed Hoffman doesn't
seem to be a fool? Or he seems honest? What is it?

> Why didn't Sam Holland, the cop on the
> overpass and the other workers who immediately ran to the GK see these
> two guys, Hoffman claims the rifleman WALKED to his accomplice and
> hand him the rifle and that guy walked to the place where he
> supposedly broke the rifle down and put it in a tool box. Do you
> really think none of those other witnesses who were much closer than
> Hoffman claimed to be would have missed a guy holding a rifle?

Yep. When the transfer occurred it was only a second after the
shots. Most people had a few seconds to realize what had happened.
By that time the 'railroad' man was walking with the rifle to the west
toward the tracks. He was north a bit along the tracks from the
people on the overpass. If they began to run down to the parking lot
at that time, the 'railroad' man would be already at the tracks and
squatting down next to the switchbox that might hide what he was
doing. But Hoffman's position on the far side of the overpass was
different than others and he would see plenty at that angle. Hoffman
said that the FBI wanted him to shut up, and they offered him money.
Others have complained of the same thing with the FBI. Thy're the
cleanup patrol.

> And Sam
> Holland is not your friend. He said he saw a puff of smoke that looked
> like cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke is not evidence of a shooter.

Ed Hoffman also saw the smoke, but knew it wasn't from a cigarette.
Corroboration. Bowers said he saw a flash at that area and knew
something was happening there. Bowers couldn't see a flash that
happened on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

> Holland and the others got to the area behind the picket fence seconds
> after the shooting but your imaginary shooter wasn't there. Lee Bowers
> didn't see him either. Nobody who ran up the GK saw that shooter. But
> we're supposed to believe a guy who claims he was watching from the
> opposite side of the freeway saw what nobody else did? <snicker>

If the 'railroad' guy walked toward the tracks but more north, the
others wouldn't necessary pay any attention to him, if he was holding
the gun along his side. He was dressed as though he belonged there.
I would expect that a deaf and dumb guy would use his sight better
than the average person, and notice more too.
<yockyockyock> :)

For those that might have missed it, here are some names that were
witnesses to action at the Grassy Knoll:

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 8:43:43 AM4/26/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ef62b7b-b9c5-4966...@fv28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Chimp, you made the assertion. Either back it up or sit down,
More evidence that you are deranged. This is far too easy.
Giggle away schoolgirl. Once again you've proved you are all hat and no
cowboy. Snap to it if you can.
And a wimpy little schoolgirl like you is unable to back up your claims.
Shame.


> > > > > And the guy that saw
> > > > > someone shooting a rifle from the 6th floor couldn't get his story
> > > > > straight, and he remembered stuff that no one would have
> > > > > remembered
> > > > > without some help from the DPD. All that to try and corroborate a
> > > > > whacky WC theory.
>
> > > > He saw things other people didn't see because he located the gunman
> > > > before they did. He saw the last shot fired. The others saw the
> > > > rifleman pulling the rifle back inside the building.
>
> > > Sure. He didn't see the scope on the rifle until hinted at by the
> > > WC attorney. He got the description screwy. He was able to see
> > > fantastic detail from that distance, but didn't see a scope. Sure.
>
> > > He identifyed Ossie as the shooter. Deal with it. Why would he be
> > > looking
> > > for a scope? Memories are not photographs dummy. Not all the details
> > > will
> > > be
> > > exact.
>
> Yep. And he couldn'tget the clothes right or the scope, but he
> could see LHO's face exactly. Get off it. The DPD led him to make
> the ID. It wasn't 'Law & Order'.
>
> Don't watch it. At least you've admitted that he was identified as the
> shooter. See? You can be taught.
>
LOL! I said nothing of the sort,

Sure you did dummy here it is "the DPD led him to make the ID" Got a
citation for that?


and that's a rather lame tactic.
My words were in sarcastic mode, but perhaps you can't pick that out
of normal text?


Perhaps you should be more direct and honest in your responses. Sarcasm is
the lowest form of wit, have you heard that before? You admitted he made the
ID. Are you a blatant liar too?


