One Of The Authentic Photos Of The Smoker's Nook

[Walt]

Here's a link to a photo of the SN as it appeared at about 1:15 on the
afternoon of 11 ?22 /63.


http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/


This photo never appeared in the official LBJ approved lie that was
released to the public in September 1964. Ten months after the murder
of President John Kennedy. The reason this photo and several
companion photos were never printed in the Warren report is because
they are authentic photos of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest". These
photos show that it would have been physically impossible for Lee
Oswald to have shot President Kennedy in the back of the head as LBJ's
"Select Blue Ribbon Committee" charged.

On page 138 and 139 there is a couple of photos that the authorities
created after they murdered Lee Oswald. The photo on page 138 was
taken at night by the DPD. It is a dishonest "re-construction of the
so called "Sniper's Nest". It is intended to fool the viewer into
believing that they found Lee Oswald's prints on the boxes behind the
window, and trick the unwary into believing the lie that Lee Oswald
murdered JFK.

We'll compare the authentic photo with the fake photo and the viewer
will be able to see with his own eyes that Lee Oswald was framed.

[Walt]

Here's a link to the fake photo that the DPD created after Oswald was
murdered.....

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49475/m1/1/

It obviously was taken at night using a flash camera. Notice that
the "rifle rest" box is now tilted on the window sill, and the two
boxes to the left of it are not boxes containing Rolling Readers, as
the three original boxes were. In the authentic photo
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/ it's obvious
that the top of the top box of the stack of three Rolling Readers
boxes is NOT tilted. There was some sort of "scar" on the top box
that the DPD initally claimed was a scar made by the rifle's recoil.
That scar is visible in the shadow just to the right of the sunlit
area on the box. It doesn't take a genius to see that if a man had
been sitting on the box to the north of this stack of Rolling Readers
boxes and rested his rifle on the stack of boxes he could not have
declined the muzzle low enouh to hit anything on Elm street in Dealy
Plaza. That was obvious to the early "investigators" and they knew
they would have to create new evidence photos that would be more
believable.

[bigdog]

Do you ever get tired of proving what a dumbfuck you are. Apparently
not.

[Bud]

That photo is number 91-001/ 079. Here is the next photo taken on
that roll, 91-001/ 080. The one end of the sniper nest barricade has
been dismantled to show the shells on the floor. Note the small box
on
the windowsill.
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49532/m1/1/
This is the next photo taken, 91-001/ 081, showing the shells in
the
SN from the west facing east.
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/
Note two boxes stacked in front of a smaller box on the sill. This
is the way it was when Oswald shot Kennedy. Plenty of pitch down,
plenty of line of sight, the shells ejecting right where you would
expect them to. Walt just isn`t man enough or sane enough to admit
Oswald`s guilt, he would rather put the blame on hundreds of other
people for Oswald appearing so damn guilty.

> it's obvious
> that the top of the top box of the stack of three Rolling Readers
> boxes is NOT tilted.  There was some sort of "scar" on the top box
> that the DPD initally claimed was a scar made by the rifle's recoil.
> That scar is visible in the shadow just to the right of the sunlit
> area on the box.   It doesn't take a genius to see that if a man had
> been sitting on the box to the north of this stack of Rolling Readers
> boxes and rested his rifle on the stack of boxes he could not have
> declined the muzzle low enouh to hit anything on Elm street in Dealy
> Plaza.   That was obvious to the early "investigators" and they knew
> they would have to create new evidence photos that would be more
> believable.

Nobody said he had to be sitting on that box when he took the shots,
retard.

[Walt]

Here is a link to one of the authentic photos.....

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/

I'm sure that you're not smart enough to know how to use the shadow
and sunlight on the top of the box to determine that the time and date
that this photo was taken was about 1:15 11 / 22 /63. And you lack
the guts to take a copy of this photo to someone who is smart enough,
but lurkers who read this will be smart enough to verify the time and
date.

You can post those fake photos til they are ice skating in hell but
you can't refute the authentic photos, and the fact that the authentic
photos clearly reveal that the DPD created fake photos and LBJ's
"Select Blue Ribbon Committe" used those fake photos to support the
lie that LBJ and Hoover wanted them to dump on the public.

Plenty of pitch down,
> plenty of line of sight, the shells ejecting right where you would
> expect them to. Walt just isn`t man enough or sane enough to admit
> Oswald`s guilt, he would rather put the blame on hundreds of other
> people for Oswald appearing so damn guilty.
>
> > it's obvious
> > that the top of the top box of the stack of three Rolling Readers
> > boxes is NOT tilted.  There was some sort of "scar" on the top box
> > that the DPD initally claimed was a scar made by the rifle's recoil.
> > That scar is visible in the shadow just to the right of the sunlit
> > area on the box.   It doesn't take a genius to see that if a man had
> > been sitting on the box to the north of this stack of Rolling Readers
> > boxes and rested his rifle on the stack of boxes he could not have
> > declined the muzzle low enouh to hit anything on Elm street in Dealy
> > Plaza.   That was obvious to the early "investigators" and they knew
> > they would have to create new evidence photos that would be more
> > believable.
>
>   Nobody said he had to be sitting on that box when he took the shots,

> retard.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Walt]

> not.-

Nothing but ad hominem..... Typical response from a person who has no
other way of attempting to refute the facts.

[Bud]

That will be day when retards are used to authenticate evidence
photos.

[bigdog]

If you think that is a smoker's nook, one has to wonder what you've
been smoking. The three spent shells and the eyewitnesses who saw a
rifleman in that window are ample proof it was used for something
other than someone trying to sneak a smoke.

[Walt]

> > been smoking. If you think that is a smoker's nook, one has to wonder what you've

The three spent shells and the eyewitnesses who saw a
> rifleman in that window are ample proof it was used for something
> other than someone trying to sneak a smoke.

Some ignorant fool wrote:......If you think that is a smoker's nook,

one has to wonder what you've
been smoking.

Dear mr ignorant of the facts..... It is a fact that the cops picked
up an empty Viceroy cigarette package and some cigarette butts from
the floor in the Smokers Nook. There are many photos of Dectectives
Marvin Johnson and LD Montgomery departing the TSBD with the empty
Viceroy package and a Dr pepper bottle. Several DPD detectives
testified that the cigarette butts and the empty cig package were
found on the floor of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".
If someone hadn't used the area for a hidden smoker's nook, why would
there be cigarette butts and an empty cigarette package there???

And I'm glad that you've challenged me...because your equally ignorant
partner wrote this:

"That photo is number 91-001/ 079. Here is the next photo taken on
that roll, 91-001/ 080. The one end of the sniper nest barricade has
been dismantled to show the shells on the floor. Note the small box on
the windowsill.
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49532/m1/1/

This is the next photo taken, 91-001/ 081, showing the shells in the
SN from the west facing east.

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/

In this link you ignorant buddy has posted a link to a fake photo the
the DPD created to support their lie that Lee Oswald shot JFK while
sitting in the smoker's nook. If this was an authentic photo there
should be cigarette butts and an empty Viceroy package there on the
floor..... Do you see any cigarette butts or the empty cigarette
package in the photo??

That's just one of the many discrepancies that reveal that this photo
is a fake....and that you're a gullible idiot.




- Hide quoted text -

[bigdog]

No one has said that it was never used to sneak a smoke. I said it was
used for something quite a bit more significant at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
It may well have been an out of the way corner where somebody could
sneak a smoke undetected. That would also make it an ideal place for
an assassin to hide undetected.

You are assuming that the photo shows the section of the floor where
the cigarette butts were found and also assuming the photos were taken
before that evidence was removed.

[Walt]

The ignorant fool wrote:.. (You are) "assuming the photos were taken

before that evidence was removed."

If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true
representation of the "crime scene" now is it, Mr Ignorant?

That's the pont I've been hammering at ........ The photo is a FAKE!

- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[David Von Pein]

>>> "If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true representation of the "crime scene" now is it? <<<

Well, the paper bag (CE142) wasn't photographed on the floor either.
But that fact doesn't make the bag disappear, and the fact the bag
wasn't photographed on the floor doesn't mean it was never on the
floor in the SN.

Do you, Walt, really think that L.D. Montgomery, J.C. Day, and Bob
Studebaker (and possibly one other DPD officer) were all lying when
they each said they saw the paper bag on the floor before it was
picked up?

(Silly question -- of course you think those officers lied. Why did I
even ask?)

[aeffects]

getting your ass kicked on AMAZON so you run back here eh, troll?
LMFAO!

[Walt]

Git outta here ya dumb bastard ......I'll get to the paper bag soon
enough. Right now the discussion is about the authenticy of the photo
---- http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/

Your little yellow cur friend has admitted that it's not a true and
accurate image of the so called "crime scene"....

[timstter]

More hack science from Walt, just like his STUPID assessments re
Chaney in the Altgens photo.

Why are we not surprised?

Shrug Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[wgroom]

Definitely hard to get some good aimin' with that view.

wg

[Walt]

There are more authentic photos that show the configuration of the
boxes in the smoker's nook as it was when Boone first reported it.
All of them show the "clock" that was created by the shadow on the top
box of the stack of three boxes of Rolling Readers. The shadow
indicates how the time advanced between the photos..... and some of
the photos show the police car that was parked on the north sidewalk
near the north pergola. That police car was there from about 12:45
until about 1:30. (It may be the squad car that Sgt Jerry Hill
grabbed to go out to Oakcliff. ) The point is;...It's possible to
check the photos taken from the SN against photos that were taken on
the ground in Dealy Plaza and determine exactly when the authentic
photos were taken.