> > That's one of the problems. Even with good eyesight, looking up 150
> > feet and being able to identify a person in a lineup smacks of setup.
> > Especially when he had looked right at the rifle and didn't see a
> > scope until cued.
>
> > Having good eyesight has bugger all to do with it. Memories are nothing
> > more
> > than mental representations of a particular event. Thats why you get so
> > many
> > different interpretations of said event from different witnesses. This
> > is
> > not rocket science Missy.
>
> OK. Now you've eliminated eyesight, and made memories suspect. So
> much for that witness...Thanks! :)
>
> How simplistic. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, surely
> you've learned this? Some eyewitness testimony may be correct in part,
> that's why we need physical evidence(of which the Oswald did it side has
> plenty) to corroborate it. Your side has lots of guesswork and paranoia,
> try
> taking that into a court and see how you go.
>
Whoa! You've just made a leap of foolishness that's too far over
the edge. You have nothing that proves that LHO did any shooting from
the 6th floor. That he may have placed some evidence for others to
find and blame someone else, well, maybe.


So now you are claiming Ossie framed himself? Are you insane?


But no evidence to prove
that he did any shooting with a rifle that day. And there is the
evidence of someone


Oh the singular version of "they". LOL. Got a name?


going around trying to set up LHO as a guilty
party before the fact automaticaly makes him innocent...it's all too
much.


Only for mental midgets like yourself.


Only fools would be taken in by it all.


Only a fool would be taken in by the amount of Conspiracy theories that you
seem to get aroused by. JFK, Twin Towers, Big Pharma, do you see UFO's too
kook?
Lost?
Makes no sense. Can I "up a shooter". Try again. I don't understand
kookspeak.


> > Competent shooters (trained snipers)
>
> > So you would describe a sniper as "competent"? LOL. Never been in the
> > military have you?
>
> Yep, I have. And when talking about shooters, a sniper is
> 'competent', whereas LHO wasn't.
>
> A sniper is far more than "competent" and you know it. You really are
> floundering.
>
You saying something makes sure that it ain't so. Look above and
see what the 'chat' has been. *I* was the one that said a sniper was
more competent, now you're saying it like I would argue with you.
Foolish. Attempting to make a point because you're saying that a
sniper is MORE than competent! Sheesh!


You really are stuck aren't you? You claimed Oswald was not a competent
shooter and yet he achieved marksman status. Then you said "a sniper is
competent". Is english your third language? I know you're proficient at kook
but your English is woeful.

> > stated that Oswald could not have done the shooting at JFK. They even
> > tried it and failed to duplicate it. And the 'smoke' was seen by a
> > few people, not just one.
>
> > Citations please for both assertions.
>
> That too was provided here in a previous thread. Go find it.
>
> Another Holmes ploy. You made the assertion, you find it. Don't be lazy.


Too lazy? Or merely bluffing?


>
> The
> name of the competent shooters were Carlos Hathcock and Craig Roberts,
> both trained snipers. Are you going to try demeaning their
> contributions now?
>
> Not at all, I'm asking you to back up your assertions with citations,
> which
> you have once again failed to do.
>
Now you're falling back on trying to lie. That ain't nice. I've
profuced the text and information for both shooters.


You have *profused* nothing of the sort. That little lady is not a citation
that is you pulling names out of your backside. Won't do.


Of course, you
were unable to deal with it and made some inane comments. Now you're
welcome to hunt it up yourself.


Because you cannot back up your silly claims ?Nope, you make the assertion,
you back it up or shut up. You are fooling no-one.


I bet you don't save a thing and
depend on your 'memory' that you say is fallible for people. A shame
yours has failed once again.


Then help me out and give us all citations. But you won't because you can't.



Again you are hiding.
Sigh. Not "also" dummy. I CHANGED ISP'S. There, better?


Like the one samjbrown@
bigpond.com? Used here recently.


Prove that one too. My address is samjb...@bigpond.com. Link to one post
where I used the address you just typed. You can't liar.


> > The 9-11 issue is solved. Just a matter of getting the information
> > in front of folks. Go to:
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > They now have 1,684 architects and Engineers that have signed up as
> > believing that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
> > It's a growing population, with thousands more general signatories.
>
> > There you go making me laugh again. Now snap to it and get it solved.
> > Because you are woefully inept at getting anywhere with JFK.
>
> Nope. The Twin Towers thing is done and moves on to the next
> phase. I'm right here for the duration, as always. And I'm not
> really trying to 'get anywhere with JFK', I'm trying to give the
> onlookers some links to check and have them see some of the idiots
> that are deeply in love with the WC to the degree that they are
> willing to damage what little reputation they have left.
>
> So far the "lurkers" of whom you speak don't seem to be jumping to your
> defence. Does that tell you anything? Anything at all? ;)
>
Yep. Just what I would expect. I wouldn't jump into a silly,
childish thread like this myself.


It's childish because you are making assertions that you cannot back up.
It's a habit of yours.
Again with the lying about what I said. Quote me saying I had a great
memory. What a bullshit artist you are.As to your rather insipid point about
"someone" seeing dirt on a bumper, show me one photograph or piece of film
or piece of testimony that says there was a gunman in that spot.
Chris


Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 9:18:38 AM4/26/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:92e049d3-9dc9-491b...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
Are you denying that you wrote this?

" LOL! Well, you walked into that one. Your favorite author V.
Bugliosi in his book "Reclaiming History" says they took the body and
had the Medical Examiner at gunpoint against the wall at Parkland and
then they stole the body. It was also against the wishes of a Judge
Theron Ward who was a justice of the peace there at the time. Look at
page 110 at 2:04pm"


You did lie. The body was not removed at gunpoint. And Bugliosi makes no
such assertion.



When I say something that is new, that I haven't said before, I
back it up,


No you don't. You lie. More bluster. How sad.


and going back through the threads we've built, you will
see the proof of that. However, if I've proved something more than a
few times, I assume you're just trying to harass, and I'm not inclined
to go fetch as often. Now on the other hand, you often say all sorts
of outrageous things, and never back them up, you try to run away from
them or ignore them and move along.

So anyone following this thread can look back and see which of us
backs up his statements,


Definitely not you little lady.



and which one just uses ad hominem methods
frequently to get away when there is no comeback to legitimate
evidence.


No dummy, the insults are reserved for those who deserve them. Kooks like
you. You read a conspiracy book and watch a couple of youtube videos and
believe that you are making breakthroughs? You are a joke.


Chris


bigdog

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 9:50:10 AM4/26/12
to
SInce Hoffman made up the rest of his story, why wouldn't he make up
that part. There was no witness tampering. Ed Hoffman was not a
witness to anything. His story doesn't hold water on so many levels.
It takes a real dumbfuck to believe such a ridiculous story.

> > bullshit story refutes itself. He claims to have seen the gunman hand
> > the rifle to the accomplice who then walked away. Then he claims to
> > have seen JFK pass underneath him and that after seeing that he tried
> > to get the attention of a cop on the railroad overpass.. How could he
> > have seen that if he was watching the gunman and his accomplice hiding
> > the rifle and walking away.
>
>   I wonder if it occurred to you (oh, of course it didn't) that
> Hoffman saw what he saw AFTER the shots had been fired?  From where he
> was on the far side of the overpass, he could see the guy with the
> rifle give it to the other, then the other walk toward the railroad
> tracks where he could stop and break down the rifle and put it in the
> tool box.  That was some distance away from the overpass section of
> the rail lines.  If you look with Google Earth, you can see that there
> is a place where a guy could walk onto the tracks from the parking lot
> further away from the actual overpass, where people would be standing
> to see JFK.  If he carried the rifle along his side, it would be
> inconspicuous until he laid it down to break apart.  Most people would
> be looking at the GK or the other things and not the gunman.