>
> wg- Hide quoted text -

[bigdog]

Right, dumbfuck. When cops find evidence, they just leave it where it
is. They don't collect it and take it with them. That would make too
much sense. That's the way it works in that dumbfuck universe you live
in.

[Walt]

Hey, here's another stupid bastard that wants to change the focus of
the discussion. What's your problem slug, are you too gutless to face
the truth as shown by compating these photos..... first the authentic
photo...

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/

and then the fake photo........

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/

>
> Why are we not surprised?
>
> Shrug Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia

> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee......LMAO!..... If you weren't so damned
STUPID, you understand that the investigators take photos of the scene
and the evidence BEFORE they collect that evidence. Ha,ha,ha,
hee,hee,hee....Watta dumbass!

[bigdog]

> hee,hee,hee....Watta dumbass!- Hide quoted text -
>
Did you learn that while watching Kojak reruns?

[Bud]

Where you getting this from?

> There are many photos of Dectectives
> Marvin Johnson and LD Montgomery departing the TSBD with the empty
> Viceroy package and a Dr pepper bottle.

The Dr Pepper was Bonnie Ray William`s. He ate in an area close to
the SN. Likely the cigarette pack came from that area.

Heres the bottle near the dolly that BRW said he ate in lunch on.

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49652/m1/1/

> Several DPD detectives
> testified that the cigarette butts and the empty cig package were
> found on the floor of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".

There were no boundaries drawn on the floor to designate one area
from another.

> If someone hadn't used the area for a hidden smoker's nook, why would
> there be cigarette butts and an empty cigarette package there???

Show that there was.

> And I'm glad that you've challenged me...because your equally ignorant
> partner wrote this:
>
> "That photo is number 91-001/ 079. Here is the next photo taken on
> that roll, 91-001/ 080. The one end of the sniper nest barricade has
> been dismantled to show the shells on the floor. Note the small box on
> the windowsill.
>    http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49532/m1/1/
>
> This is the next photo taken, 91-001/ 081, showing the shells in the
> SN from the west facing east.
>
>  http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/
>
> In this link you ignorant buddy has posted a link to a fake photo the
> the DPD created to support their lie that Lee Oswald shot JFK while
> sitting in the smoker's nook.

The numbers are on the film, retard. They were shot right after the
one you think is authentic.

> If this was an authentic photo there
> should be cigarette butts and an empty Viceroy package there on the
> floor..... Do you see any cigarette butts or the empty cigarette
> package in the photo??
>
> That's just one of the many discrepancies that reveal that this photo
> is a fake....and that you're a gullible idiot.

You are just a retard who imagines things and thinks they really
happened.

[Walt]

That's not what the cops testified..... They said the items had been
found in the SN.

>
>   Heres the bottle near the dolly that BRW said he ate in lunch on.
>
>  http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49652/m1/1/

Do you see any cigarette butts or a cigarette package?

>
> > Several DPD detectives
> > testified that the cigarette butts and the empty cig package were
> > found on the floor of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".
>
>   There were no boundaries drawn on the floor to designate one area
> from another.

You're a lying bastard....... The barricade of boxes formed the
boundries ......Why do you lie so blatantly? You have your lies
shoved up your nose everytime you lie. You're not dealing with CT's
that didn't have all of the facts anymore. Today's CT's know the facts
and you're gonna get bashed over the head with the facts every time
you lie.

>
> > If someone hadn't used the area for a hidden smoker's nook, why would
> > there be cigarette butts and an empty cigarette package there???
>
>   Show that there was.
>
>
>
>
>
> > And I'm glad that you've challenged me...because your equally ignorant
> > partner wrote this:
>
> > "That photo is number 91-001/ 079. Here is the next photo taken on
> > that roll, 91-001/ 080. The one end of the sniper nest barricade has
> > been dismantled to show the shells on the floor. Note the small box on
> > the windowsill.
> >    http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49532/m1/1/
>
> > This is the next photo taken, 91-001/ 081, showing the shells in the
> > SN from the west facing east.
>
> >  http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/
>
> > In this link you ignorant buddy has posted a link to a fake photo the
> > the DPD created to support their lie that Lee Oswald shot JFK while
> > sitting in the smoker's nook.
>
>   The numbers are on the film, retard. They were shot right after the
> one you think is authentic.

The sun stamped the time and date on the authentic photos.....Liars
and conspirators created the fake photos, so why would anybody with an
ounce of brains believe the numbers mean anything???

>
> > If this was an authentic photo there
> > should be cigarette butts and an empty Viceroy package there on the
> > floor..... Do you see any cigarette butts or the empty cigarette
> > package in the photo??
>
> > That's just one of the many discrepancies that reveal that this photo
> > is a fake....and that you're a gullible idiot.
>
>   You are just a retard who imagines things and thinks they really
> happened.
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bud]

Quote them, retard.

> >   Heres the bottle near the dolly that BRW said he ate in lunch on.
>
> >  http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49652/m1/1/
>
> Do you see any cigarette butts or a cigarette package?

This is where the Dr Pepper was, and it`s likely the area the
cigarette butts were found also.

> > > Several DPD detectives
> > > testified that the cigarette butts and the empty cig package were
> > > found on the floor of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".
>
> >   There were no boundaries drawn on the floor to designate one area
> > from another.
>
> You're a lying bastard....... The barricade of boxes formed the
> boundries ......Why do you lie so blatantly?  You have your lies
> shoved up your nose everytime you lie.   You're not dealing with CT's
> that didn't have all of the facts anymore. Today's CT's know the facts
> and you're gonna get bashed over the head with the facts every time
> you lie.

Show where the cops assigned boundaries retard.

> > > If someone hadn't used the area for a hidden smoker's nook, why would
> > > there be cigarette butts and an empty cigarette package there???
>
> >   Show that there was.
>
> > > And I'm glad that you've challenged me...because your equally ignorant
> > > partner wrote this:
>
> > > "That photo is number 91-001/ 079. Here is the next photo taken on
> > > that roll, 91-001/ 080. The one end of the sniper nest barricade has
> > > been dismantled to show the shells on the floor. Note the small box on
> > > the windowsill.
> > >    http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49532/m1/1/
>
> > > This is the next photo taken, 91-001/ 081, showing the shells in the
> > > SN from the west facing east.
>
> > >  http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/
>
> > > In this link you ignorant buddy has posted a link to a fake photo the
> > > the DPD created to support their lie that Lee Oswald shot JFK while
> > > sitting in the smoker's nook.
>
> >   The numbers are on the film, retard. They were shot right after the
> > one you think is authentic.
>
> The sun stamped the time and date on the authentic photos.....Liars
> and conspirators created the fake photos, so why would anybody with an
> ounce of brains believe the numbers mean anything???

Yah, they were put there to thwart you. Rest, retard.

[Walt]

"Retard".....A cruel and shameful slang term for a mentally
handicapped person. Anybody using this term has no sense of
decency. Bud uses the term in nearly every post.... You'd think
he'd be embarrassed to continually have his ass kicked by people he
considers mentally handicapped.... Furthermore If mentally hanicapped
people are routinely kicking his ass, what does that say about his
mental state?

[Bud]

If there was a stronger word available I`d use that. You are a
purposeful idiot engaged in a stupid and shameful hobby.

>  Anybody using this term has no sense of
> decency.

You are in no position to lecture on morality, retard. You
desperately try to cover up for the crimes of one of the most
reprehensible persons in American history. He is the traitor to his
country that killed your President, yet you blame everyone else under
the sun for his crimes.

> Bud uses the term in nearly every post....   You'd think
> he'd be embarrassed to continually have his ass kicked by people he
> considers mentally handicapped....

Is this why you duck most of the points I make, like this post where
I show the Dr Pepper bottle in where it was found, and you don`t back
up your claim that cigarette butts and an empty pack were found in the
SN?

> Furthermore If mentally hanicapped
> people are routinely kicking his ass, what does that say about his
> mental state?