Right dumbfuck. People who have just seen shots fired wouldn't notice
a guy with a rifle walking the other way.

> This
> particular story seems to bother you more than some others.  Why is
> that?  It's more obvious as to what happened, and Ed Hoffman doesn't
> seem to be a fool?  Or he seems honest? What is it?
>
Being a fool yourself, you probably can't see what a fool Hoffman is.
Just one of the boys to you. Nothing about Hoffman's story bothers me
in the least because it is such obvious bullshit. Some CT claims take
a little thought to refute. This story pretty much refutes itself.


Your version is completely at odds with Hoffman's. Hoffman had the guy
carrying the rifle in front of him and he showed the guy breaking down
the rifle at a location where anybody on the overpass would have been
able to easily see him. Of course since according to Hoffman, the
rifle was walked from the GK to the electrical box where the breakdown
was supposedly made , that means that the guy who put the rifle away
would have been walking right past the witnesses who rushed to the GK
from the overpass.

And did you bother to look the view from where Holland said they found
the muddy bumper. Lots of trees between the shooter and Elm St. It
would have been next to impossible for a shooter to track a moving
target with all those trees in the way. No competent shooter would
even attempt such a shot. Only a dumbfuck would do that.
> >    Why didn't Sam Holland, the cop on the
> > overpass and the other workers who immediately ran to the GK see these
> > two guys, Hoffman claims the rifleman WALKED to his accomplice and
> > hand him the rifle and that guy walked to the place where he
> > supposedly broke the rifle down and put it in a tool box. Do you
> > really think none of those other witnesses who were much closer than
> > Hoffman claimed to be would have missed a guy holding a rifle?
>
>   Yep.  When the transfer occurred it was only a second after the
> shots.
You need to look at your own video again. According to Hoffman, the
shooter walked the weapon to his accomplice who then walked it to the
spot on the overpass where the rifle was supposedly put in a tool box.
That took a hell of a lot longer than one second. If Hoffman had been
watching all that, he would have never seen JFK pass under him.

< Most people had a few seconds to realize what had happened.
> By that time the 'railroad' man was walking with the rifle to the west
> toward the tracks.  He was north a bit along the tracks from the
> people on the overpass.  If they began to run down to the parking lot
> at that time, the 'railroad' man would be already at the tracks and
> squatting down next to the switchbox that might hide what he was
> doing.

According to Hoffman, both the shooter and his accomplice walked while
the people on the overpass ran to the GK and you think the guys with
the rifle would have got from the GK to the tracks faster than the
guys on the tracks would have got to the GK. Brilliant piece of
reasoning. KUTGW, dumbfuck.

> But Hoffman's position on the far side of the overpass was
> different than others and he would see plenty at that angle.  Hoffman
> said that the FBI wanted him to shut up, and they offered him money.
> Others have complained of the same thing with the FBI.  Thy're the
> cleanup patrol.
>
And you believe an obviousl liar like Hoffman because you are a
dumbfuck. I can just imagine how much credibility you would have given
a witness who claimed to have been on the 6th floor and saw Oswald
fire the rifle if he waited until 1967 to tell his story.

> > And Sam
> > Holland is not your friend. He said he saw a puff of smoke that looked
> > like cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke is not evidence of a shooter.
>
>   Ed Hoffman also saw the smoke, but knew it wasn't from a cigarette.
> Corroboration.  Bowers said he saw a flash at that area and knew
> something was happening there.  Bowers couldn't see a flash that
> happened on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
A flash from a weapon fired from the GK would not have been visible to
Bowers in the tower. There is very little flash from a weapon fired in
broad daylight and the muzzle of the rifle would have been pointing
away from Bowers, so he wouldn't have seen a flash coming from the
business end of a firearm.

By the time Ed Hoffman got around to telling his story to anybody, all
this other information was in the public domain. He did nothing more
than invent a story that fit with what other witnesses had already
stated. That doesn't constitute corroboration. Corroboration is when a
witness tells a story that is supported by an independent piece of
evidence that the witness could not have otherwise known about. Howard
Brennan's observations are corroborated by the fact that spent shells
were found at the window he pointed to as the source of the shots. He
would have had no knowledge those shells were there at the time he
told the police where he saw the shooter. Had Hoffman told his story
before the statements by Holland and the others were part of the
public record, you could make a case for corroboration. As it is, all
you've got is a deaf mute he made up a story to get attention. Most
CTs don't even believe Hoffman. Only the real dumbfucks find him
credible.

> > Holland and the others got to the area behind the picket fence seconds
> > after the shooting but your imaginary shooter wasn't there. Lee Bowers
> > didn't see him either. Nobody who ran up the GK saw that shooter. But
> > we're supposed to believe a guy who claims he was watching from the
> > opposite side of the freeway saw what nobody else did? <snicker>
>
>   If the 'railroad' guy walked toward the tracks but more north, the
> others wouldn't necessary pay any attention to him, if he was holding
> the gun along his side.  He was dressed as though he belonged there.

RIght, asshole. The president has just been shot and people ran to the
area that THOUGHT ths shots were fired from and they wouldn't have
paid any attention to a guy with a rifle. And according to Hoffman,
the rifle wasn't carried at his side. He was holding it in front of
his chest, very conspicuously.

> I would expect that a deaf and dumb guy would use his sight better
> than the average person, and notice more too.

I wouldn't expect a dumbfuck like you to use his brain at all and so
far you have given us no evidence that you have.
> <yockyockyock>  :)
>
> For those that might have missed it, here are some names that were
> witnesses to action at the Grassy Knoll:
>

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 10:05:19 AM4/26/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ef62b7b-b9c5-4966...@fv28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
BTW, in the interest of furthering to your lacklustre education it's spelled
*whelp* not "welp". You've made this error several times now. You're welcome
:)


aeffects

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 12:59:49 PM4/26/12
to
the last vestiage of the coward slamin' sam doin' brown, spelling.
ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 6:04:50 PM4/26/12
to
Stick it. You don't command here.
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > Naah, not logical.
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words,
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person,
> > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > > > > > > > > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> > > > > > > > Nope. But maybe by Hoover.
>
> > > > > > > No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
>
> > > > > > You mean that I pushed you aside and took over in your place? How
> > > > > > could you let it happen? Too weak to hold your position? :))
>
> > > > > When it comes to being a dumbfuck, I can't compete with you.
>
> > > > Or in any other way.
>
> > > > Odd, because John is certainly handing you your arse on a plate so
> > > > far.
>
> > > LOL! Being an objective observer, what do you offer to make a point
> > > for backdoor bigdog?
>
> > > Who said I was objective. Oswald did it, alone. Does that clarify it for
> > > you. Let me know if your struggling, we're here to help.
>
> > Ah! I see your owner has got you saying all the wrong things.
>
> ...
>
> read more »

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 6:11:51 PM4/26/12
to
I gave you the backup, stupid. You failed to check it out? It was
right from the bugger man's book"Reclaiming History". He should have
called it "Rewriting History".

>    When I say something that is new, that I haven't said before, I
> back it up,
>
> No you don't. You lie. More bluster. How sad.
>
> and going back through the threads we've built, you will
> see the proof of that.  However, if I've proved something more than a
> few times, I assume you're just trying to harass, and I'm not inclined
> to go fetch as often.  Now on the other hand, you often say all sorts
> of outrageous things, and never back them up, you try to run away from
> them or ignore them and move along.
>
>   So anyone following this thread can look back and see which of us
> backs up his statements,
>
> Definitely not you little lady.
Hmm. Since I'm male, I imagine you have a sick fixation on women
that you hope and assume I'm female. Another one of your foolish
errors.
>
> and which one just uses ad hominem methods
> frequently to get away when there is no comeback to legitimate
> evidence.
>
> No dummy, the insults are reserved for those who deserve them. Kooks like
> you. You read a conspiracy book and watch a couple of youtube videos and
> believe that you are making breakthroughs? You are a joke.
>
Breakthroughs? Who said that? You thought that? That's kind of
stupid, even for such an egotistical type like you. I don't expect to
make any breakthroughs in a topic that has been discussed daily for so
many years. Ilearn a lot on a regular basis, but not from you. You
ahve onlty the old nutty WC script to read from.

> Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 6:15:23 PM4/26/12
to
Poor little Travel Channel hostess. You didn't know that 'welp' was
short for a certain accented 'well now'. Not 'whelp' as in having a
puppy. LOL! Try again...:)

Chris

Oh, and what happened to samj...@bigpond.com? (see above)

mainframetech

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 6:18:41 PM4/26/12
to

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 8:03:58 PM4/26/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45af19d1-fdbc-43a6...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
Don't get upset whelp, you actually gave a genuine citation, page number and
even the book title So you are making progress.. Unfortunately you lied
about what it said. Ooops. Caught out agian.

You failed to check it out? It was
right from the bugger man's book"Reclaiming History".


Yes, I have it in front of me now Whelp.


He should have
called it "Rewriting History".


Isn't that your pet project?


> When I say something that is new, that I haven't said before, I
> back it up,
>
> No you don't. You lie. More bluster. How sad.
>
> and going back through the threads we've built, you will
> see the proof of that. However, if I've proved something more than a
> few times, I assume you're just trying to harass, and I'm not inclined
> to go fetch as often. Now on the other hand, you often say all sorts
> of outrageous things, and never back them up, you try to run away from
> them or ignore them and move along.
>
> So anyone following this thread can look back and see which of us
> backs up his statements,
>
> Definitely not you little lady.


Hmm. Since I'm male,


That's a matter of opinion :)


I imagine


You like to imagine things don't you. It's a good thing in a child, for you?
Not so much.


you have a sick fixation on women
that you hope and assume I'm female.


I think you are a little girl who won't back up her assertions.


Another one of your foolish
errors.


Doubt it.




>
> and which one just uses ad hominem methods
> frequently to get away when there is no comeback to legitimate
> evidence.
>
> No dummy, the insults are reserved for those who deserve them. Kooks like
> you. You read a conspiracy book and watch a couple of youtube videos and
> believe that you are making breakthroughs? You are a joke.

>
Breakthroughs? Who said that? You thought that? That's kind of
stupid, even for such an egotistical type like you. I don't expect to
make any breakthroughs in a topic that has been discussed daily for so
many years. Ilearn a lot on a regular basis, but not from you. You
ahve onlty the old nutty WC script to read from.



Ah but Whelp I also have 'Reclaiming History" and caught you in a lie about
it's assertions. How embarrassing for you.


> Chris


bigdog

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 8:02:55 PM4/26/12
to
What an absolute blatant lie. Bugliosi's account of the Parkland
confrontation is on page 110. Nowhere does he write that anybody drew
a gun on anybody. How pathetic do you have to be to have to resort to
telling outright lies? Anybody who is following this thread can check
out what Bugliosi wrote in Reclaiming History and they will know
without question what a despicable liar you are. Being a dumbfuck can
be forgiven since you were born without the mental faculties most
people have. Being a liar is something you chose to do and earns you
nothing but contempt. If you had anybody on your side, they will be
bailing on you, unless of course they are liars themselves.
>
>
>
>
> >    When I say something that is new, that I haven't said before, I
> > back it up,
>
> > No you don't. You lie. More bluster. How sad.
>
> > and going back through the threads we've built, you will
> > see the proof of that.  However, if I've proved something more than a
> > few times, I assume you're just trying to harass, and I'm not inclined
> > to go fetch as often.  Now on the other hand, you often say all sorts
> > of outrageous things, and never back them up, you try to run away from
> > them or ignore them and move along.
>
> >   So anyone following this thread can look back and see which of us
> > backs up his statements,
>
> > Definitely not you little lady.
>
You back up your statements with blatant lies that any and all can see
for what they are. You are a coward and a liar and it doesn't get much
lower than that. Child molesters are the only ones between you and the
bottom of the barrel.