Like most of the things you write this only exists in your
imagination.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <88743369-2bbf-4494...@y38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Feb 20, 5:28=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 10:22=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 20, 7:03=A0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 19, 7:17=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 19, 3:43=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 19, 11:19=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > Here's a link to a photo of the SN as it appeared at about 1:15=

> on the
>> > > > > > afternoon of 11 ?22 /63.
>>

>> > > > > > =A0http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/
>>
>> > > > > > This photo never appeared in the official LBJ approved lie that=
> was
>> > > > > > released to the public in September 1964. Ten months after the =
>murder
>> > > > > > of President John Kennedy. =A0The reason this photo and several
>> > > > > > companion photos were never printed in the Warren report is bec=
>ause
>> > > > > > they are authentic photos of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest". =A0=
>These
>> > > > > > photos show that it would have been physically impossible for L=
>ee
>> > > > > > Oswald to have shot President Kennedy in the back of the head a=

>s LBJ's
>> > > > > > "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" charged.
>>

>> > > > > > On page 138 and 139 there is a couple of photos that the author=
>ities
>> > > > > > created after they murdered Lee Oswald. =A0The photo on page 13=
>8 was
>> > > > > > taken at night by the DPD. It is a dishonest "re-construction o=
>f the
>> > > > > > so called "Sniper's Nest". =A0It is intended to fool the viewer=
> into
>> > > > > > believing that they found Lee Oswald's prints on the boxes behi=
>nd the
>> > > > > > window, and trick the unwary into believing the lie that Lee Os=
>wald
>> > > > > > murdered JFK.
>>
>> > > > > > We'll compare the authentic photo with the fake photo and the v=
>iewer
>> > > > > > will be able to see with his own eyes that Lee Oswald was frame=
>d.
>>
>> > > > > Do you ever get tired of proving what a dumbfuck you are. Apparen=
>tly
>> > > > > not.-
>>
>> > > > Nothing but ad hominem..... Typical response from a person who has =

>no
>> > > > other way of attempting to refute the facts.
>>

>> > > > been smoking. If you think that is a smoker's nook, one has to wond=

>er what you've
>>
>> > The three spent shells and the eyewitnesses who saw a
>>
>> > > rifleman in that window are ample proof it was used for something
>> > > other than someone trying to sneak a smoke.
>> > Some ignorant fool wrote:......If you think that is a smoker's nook,
>>
>> > one has to wonder what you've
>> > been smoking.
>>

>> > Dear mr ignorant of the facts..... =A0It is a fact that the cops picked

>> > up an empty Viceroy cigarette package and some cigarette butts from
>> > the floor in the Smokers Nook.
>>

>> =A0 Where you getting this from?
>>
>> >=A0There are many photos of Dectectives

>> > Marvin Johnson and LD Montgomery departing the TSBD with the empty
>> > Viceroy package and a Dr pepper bottle.
>>

>> =A0 The Dr Pepper was Bonnie Ray William`s. He ate in an area close to

>> the SN. Likely the cigarette pack came from that area.
>
>That's not what the cops testified..... They said the items had been
>found in the SN.
>
>
>
>
>
>>

>> =A0 Heres the bottle near the dolly that BRW said he ate in lunch on.
>>
>> =A0http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49652/m1/1/

>
>
>Do you see any cigarette butts or a cigarette package?
>
>
>
>>
>> > Several DPD detectives
>> > testified that the cigarette butts and the empty cig package were
>> > found on the floor of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".
>>
>> There were no boundaries drawn on the floor to designate one area
>> from another.
>
>You're a lying bastard....... The barricade of boxes formed the
>boundries ......Why do you lie so blatantly? You have your lies
>shoved up your nose everytime you lie. You're not dealing with CT's
>that didn't have all of the facts anymore. Today's CT's know the facts
>and you're gonna get bashed over the head with the facts every time
>you lie.

This is why I simply killfile the kooks. They lie in virtually every post they
make - desperately trying to prop up the original official story. It's amusing,
really...

>> > If someone hadn't used the area for a hidden smoker's nook, why would
>> > there be cigarette butts and an empty cigarette package there???
>>
>> Show that there was.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > And I'm glad that you've challenged me...because your equally ignorant
>> > partner wrote this:
>>
>> > "That photo is number 91-001/ 079. Here is the next photo taken on
>> > that roll, 91-001/ 080. The one end of the sniper nest barricade has
>> > been dismantled to show the shells on the floor. Note the small box on
>> > the windowsill.

>> > =A0 =A0http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49532/m1/1/

>>
>> > This is the next photo taken, 91-001/ 081, showing the shells in the
>> > SN from the west facing east.
>>

>> > =A0http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/

>>
>> > In this link you ignorant buddy has posted a link to a fake photo the
>> > the DPD created to support their lie that Lee Oswald shot JFK while
>> > sitting in the smoker's nook.
>>

>> =A0 The numbers are on the film, retard. They were shot right after the

>> one you think is authentic.
>
>The sun stamped the time and date on the authentic photos.....Liars
>and conspirators created the fake photos, so why would anybody with an
>ounce of brains believe the numbers mean anything???
>
>
>>

>> >=A0If this was an authentic photo there

>> > should be cigarette butts and an empty Viceroy package there on the
>> > floor..... Do you see any cigarette butts or the empty cigarette
>> > package in the photo??
>>
>> > That's just one of the many discrepancies that reveal that this photo
>> > is a fake....and that you're a gullible idiot.
>>

>> =A0 You are just a retard who imagines things and thinks they really

>> happened.
>>
>>
>>
>> > - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

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

[Ben Holmes]

In article <a720c125-93d3-426d...@f30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Feb 20, 2:06=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 12:13=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:> On Feb 2=

>0, 10:45=A0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > You are assuming that the photo shows the section of the floor where

>> > > the cigarette butts were found and also assuming the photos were take=

>n
>> > > before that evidence was removed.

>> > The ignorant fool wrote:.. =A0(You are) "assuming the photos were taken

>>
>> > before that evidence was removed."
>>
>> > If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true
>> > representation of the "crime scene" now is it, Mr Ignorant?
>>
>> Right, dumbfuck. When cops find evidence, they just leave it where it
>> is. They don't collect it and take it with them. That would make too
>> much sense. That's the way it works in that dumbfuck universe you live
>> in.
>
>Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee......LMAO!..... If you weren't so damned
>STUPID, you understand that the investigators take photos of the scene
>and the evidence BEFORE they collect that evidence. Ha,ha,ha,
>hee,hee,hee....Watta dumbass!

Nah... the kook knows that photographs of the scene and evidence come before
they "collect it and take it with them". He's just a liar, and a poor one at
that.

[Walt]

I didn't respond to the DR pepper bottle because I don't believe the
story the cops told. I know that you believe it, so there's no point
in arguing about something that can't be proven. I'm sure it's
possible that BR Williams left a Dr Pepper bottle near the handtruck
on the sixth floor..... But that wasn't IN the SN....The cops
( Montgomery , and Johnson ) told the reporters that they had found
the evidence they were carrying, ( paper bag, empty Viceroy package.
and Dr Pepper bottle ) in the "Sniper's Nest". And that makes
sense....... They wouldn't have been carrying that evidence if it had
been found at some location outside of the SN.

[bigdog]

On Feb 20, 9:22 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>

> "Retard".....A cruel and shameful slang term for a mentally
> handicapped person.    Anybody using this term has no sense of
> decency.

Anybody to whom this term accurately applies has no sense. Have a nice
day, retard.

[Bud]

On Feb 21, 10:07 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <88743369-2bbf-4494-9a48-4424e7d2d...@y38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

You killfile people so you don`t have to support your claims, it`s a
simple as that.

>They lie in virtually every post they
> make - desperately trying to prop up the original official story. It's amusing,
> really...

Can you support the idea Walt put forth, that all the cops who wrote
reports had a consensus on where the SN started, and which rows of
boxes were part of it and which ones weren`t?

What you retards don`t seem to appreciate is that it was a warehouse
full of boxes, and the cops searching it might not be thinking in
terms of boundaries.

[Bud]

Williams told the story under oath, retard.

And why do you believe the cops about where the other items were
found?

> I know that you believe it, so there's no point
> in arguing about something that can't be proven.

There is a photo of it where it was, retard. You reatrds complain
the paper bag wasn`t photographed, but this just shows it doesn`t
matter whether they do or don`t photograph evidence, retards will
believe what they want to regardless.

>  I'm sure it's
> possible that BR Williams left a Dr Pepper bottle near the handtruck
> on the sixth floor.....  But that wasn't IN the SN....The cops
> ( Montgomery , and Johnson ) told the reporters that they had found
> the evidence they were carrying, ( paper bag, empty Viceroy package.
> and Dr Pepper bottle ) in the "Sniper's Nest".

So far you haven`t quoted them, which leads me to believe you are
lying about what they said.

> And that makes
> sense.......  They wouldn't have been carrying that evidence if it had
> been found at some location outside of the SN.

Why would they think the shooter only spent time in the SN?

[Walt]

Com'n Stupid...... Do you really believe that any sniper bent on
murdering the President would be up there sippin an a soda while he
awaited his quarry??? Do you honestly believe the soda bottle
belonged to the sniper? I doubt that even you with your low IQ would
believe that the Dr Pepper bottle was handled by the sniper..... but
it WAS found in the SN, and it didn't have Lee Oswald's prints on it
of that much we can be sure. ( because if the bottle had had his
prints on it the conspirators would have broadcast that on every radio
station in Texas.) The fact that they cops were photographed carrying
a large paper bag. an empty cigarette package, and the Dr Pepper
bottle, indicates they thought they had vital evidence, and they sure
as hell didn't find that evidence along the north wall of the sixth
floor. We can be sure that Lee Oswald never left the cigarette butts,
or the empty cigarette package in the SN ( cuz he didn't smoke) And if
he had drank the DR Pepper he probably wouln't have bought a coke just
seconds before officer Baker encountered him in the second floor
lunchroom.

I know that you believe the Dr Pepper bottle that is seen in the photo
is the same Dr peper bottle that Detective Johnson was photographed
carrying from the TSBD......But I doubt it.

>
>
>
> > > > Furthermore If mentally hanicapped
> > > > people are routinely kicking his ass, what does that say about his
> > > > mental state?
>
> > >   Like most of the things you write this only exists in your
> > > imagination.
>
> > > > > > > > If this was an authentic photo there
> > > > > > > > should be cigarette butts and an empty Viceroy package there on the
> > > > > > > > floor..... Do you see any cigarette butts or the empty cigarette
> > > > > > > > package in the photo??
>
> > > > > > > > That's just one of the many discrepancies that reveal that this photo
> > > > > > > > is a fake....and that you're a gullible idiot.
>
> > > > > > >   You are just a retard who imagines things and thinks they really
> > > > > > > happened.
>
> > > > > > > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text --
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Don Roberdeau]

On Feb 19, 11:19 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> Here's a link to a photo of the SN as it appeared at about 1:15 on the
> afternoon of 11 ?22 /63.
>
>  http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/
>
> This photo never appeared in the official LBJ approved lie that was
> released to the public in September 1964. Ten months after the murder
> of President John Kennedy.  The reason this photo and several
> companion photos were never printed in the Warren report is because
> they are authentic photos of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".  These
> photos show that it would have been physically impossible for Lee
> Oswald to have shot President Kennedy in the back of the head as LBJ's
> "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" charged.
>
> On page 138 and 139 there is a couple of photos that the authorities
> created after they murdered Lee Oswald.  The photo on page 138 was
> taken at night by the DPD. It is a dishonest "re-construction of the
> so called "Sniper's Nest".  It is intended to fool the viewer into
> believing that they found Lee Oswald's prints on the boxes behind the
> window, and trick the unwary into believing the lie that Lee Oswald
> murdered JFK.
>
> We'll compare the authentic photo with the fake photo and the viewer
> will be able to see with his own eyes that Lee Oswald was framed.

.... Good Day Walt .... The photo you linked to above was not captured
at about 1:15 PM Dallas time.

When we look at the horizontal shadow of the tree trunk** near Elm
Street and the North Peristyle structure, we can see that the shadow
angle nearly, but not quite, parallels the Elm Street south curb
section of Elm Street closest to the tree trunk when that photo was
captured.

When that photo was captured, the sun had definitely advanced much
more westward in time, and just eyeballin' it, the tree's shadow angle
horizontally is about 25 degrees different than it was at 12:30 PM
Dallas time during the assassination.

Using the general measure that it takes 4 minutes for the sun to move
1-degree (24-hours=1440 minutes to move 360-degrees), that puts the
photo about 100-minutes after the assassination; = about 2:10 PM or
so.

(if the photographer had also pointed his camera out the window and
downward he would have been very close to the exact same time for him
to capture the "3-tramps" being taken into custody)

** this is the same tree trunk near where ROSEMARY WILLIS stopped
while facing her head towards the southWEST corner of the TSBD (she
was NOT facing the southEAST TSBD corner warrenatti-apologists,
supposed, "lone nut" "snipers lair").... then.... ROSEMARY ultra-
fastly snapped her head 90-100 degrees at a 549 to 610 degrees-per-
second head turn rate towards the GK from Z-214 to 217 = see the
discovery link, "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS
Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly
Towards the Grassy Knoll".... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394)


Best Regards in Research,

Don


Donald Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, plank walker
Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

For your considerations....

Homepage: President KENNEDY "Men of Courage" speech, and
Assassination Evidence,Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding
Researchers Discoveries and Considerations....
http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html


Dealey Plaza Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise locations,
Evidence, Witnesses, Films & Photos, Suspected bullet trajectories,
Important information & Key Considerations, in One Convenient
Resource.... http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2192/dpupdated110110.gif


Visual Report: "The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While
JFK was Still Hidden Under the 'Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree' "....
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2446/206cropjfk1102308ms8.gif


Visual Report: Reality versus C.A.D. :
the Real World, versus, Garbage-In, Garbage-Out....
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8543/realityvscad.gif


Discovery: "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS
Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and
Directly Towards the Grassy Knoll"....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394


T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore


For the United States:

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/advisory7regional.gif

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/

[Bud]

You are asking all the wrong questions. The right question is would
the police process as evidence all such items found in the vicintity
the shots that killed JFK were fired from.

> I doubt that even you with your low IQ would
> believe that the Dr Pepper bottle was handled by the sniper.....

As explained it was BRW`s Dr Pepper bottle.

> but
> it WAS found in the SN,

Where is your support for this idea?

> and it didn't have Lee Oswald's prints on it
> of that much we can be sure.  ( because if the bottle had had his
> prints on it the conspirators would have broadcast that on every radio
> station in Texas.)

In your retard desperation you have to imagine evidence that
exonerates Oswald because the real evidence shows he was guilty.

>The fact that they cops were photographed carrying
> a large paper bag. an empty cigarette package, and the Dr Pepper
> bottle, indicates they thought they had vital evidence, and they sure
> as hell didn't find that evidence along the north wall of the sixth
> floor.

You say this, but you`ve offered no support.

> We can be sure that Lee Oswald never left the cigarette butts,
> or the empty cigarette package in the SN ( cuz he didn't smoke) And if
> he had drank the DR Pepper he probably wouln't have bought a coke just
> seconds before officer Baker encountered him in the second floor
> lunchroom.
>
> I know that you believe the Dr Pepper bottle that is seen in the photo
> is the same Dr peper bottle that Detective Johnson was photographed
> carrying from the TSBD......But I doubt it.

Because it disrupts your fantasies.

[Walt]

Thank you for presenting the opportunity to discuss the shadows, and
the time indicated by the shadows.

I studied this many years ago and had no one to exchange information
with ( honest debate) What I posted was from note I made twenty years
ago.....and you may be closer to correct than I am.... But lets look
at the tree shadow.

You're correct the tree's shadow is close to parallels the south
(west) curb of Elm street. Using Magnetic north as base, Elm street at
that point lies close to to NE.... The trees's shadow is being cast a
little more to the north than east. I believe the time was about
1:15.... and that is corroborated by the traffic on Main street in the
back ground. That traffic moved very little for an hour after the
shooting because Main street had been blocked off at Houston for the
Presidents motorcade and the cops were too busy to remove the
barricades after the shooting.

>
> When that photo was captured, the sun had definitely advanced much
> more westward in time, and just eyeballin' it, the tree's shadow angle
> horizontally is about 25 degrees different than it was at 12:30 PM
> Dallas time during the assassination.
>
> Using the general measure that it takes 4 minutes for the sun to move
> 1-degree (24-hours=1440 minutes to move 360-degrees), that puts the
> photo about 100-minutes after the assassination; = about 2:10 PM or
> so.

I used a sun chart when I was studying this aspect......


I hope that you can find the time to study this a little more
throroughly ( it takes time) and then post your results.

Thank you for this opportunity


PS;... The bottom line is:.... The photos of the so called "Sniper's
Nest" that were published in the Warren Report are fakes, and the
authorities created them to support their phoney charges against
LeeOswald.

>
> (if the photographer had also pointed his camera out the window and
> downward he would have been very close to the exact same time for him
> to capture the "3-tramps" being taken into custody)
>
> ** this is the same tree trunk near where ROSEMARY WILLIS stopped
> while facing her head towards the southWEST corner of the TSBD (she
> was NOT facing the southEAST TSBD corner warrenatti-apologists,
> supposed, "lone nut" "snipers lair").... then.... ROSEMARY ultra-
> fastly snapped her head 90-100 degrees at a 549 to 610 degrees-per-
> second head turn rate towards the GK from Z-214 to 217 = see the
> discovery link, "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS
> Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly

> Towards  the  Grassy  Knoll"....http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394)

>
> Best  Regards  in  Research,
>
>         Don
>
> Donald  Roberdeau
> U.S.S.  John  F.  Kennedy,  CV-67,  plank  walker
> Sooner,  or  later,  The  Truth  emerges  Clearly
>
> For  your  considerations....
>
> Homepage:  President KENNEDY  "Men  of  Courage"  speech, and
> Assassination Evidence,Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding

> Researchers Discoveries and Considerations....http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassina...

>
> Dealey  Plaza  Map  Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise  locations,
> Evidence, Witnesses, Films & Photos, Suspected bullet trajectories,
> Important  information &  Key Considerations, in  One  Convenient

> Resource....http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2192/dpupdated110110.gif

>
> Visual Report:  "The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While

> JFK was Still Hidden Under the 'Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree' "....http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2446/206cropjfk1102308ms8.gif

>
> Visual Report:  Reality versus C.A.D. :

> the  Real World,  versus,  Garbage-In, Garbage-Out....http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8543/realityvscad.gif

>
> Discovery:  "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS
> Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and

> Directly  Towards  the  Grassy  Knoll"....http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

>
> T  ogether
> E  veryone
> A  chieves
> M  ore
>
>         For the United States:
>
>        http://www.nationalterroralert.com/advisory7regional.gif
>

>        http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

Nice try, Dud..... We both know that the cops did in fact use the
barricade of boxes behind to SE corner window as a "boundry". The
Warren Report is chock full of references to the area between the
boxes and the window as the "Sniper's Nest". Why do you lie like
this? Aren't you ever going to learn that your lies will be shoved up
your nose?

> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

On Feb 22, 1:27 am, Don Roberdeau <droberd...@aol.com> wrote:

Hi Don, I know that you're very well read on the Z film, and you've
studied the movements of Rosemary Willis in the Z film. At frame 200
of the Z film the shadow of the tree trunk can be seen a couple of
feet forward of Rosemary's feet, and the curb of Elm street is also
visible.

Now compare the shadow of the tree trunk that's seen at Rosemary's
feet with the shadow of the tree trunk seen in this photo......
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/

The shadow has advanced only a few degrees between Z 200 and the photo
in the link.

>
> Using the general measure that it takes 4 minutes for the sun to move
> 1-degree (24-hours=1440 minutes to move 360-degrees), that puts the
> photo about 100-minutes after the assassination; = about 2:10 PM or
> so.
>
> (if the photographer had also pointed his camera out the window and
> downward he would have been very close to the exact same time for him
> to capture the "3-tramps" being taken into custody)
>
> ** this is the same tree trunk near where ROSEMARY WILLIS stopped
> while facing her head towards the southWEST corner of the TSBD (she
> was NOT facing the southEAST TSBD corner warrenatti-apologists,
> supposed, "lone nut" "snipers lair").... then.... ROSEMARY ultra-
> fastly snapped her head 90-100 degrees at a 549 to 610 degrees-per-
> second head turn rate towards the GK from Z-214 to 217 = see the
> discovery link, "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS
> Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and Directly

> Towards  the  Grassy  Knoll"....http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394)

>
> Best  Regards  in  Research,
>
>         Don
>
> Donald  Roberdeau
> U.S.S.  John  F.  Kennedy,  CV-67,  plank  walker
> Sooner,  or  later,  The  Truth  emerges  Clearly
>
> For  your  considerations....
>
> Homepage:  President KENNEDY  "Men  of  Courage"  speech, and
> Assassination Evidence,Witnesses, Suspects + Outstanding

> Researchers Discoveries and Considerations....http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassina...

>
> Dealey  Plaza  Map  Detailing 11-22-63 Victims precise  locations,
> Evidence, Witnesses, Films & Photos, Suspected bullet trajectories,
> Important  information &  Key Considerations, in  One  Convenient

> Resource....http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2192/dpupdated110110.gif

>
> Visual Report:  "The First Bullet Impact Into President Kennedy: While

> JFK was Still Hidden Under the 'Magic-limbed-ricochet-tree' "....http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2446/206cropjfk1102308ms8.gif

>
> Visual Report:  Reality versus C.A.D. :

> the  Real World,  versus,  Garbage-In, Garbage-Out....http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8543/realityvscad.gif

>
> Discovery:  "Very Close JFK Assassination Witness ROSEMARY WILLIS
> Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Head Snap: West, Ultrafast, and

> Directly  Towards  the  Grassy  Knoll"....http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

>
> T  ogether
> E  veryone
> A  chieves
> M  ore
>
>         For the United States:
>
>        http://www.nationalterroralert.com/advisory7regional.gif
>

>        http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/- Hide quoted text -

[Bud]

Try supporting the idea instead of just repeating it.

> The
> Warren Report is chock full of references to the area between the
> boxes and the window as the "Sniper's Nest".

You don`t think the Warren Commission was written by the cops at the
scene the day of the assasination, do you?

>  Why do you lie like
> this?  Aren't you ever going to learn that your lies will be shoved up
> your nose?

You can`t do that by running away from your claims. So far you
haven`t backed up that the cops said the Viceroy package was found in
the SN, that the cops on the scene agreed on boundaries of
significant and insignificant items, that the Dr Pepper bottle was
found in the SN, that the WC said that Oswald was sitting on a box
when he shot Kennedy among other things. How do you figure you are
winning when all you do is retreat?

> > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -

[aeffects]

son, are you a liar?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <bf57c719-a08f-4c37...@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Feb 20, 12:41=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Feb 20, 3:18=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 20, 2:06=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> > > On Feb 20, 12:13=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:> On F=
>eb 20, 10:45=A0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > You are assuming that the photo shows the section of the floor wh=
>ere
>> > > > > the cigarette butts were found and also assuming the photos were =

>taken
>> > > > > before that evidence was removed.

>> > > > The ignorant fool wrote:.. =A0(You are) "assuming the photos were t=

>aken
>>
>> > > > before that evidence was removed."
>>
>> > > > If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true
>> > > > representation of the "crime scene" now is it, Mr Ignorant?
>>
>> > > Right, dumbfuck. When cops find evidence, they just leave it where it
>> > > is. They don't collect it and take it with them. That would make too

>> > > much sense. That's the way it works in that dumbfuck universe you liv=
>e
>> > > in.
>>
>> > Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee......LMAO!..... =A0 If you weren't so damned

>> > STUPID, you understand that the investigators take photos of the scene

>> > and the evidence BEFORE they collect that evidence. =A0Ha,ha,ha,

>> > hee,hee,hee....Watta dumbass!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Did you learn that while watching Kojak reruns?
>
>son, are you a liar?

It's amazing how incredibly stupid these kooks can appear... they know just as
well as everyone else that crime scene photos are virtually the first thing
done, yet they pretend to not know that. So yes, they *are* liars...

[Walt]

On Feb 22, 5:47 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <bf57c719-a08f-4c37-a14c-e03800b5d...@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Yes, they certainly do make fools of themselves by making utterly
stupid statements like The Little Yellow Cur made.
They are so desperate to perserve the lie, that they are comfortable
with, that they'll openly display their dishonesty and cowardice.
Aaaaand .....they have no shame.






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

[bigdog]

On Feb 22, 7:12 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, they certainly do make fools of themselves by making utterly
> stupid statements like The Little Yellow Cur made.
> They are so desperate to perserve the lie, that they are comfortable
> with, that they'll openly display their dishonesty and cowardice.
> Aaaaand .....they have no shame.
>

And you retards have no brains.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <fbca7300-0bca-40ee...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Feb 22, 5:47=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <bf57c719-a08f-4c37-a14c-e03800b5d...@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>> >On Feb 20, 12:41=3DA0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 20, 3:18=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 20, 2:06=3DA0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Feb 20, 12:13=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:>=
> On F=3D
>> >eb 20, 10:45=3DA0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > You are assuming that the photo shows the section of the floor=
> wh=3D
>> >ere
>> >> > > > > the cigarette butts were found and also assuming the photos we=
>re =3D

>> >taken
>> >> > > > > before that evidence was removed.

>> >> > > > The ignorant fool wrote:.. =3DA0(You are) "assuming the photos w=
>ere t=3D

>> >aken
>>
>> >> > > > before that evidence was removed."
>>
>> >> > > > If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true
>> >> > > > representation of the "crime scene" now is it, Mr Ignorant?
>>

>> >> > > Right, dumbfuck. When cops find evidence, they just leave it where=
> it
>> >> > > is. They don't collect it and take it with them. That would make t=
>oo
>> >> > > much sense. That's the way it works in that dumbfuck universe you =
>liv=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > in.
>>
>> >> > Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee......LMAO!..... =3DA0 If you weren't so damn=
>ed
>> >> > STUPID, you understand that the investigators take photos of the sce=
>ne
>> >> > and the evidence BEFORE they collect that evidence. =3DA0Ha,ha,ha,

>> >> > hee,hee,hee....Watta dumbass!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> Did you learn that while watching Kojak reruns?
>>
>> >son, are you a liar?
>>
>> It's amazing how incredibly stupid these kooks can appear... they know
>> just as well as everyone else that crime scene photos are virtually
>> the first thing done, yet they pretend to not know that. So yes, they
>> *are* liars...
>
>Yes, they certainly do make fools of themselves by making utterly
>stupid statements like The Little Yellow Cur made.
>They are so desperate to perserve the lie, that they are comfortable
>with, that they'll openly display their dishonesty and cowardice.
>Aaaaand .....they have no shame.

Yep... I'll agree that you hit the nail on the head - they have *NO* shame.

[Rob Caprio]

On Feb 20, 12:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true representation of the "crime scene" now is it? <<<
>
> Well, the paper bag (CE142) wasn't photographed on the floor either.
> But that fact doesn't make the bag disappear, and the fact the bag
> wasn't photographed on the floor doesn't mean it was never on the
> floor in the SN.

You are sounding remarkably like Bill Brown here Dave! Hmmm. He told
me the other day just because there is evidence or proof for something
it doesn't mean it didn't happen! LOL! Imagine solving cases like
this? What would be off the table then? NOTHING is the correct
answer.

There is NO evidence for the bag in anyway. Just admit it.


> Do you, Walt, really think that L.D. Montgomery, J.C. Day, and Bob
> Studebaker (and possibly one other DPD officer) were all lying when
> they each said they saw the paper bag on the floor before it was
> picked up?

Probably, but it was their fault for our doubt as it would have been
simple to simply take a photo of the darn thing (and proper procedure
by the way) in situ. Why did they NOT do this Dave IF it was there as
you claim?

> (Silly question -- of course you think those officers lied. Why did I
> even ask?)

Hey, when someone says something that is NOT true it is a lie.
Unfortunately for your faith there is NO evidence there was a bag
found in the alleged SN.

Live with it.

[Rob Caprio]

On Feb 23, 10:03 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <fbca7300-0bca-40ee-9adb-4b1e465fc...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

You sure don't as you keep on telling provable lies.

[Rob Caprio]

On Feb 23, 10:51 am, Rob Caprio <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true representation of the "crime scene" now is it? <<<
>
> > Well, the paper bag (CE142) wasn't photographed on the floor either.
> > But that fact doesn't make the bag disappear, and the fact the bag
> > wasn't photographed on the floor doesn't mean it was never on the
> > floor in the SN.
>
> You are sounding remarkably like Bill Brown here Dave! Hmmm. He told
> me the other day just because there

Sorry, insert NO here.

[Walt]

Perhaps.....but we certainly are smart enough to know better than to
make this utterly ridiculous statement:....

"You are assuming that the photo shows the section of the floor where
the cigarette butts were found and also assuming the photos were taken

before that evidence was removed."

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee........

[Rob Caprio]

On Feb 22, 6:47 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <bf57c719-a08f-4c37-a14c-e03800b5d...@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

This kind of reminds of YOUR lie when you said they don't process the
evidence (in this case the rifle) at the crime scene! Remember? If
not, here you go!

“The moron repeatedly makes assertions that he's completely unable to
cite support for... ***one of the most recent is his claim that a
rifle must be 'processed' at the crime scene***.” (Allegedly “Ben
Holmes” – 12/3/09)

“Why do you think CSU officers carry kits with them?? For
exercise?” (Robert)

Old allegedly thinks they carry their PROCESSING kits for the exercise
I guess. Yes, the LNers are liars, and since ou are a LNer in my
book, you are a liar too!

Sadly for this nitwit, Day's testimony is loaded with HOW he processed
the rifle at the scene!

[Walt]

On Feb 23, 9:51 am, Rob Caprio <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true representation of the "crime scene" now is it? <<<
>
> > Well, the paper bag (CE142) wasn't photographed on the floor either.
> > But that fact doesn't make the bag disappear, and the fact the bag
> > wasn't photographed on the floor doesn't mean it was never on the
> > floor in the SN.
>
> You are sounding remarkably like Bill Brown here Dave!  Hmmm.  He told
> me the other day just because there is evidence or proof for something
> it doesn't mean it didn't happen!  LOL!  Imagine solving cases like
> this?  What would be off the table then? NOTHING is the correct
> answer.
>
> There is NO evidence for the bag in anyway.  Just admit it.
>
> > Do you, Walt, really think that L.D. Montgomery, J.C. Day, and Bob
> > Studebaker (and possibly one other DPD officer) were all lying when
> > they each said they saw the paper bag on the floor before it was
> > picked up?

No, I don't think those cops were lying....I'm 98% sure that there was
a paper bag found in the area. However THAT bag was too small to
conceal the gun, and the FBI lab found ZERO evidence that a rifle had
ever been in that bag. BEFORE the rifle was found "WELL HIDDEN"
beneath boxes of books, one of the cops on the scene speculated that
the sniper had smuggled the rifle into the TSBD in that bag and that
idea took hold, and was given to reporters. Later after the rifle was
brought to DPD headquarters they discovered that the bag was too small
and that's when Fritz said.... In response to being informed that the
bag was too small to hold the rifle....

Quote....." Well he ( Oswald) must have broke it down,
then" .....unquote

Fritz thought that his hasty rebuttal of the fact would be a
satisfactory explanation. He was totally unaware that even in it's
disassembled state the Mannlicher Carcano would not fit in that bag.

There are a couple of plausible explanations that we don't have a
photo of the bag in situ..... The primary and most logical reason is
because the paper bag never was in the EXACT place the cops said it
was. ( in that SE corner by the pipes )
The cop who first saw it and imagined it to be a "gun case" saw it ON
THE FLOOR but not on the floor near those pipes. We can be fairly
certain of this because Studebaker took photos of the "crime scene"
and made a map that indicated exactly where he was standing and the
direction the camera was pointing when he snapped the "crime scene"
photo. Studebakers map shows that he never took a photo in which his
camera was pointed toward the east wall in the SE corner of the sixth
floor. CE 1301 on page 138 of the WR shows a photo that the Warren
Commission used to frame Oswald. This is a fake photo, that was taken
at night after Lee Oswald was murdered. There is no indication on
Studebakers map that he ever took a photo with the camera pointed in
the direction seen in the fake photo.

[Walt]

On Feb 23, 11:16 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "There is NO evidence for the bag in any way. Just admit it." <<<
>

> I'll admit nothing of the kind. And you're nuts if you think there is
> "no evidence" to show that the paper bag was found in the Sniper's
> Nest on 11/22/63.
>
> The very existence of Commission Exhibits 142 and 626 are, of course,
> "evidence" of the paper bag that a kook named Caprio wants to make
> disappear entirely.
>
> What do you think these pictures of CE142 and CE626 are depicting,
> Rob? Are these images merely figments of everybody's imagination?:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce142.jpg
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> Plus, we have J.C. Day's writing on the bag, describing where the bag
> was found. Is Lieutenant Day telling a whole bunch of lies in the
> following testimony, Robby?:
>
> DAVID W. BELIN -- "I will now hand you what has been marked as
> Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is,
> and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142."
>
> LT. J.C. DAY -- "This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the
> southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963."
>
> MR. BELIN -- "Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?"
>
> LT. DAY -- "It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I
> put on there for the information of the FBI."
>
> MR. BELIN -- "Could you read what you wrote on there?"
>
> LT. DAY -- ""Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May
> have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day.""
>
> MR. BELIN -- "When did you write that?"
>
> LT. DAY -- "I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left
> our possession."
>
> -------------------
>
> And there is also the testimony of other police officers, such as L.D.
> Montgomery and Robert Studebaker, who also said they saw the long
> brown paper bag inside the Sniper's Nest before it was removed from
> the building on 11/22/63.
>
> So, the number of liars is growing, eh Rob?
>
> >>> "It was their [DPD's] fault for our doubt, as it would have been simple to simply take a photo of the darn thing (and proper procedure by the way) in situ." <<<
>
> Oh, come now, Robby boy. You can't pull this type of pot/kettle crap
> on me. Because even when evidence IS photographed, you conspiracy
> clowns still find a way to dismiss it. And you do this all the time,
> with a prime example being the way you kooks totally dismiss the three
> bullet shells that were found (and photographed on 11/22/63) inside
> trhe Sniper's Nest (CE510, below).
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HCONcuH76gk/TzYCYFaqh6I/AAAAAAAAEq8/t5SARtB...

Hey Von Pea Brain..... Why are you backing away from the discussion
about the paper bag? Why are you trying to divert the discussion to
this fake photo of the so called "Sniper's Nest" ?

Is your brain so scrambled that you can't stay focused on a
subject.....Or are you simply too yellow to engage in an honest debate
and run away when you get the facts slapped in your in the face.?






>
> But even though that picture in CE510 exists, many conspiracy nuts do
> not believe it shows the shells in the proper place on the floor when
> the shells were first found. Those kooks would rather believe a proven
> liar instead--Roger Craig--who said the shells were really lined up in
> a nice neat row, no more than an inch apart, when they were first
> discovered. Which is, of course, just silly beyond all possible
> belief. But many CTers like Craig's story much better than the photo
> depicted in Commission Exhibit 510, so Craig is the one the CTers will
> choose to believe.
>
> Another example is the rifle. Oswald's Carcano was photographed in
> place before Lt. Day and Capt. Fritz ever touched it. And Tom Alyea
> filmed the rifle just seconds after it was removed from the place
> where Oswald hid it on the sixth floor; and Alyea's film (according to
> many rifle experts who have examed frames from the film) positively
> shows Lt. Day handling a Mannlicher-Carcano--not a German-made Mauser.
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> But do the above still frames from Tom Alyea's film have any impact on
> the conspiracy theorists who still, to this very day in the year 2012,
> insist that a Mauser was really found and handled by Lieutenant Day on
> the Depository's sixth floor? No. And that's because most conspiracy
> clowns don't really want to know the truth about these matters. They'd
> rather cling to the old, stale, and proven-to-be-wrong information --
> like the Mauser myth.
>
> And what about the 1967 video of Seymour Weitzman admitting on
> national television that he made an "honest mistake"? Does that video
> clip do anything at all to dissuade the CTers from continuing to think
> that Weitzman saw a Mauser on November 22, 1963? No, of course not.
> Because most JFK conspiracy theorists ate more than willing to believe
> that a whole bunch of police officers (and other people not connected
> with law enforcement) lied their heads off about various things
> associated with the JFK murder case.
>
>       "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which
> I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I
> saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words
> it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But
> from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a
> glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a
> mistake; but it was an honest mistake." -- Seymour Weitzman; 1967; CBS-
> TV
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-repo...
>
> The CTers who think Oswald was nothing but an innocent patsy pretty
> much HAVE to believe that a bunch of people told a whole bunch of lies
> in this murder case. Because if a lot of people weren't lying their
> asses off about a lot of things connected to the deaths of both JFK
> and J.D. Tippit, then Lee Harvey Oswald is a double-murderer. It's as
> simple as that.

[David Von Pein]

I have no idea why Walt is so preoccupied with "fake" Sniper's Nest
photos. We all know that there were definitely some re-created photos
of the boxes taken by Studebaker and the DPD. This is no secret. And
the DPD didn't attempt to hide the fact that photos were taken at a
later time. Studebaker even talks about it in his WC testimony:

Mr. BALL. Did you take this picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that was after the boxes were dusted.
Mr. BALL. That's after they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that's when we was trying to get some prints
right there.

Plus, even without Studebaker admitting that pictures were taken at a
later time, it couldn't be more obvious that some of the pictures of
the SN boxes were taken after the boxes had been moved.

For example, anyone who takes just a brief, cursory look at the
configuration of the boxes in CE509, and then compares that picture to
the boxes seen in CE1301 or Studebaker Exhibit J, will easily be able
to immediately tell that the boxes are not in the same position in all
of those photographs. So it's fairly obvious that the DPD wasn't
attempting to hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the
boxes had been moved. And CE509 (aka: Studebaker Exhibit D) is
definitely one of the pictures taken after the boxes had been moved--
and dusted for prints too.

CE509:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0123b.jpg

CE1301:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255a.htm

STUDEBAKER EXHIBIT J:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0337a.htm


Interestingly, at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence mock trial, Dallas Deputy
Sheriff Eugene Boone was shown [at 4:30 in the Boone video below] a
picture of CE509, which shows the boxes after they had been moved.
Now, why on Earth Bugliosi didn't use CE1301 to better illustrate the
undisturbed box configuration (as well as the potential "rifle rest"
configuration of the boxes) is a mystery to me.

But for some reason, Bugliosi elected to use a picture that positively
does not depict the boxes in the place they were in when Oswald was
shooting President Kennedy. And I think it's quite apparent (at least
it is to me) that either CE1301 or Studebaker Exhibit J depict the
"rifle rest" better than CE509.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/eugene-boone.html

And the exact same type of thing regarding CE509 occurred during Luke
Mooney's Warren Commission testimony too, which I discuss in the 2007
post below:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5843c968260c94e3

[Rob Caprio]

On Feb 23, 12:16 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "There is NO evidence for the bag in any way. Just admit it." <<<
>
> I'll admit nothing of the kind. And you're nuts if you think there is
> "no evidence" to show that the paper bag was found in the Sniper's
> Nest on 11/22/63.

What SN? Cite your evidence showing a bag was found then by the
DPD.

> The very existence of Commission Exhibits 142 and 626 are, of course,
> "evidence" of the paper bag that a kook named Caprio wants to make
> disappear entirely.

They are NOT even the original bag as the FBI admitted they ruined the
alleged original one when testing it. The FBI agent who studied them
described the differences. So how do fakes prove there was an
original bag again mega kook Paul, er, Dave?

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, this bag has an area of very light-brown color,
***and the greater portion of the area is a quite dark-brownish
color.*** What was the color when you originally received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. When I originally received this it was a ***light-brown
color***.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which is at one end of the bag?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. One end of the bag.

Mr. EISENBERG. The tape is also two colors, one a lightish brown
***and the other a darkish brown***. What color was the tape when you
received it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. ***The tape also was light brown.****

Where did all this "darkish-brown" coloring come from?

> What do you think these pictures of CE142 and CE626 are depicting,
> Rob? Are these images merely figments of everybody's imagination?:

Sadly for you, you can't simply cite a photo showing the bag in situ.
All you can do is cite a photo with a "dotted line" representing this
alleged bag.

You also can't show LHO ever made this bag with materials from the
TSBD as claimed.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce142.jpg
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> Plus, we have J.C. Day's writing on the bag, describing where the bag
> was found. Is Lieutenant Day telling a whole bunch of lies in the
> following testimony, Robby?:

Probably. He lied about other things why not this?

> DAVID W. BELIN -- "I will now hand you what has been marked as
> Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is,
> and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142."
>
> LT. J.C. DAY -- "This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the
> southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963."
>
> MR. BELIN -- "Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?"
>
> LT. DAY -- "It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I
> put on there for the information of the FBI."
>
> MR. BELIN -- "Could you read what you wrote on there?"
>
> LT. DAY -- ""Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May
> have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day.""
>
> MR. BELIN -- "When did you write that?"
>
> LT. DAY -- "I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left
> our possession."

Explain for me why he would mark it as required, but NOT photograph it
as required. This should be good.

Also, I wonder why Day put a mark on it when the FBI examiner would
NOT as this could ruin the evidence!

Mr. EISENBERG. ...Mr. Stombaugh, I now hand you a homemade paper bag,
Commission Exhibit 142, which parenthetically has also received
another Exhibit No. 626, and ask you whether you are familiar with
this item?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. ***At the time I examined this, it was to be treated
for latent fingerprints subsequent to my examination, and in a case
like this I will not put a mark on the item itself because my mark
might cover a latent fingerprint which is later brought up, and
therefore obscure it. ***

Why wasn't Day worried about "obscuring" any fingerprints?

> -------------------
>
> And there is also the testimony of other police officers, such as L.D.
> Montgomery and Robert Studebaker, who also said they saw the long
> brown paper bag inside the Sniper's Nest before it was removed from
> the building on 11/22/63.
>
> So, the number of liars is growing, eh Rob?

Why not simply cite the evidence log and show me a photo of the bag in
situ then?

Why are you dancing all over the place?

> >>> "It was their [DPD's] fault for our doubt, as it would have been simple to simply take a photo of the darn thing (and proper procedure by the way) in situ." <<<
>
> Oh, come now, Robby boy. You can't pull this type of pot/kettle crap
> on me. Because even when evidence IS photographed, you conspiracy
> clowns still find a way to dismiss it.

So Dave uses the "generalization" tactic here instead of simply citing
a photo of the bag in the alleged SN!

Good one Dave! It is duly noted you CAN'T do this!

> And you do this all the time,
> with a prime example being the way you kooks totally dismiss the three
> bullet shells that were found (and photographed on 11/22/63) inside
> trhe Sniper's Nest (CE510, below).

Sadly for you, all the evidence mentions TWO shells only!


> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HCONcuH76gk/TzYCYFaqh6I/AAAAAAAAEq8/t5SARtB...

>
> But even though that picture in CE510 exists, many conspiracy nuts do
> not believe it shows the shells in the proper place on the floor when
> the shells were first found. Those kooks would rather believe a proven
> liar instead--Roger Craig--who said the shells were really lined up in
> a nice neat row, no more than an inch apart, when they were first
> discovered. Which is, of course, just silly beyond all possible
> belief. But many CTers like Craig's story much better than the photo
> depicted in Commission Exhibit 510, so Craig is the one the CTers will
> choose to believe.

This is called a DIVERSION folks. He can't simply show a photo of the
bag in situ so we get this nonsense instead!

> Another example is the rifle. Oswald's Carcano was photographed in
> place before Lt. Day and Capt. Fritz ever touched it. And Tom Alyea
> filmed the rifle just seconds after it was removed from the place
> where Oswald hid it on the sixth floor; and Alyea's film (according to
> many rifle experts who have examed frames from the film) positively
> shows Lt. Day handling a Mannlicher-Carcano--not a German-made Mauser.

There is NO evidence that there ever was an "Oswald's rifle" and you
know it. IF you think otherwise then simply cite it.

> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> But do the above still frames from Tom Alyea's film have any impact on
> the conspiracy theorists who still, to this very day in the year 2012,
> insist that a Mauser was really found and handled by Lieutenant Day on
> the Depository's sixth floor? No. And that's because most conspiracy
> clowns don't really want to know the truth about these matters. They'd
> rather cling to the old, stale, and proven-to-be-wrong information --
> like the Mauser myth.

Sadly for "Mr. Midnight Rambler" there is genuine evidence for a
Mauser being found on 11/22/63! He can't explain it away either.

> And what about the 1967 video of Seymour Weitzman admitting on
> national television that he made an "honest mistake"? Does that video
> clip do anything at all to dissuade the CTers from continuing to think
> that Weitzman saw a Mauser on November 22, 1963? No, of course not.
> Because most JFK conspiracy theorists ate more than willing to believe
> that a whole bunch of police officers (and other people not connected
> with law enforcement) lied their heads off about various things
> associated with the JFK murder case.
>
> "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which
> I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I
> saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words
> it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But
> from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a
> glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a
> mistake; but it was an honest mistake." -- Seymour Weitzman; 1967; CBS-
> TV

Another big topic change all because he can't show any evidence for
the bag being found in the alleged SN on 11/22/63!

This is a good example of how they work!

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-repo...
>
> The CTers who think Oswald was nothing but an innocent patsy pretty
> much HAVE to believe that a bunch of people told a whole bunch of lies
> in this murder case. Because if a lot of people weren't lying their
> asses off about a lot of things connected to the deaths of both JFK
> and J.D. Tippit, then Lee Harvey Oswald is a double-murderer. It's as
> simple as that.

It is not as simple as people lying Dave, the DPD is a hierarchical
system like all of society and you simply do what you are told to do
IF you are a lower level person. They were given orders and they
followed them. It is really that simple.

[David Von Pein]

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "There is NO evidence for the bag in any way. Just admit it." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll admit nothing of the kind. And you're nuts if you think there is
"no evidence" to show that the paper bag was found in the Sniper's
Nest on 11/22/63.

The very existence of Commission Exhibits 142 and 626 is, of course,

"evidence" of the paper bag that a kook named Caprio wants to make
disappear entirely.

What do you think these pictures of CE142 and CE626 are depicting,
Rob? Are these images merely figments of everybody's imagination?:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce142.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0154a.htm

Plus, we have J.C. Day's writing on the bag, describing where the bag
was found. Is Lieutenant Day telling a whole bunch of lies in the
following testimony, Robby?:

DAVID W. BELIN -- "I will now hand you what has been marked as
Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is,
and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142."

LT. J.C. DAY -- "This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the
southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?"

LT. DAY -- "It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I
put on there for the information of the FBI."

MR. BELIN -- "Could you read what you wrote on there?"

LT. DAY -- ""Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May
have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day.""

MR. BELIN -- "When did you write that?"

LT. DAY -- "I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left
our possession."

-------------------

And there is also the testimony of other police officers, such as L.D.
Montgomery and Robert Studebaker, who also said they saw the long
brown paper bag inside the Sniper's Nest before it was removed from
the building on 11/22/63.

So, the number of liars is growing, eh Rob?

>>> "It was their [DPD's] fault for our doubt, as it would have been simple to simply take a photo of the darn thing (and proper procedure by the way) in situ." <<<

Oh, come now, Robby boy. You can't pull this type of pot/kettle crap
on me. Because even when evidence IS photographed, you conspiracy

clowns still find a way to dismiss it. And you do this all the time,

with a prime example being the way you kooks totally dismiss the three
bullet shells that were found (and photographed on 11/22/63) inside

the Sniper's Nest (CE510, below).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HCONcuH76gk/TzYCYFaqh6I/AAAAAAAAEq8/t5SARtB9Y_I/s1600/CE510.jpg

But even though that picture in CE510 exists, many conspiracy nuts do
not believe it shows the shells in the proper place on the floor when
the shells were first found. Those kooks would rather believe a proven
liar instead--Roger Craig--who said the shells were really lined up in
a nice neat row, no more than an inch apart, when they were first
discovered. Which is, of course, just silly beyond all possible
belief. But many CTers like Craig's story much better than the photo
depicted in Commission Exhibit 510, so Craig is the one the CTers will
choose to believe.

Another example is the rifle. Oswald's Carcano was photographed in

place before Lt. Day and Captain Fritz ever touched it. And Tom Alyea

filmed the rifle just seconds after it was removed from the place
where Oswald hid it on the sixth floor; and Alyea's film (according to

many rifle experts who have examined frames from the film) positively
shows Lt. Day handling a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a German-made Mauser.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/RifleFoundInTSBDFromAlyeaFilm.jpg

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/RifleFoundInTSBDFromAlyeaFilm-2.jpg

But do the above still frames from Tom Alyea's film have any impact on
the conspiracy theorists who still, to this very day in the year 2012,
insist that a Mauser was really found and handled by Lieutenant Day on
the Depository's sixth floor? No. And that's because most conspiracy
clowns don't really want to know the truth about these matters. They'd
rather cling to the old, stale, and proven-to-be-wrong information --
like the Mauser myth.

And what about the 1967 video of Seymour Weitzman admitting on
national television that he made an "honest mistake"? Does that video
clip do anything at all to dissuade the CTers from continuing to think
that Weitzman saw a Mauser on November 22, 1963? No, of course not.

Because most JFK conspiracy theorists are more than willing to believe

that a whole bunch of police officers (and other people not connected
with law enforcement) lied their heads off about various things
associated with the JFK murder case.

"To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which
I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I
saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words
it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But
from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a
glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a

mistake; but it was an honest mistake." -- Seymour Weitzman; CBS-TV

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html

[David Von Pein]

Earth to Kook Caprio.....

CE142 and CE626 are depicting the bag found in the SN. The
"fake" (replica) bag created by the FBI on Dec. 1 is a totally
DIFFERENT bag -- CE364.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm

Caprio is playing his Village Idiot part when talking about the bags.
He seems to want to believe that CE142/626 are depicting a "fake" bag.
But if so, Robby, then what is CE364 depicting? A second "fake" bag?

[aeffects]

spoken by justme1952's butt-boy.... carry on troll! LMFAO

[aeffects]

On Feb 23, 10:36 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

no advertising troll -- you know better

[aeffects]

when you speak take that .john jockstrap from around your ears, you
look the damn fool!

[Ben Holmes]

In article <fe68b81d-aa8d-4456...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

>
>On Feb 23, 9:51=A0am, Rob Caprio <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 12:29 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>

>> > >>> "If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true represe=

>ntation of the "crime scene" now is it? <<<
>>
>> > Well, the paper bag (CE142) wasn't photographed on the floor either.
>> > But that fact doesn't make the bag disappear, and the fact the bag
>> > wasn't photographed on the floor doesn't mean it was never on the
>> > floor in the SN.
>>
>> You are sounding remarkably like Bill Brown here Dave! Hmmm. He told
>> me the other day just because there is evidence or proof for something
>> it doesn't mean it didn't happen! LOL! Imagine solving cases like
>> this? What would be off the table then? NOTHING is the correct
>> answer.
>>
>> There is NO evidence for the bag in anyway. Just admit it.

That would be a lie. Why would someone try to lie and assert that there's "NO
evidence for the bag"???

>> by the way) in situ. =A0Why did they NOT do this Dave IF it was there as

>> you claim?
>>
>> > (Silly question -- of course you think those officers lied. Why did I
>> > even ask?)
>>
>> Hey, when someone says something that is NOT true it is a lie.
>> Unfortunately for your faith there is NO evidence there was a bag
>> found in the alleged SN.
>>
>> Live with it.
>

[Ben Holmes]

In article <86f73952-fb9f-4937...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

>> >>> "It was their [DPD's] fault for our doubt, as it would have been simp=
>le to simply take a photo of the darn thing (and proper procedure by the wa=

>y) in situ." <<<
>>
>> Oh, come now, Robby boy. You can't pull this type of pot/kettle crap
>> on me. Because even when evidence IS photographed, you conspiracy
>> clowns still find a way to dismiss it. And you do this all the time,
>> with a prime example being the way you kooks totally dismiss the three
>> bullet shells that were found (and photographed on 11/22/63) inside
>> trhe Sniper's Nest (CE510, below).
>>
>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HCONcuH76gk/TzYCYFaqh6I/AAAAAAAAEq8/t5SARtB...
>
>Hey Von Pea Brain..... Why are you backing away from the discussion
>about the paper bag? Why are you trying to divert the discussion to
>this fake photo of the so called "Sniper's Nest" ?
>
>Is your brain so scrambled that you can't stay focused on a
>subject.....Or are you simply too yellow to engage in an honest debate
>and run away when you get the facts slapped in your in the face.?

I find it amusing that one liar is correcting another liar. And Walt, you're
correcting both of the liars!

Rob is too stupid to understand the concept of "evidence", and DVP can't admit
that he can't give credible and non-conspiratorial explanations for the
evidence.

>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, wh=

>ich
>> I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I
>> saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words
>> it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But
>> from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a
>> glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a
>> mistake; but it was an honest mistake." -- Seymour Weitzman; 1967; CBS-
>> TV
>>
>> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-repo...
>>
>> The CTers who think Oswald was nothing but an innocent patsy pretty
>> much HAVE to believe that a bunch of people told a whole bunch of lies
>> in this murder case. Because if a lot of people weren't lying their
>> asses off about a lot of things connected to the deaths of both JFK
>> and J.D. Tippit, then Lee Harvey Oswald is a double-murderer. It's as
>> simple as that.
>

[Ben Holmes]

In article <1936ed4c-da8f-44a5...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On Feb 23, 7:58=A0am, Rob Caprio <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 10:03 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>

>> > In article <fbca7300-0bca-40ee-9adb-4b1e465fc...@b23g2000yqn.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > Walt says...
>>
>> > >On Feb 22, 5:47=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <bf57c719-a08f-4c37-a14c-e03800b5d...@p12g2000yqe.googleg=
>roups=3D
>> > >.com>,
>> > >> aeffects says...
>>
>> > >> >On Feb 20, 12:41=3D3DA0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> On Feb 20, 3:18=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > >> >> > On Feb 20, 2:06=3D3DA0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > >> >> > > On Feb 20, 12:13=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> =
>wrote:>=3D
>> > > On F=3D3D
>> > >> >eb 20, 10:45=3D3DA0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> > > > > You are assuming that the photo shows the section of the =
>floor=3D
>> > > wh=3D3D
>> > >> >ere
>> > >> >> > > > > the cigarette butts were found and also assuming the phot=
>os we=3D
>> > >re =3D3D

>> > >> >taken
>> > >> >> > > > > before that evidence was removed.

>> > >> >> > > > The ignorant fool wrote:.. =3D3DA0(You are) "assuming the p=
>hotos w=3D
>> > >ere t=3D3D

>> > >> >aken
>>
>> > >> >> > > > before that evidence was removed."
>>
>> > >> >> > > > If evidence was removed then it's not a authentic and true
>> > >> >> > > > representation of the "crime scene" now is it, Mr Ignorant?
>>

>> > >> >> > > Right, dumbfuck. When cops find evidence, they just leave it =
>where=3D
>> > > it
>> > >> >> > > is. They don't collect it and take it with them. That would m=
>ake t=3D
>> > >oo
>> > >> >> > > much sense. That's the way it works in that dumbfuck universe=
> you =3D
>> > >liv=3D3D
>> > >> >e
>> > >> >> > > in.
>>
>> > >> >> > Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee......LMAO!..... =3D3DA0 If you weren't =