>   Hmm.  Since I'm male, I imagine you have a sick fixation on women
> that you hope and assume I'm female.  Another one of your foolish
> errors.
>
> > and which one just uses ad hominem methods
> > frequently to get away when there is no comeback to legitimate
> > evidence.
>
> > No dummy, the insults are reserved for those who deserve them. Kooks like
> > you. You read a conspiracy book and watch a couple of youtube videos and
> > believe that you are making breakthroughs? You are a joke.
>
>   Breakthroughs?  Who said that?  You thought that?  That's kind of
> stupid, even for such an egotistical type like you.  I don't expect to
> make any breakthroughs in a topic that has been discussed daily for so
> many years.  Ilearn a lot on a regular basis, but not from you.  You
> ahve onlty the old nutty WC script to read from.
>
You have learned how to evade questions and you have learned how to
lie. That's about all you have learned, scumbag.

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 8:12:11 PM4/26/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:61795389-98a7-4d64...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Whose accent would that be? A kooks? Does it only happen when you drink?


Not 'whelp' as in having a
puppy. LOL! Try again...:)


You claim to be male on another thread. shame you can't act like one and
admit your mistake.
How desperate, your poor widdle ego is taking quite the battering isn't it?
You don't do well when corrected do you? I seems to remember you having a
similar problem before. Not to worry, you are certainly entitled to remain
stupid if that is what makes you comfortable.

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 8:14:23 PM4/26/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bb6d6710-88b0-4ca5...@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
So you can't do it. How sad.





Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 26, 2012, 8:48:51 PM4/26/12
to

">
> "mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:61795389-98a7-4d64...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

<snip>
> Oh, and what happened to samj...@bigpond.com? (see above)


Show me where I have ever used that address. Just once. Lying is a very
naughty thing for a little girl to do. Where are your parents?


mainframetech

unread,
Apr 27, 2012, 7:12:32 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 26, 8:48 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> ">
>
> > "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:61795389-98a7-4d64...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >  Oh, and what happened to samjbr...@bigpond.com?  (see above)
>
> Show me where I have ever used that address. Just once. Lying is a very
> naughty thing for a little girl to do. Where are your parents?

What an idiot! Here's the headline of this very post:
"On Apr 26, 8:48 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com>
wrote:"

Look at some of your previous posts, or don't you use Google
Groups? That's what I'm using because of it's features.

Now think about who's lying, or at the least misinformed...:)

Chris

Samantha Brown

unread,
Apr 27, 2012, 7:17:28 AM4/27/12
to

"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:486657e7-ee29-4950...@j3g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 26, 8:48 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> ">
>
> > "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:61795389-98a7-4d64...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Oh, and what happened to samjbr...@bigpond.com? (see above)
>
> Show me where I have ever used that address. Just once. Lying is a very
> naughty thing for a little girl to do. Where are your parents?

What an idiot! Here's the headline of this very post:
"On Apr 26, 8:48 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com>
wrote:"



You simpleton! This is how your address appears at the top of this post.
"mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:61795389-98a7-4d64...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...


Look at some of your previous posts, or don't you use Google
Groups? That's what I'm using because of it's features.

Now think about who's lying, or at the least misinformed...:)


Still you, you ridiculous fool.



Chris


mainframetech

unread,
Apr 27, 2012, 8:05:11 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 26, 8:48 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> ">
>
> > "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:61795389-98a7-4d64...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >  Oh, and what happened to samjbr...@bigpond.com?  (see above)
>
> Show me where I have ever used that address. Just once. Lying is a very
> naughty thing for a little girl to do. Where are your parents?

You're starting to sound like backdoor bigdog too. Choice of words
and such. Do you feel close to him?

And since you ahve snipped the whole thread, I have to gather that
you're all tired out and don't want to discuss this anymore, yes?

Chris
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages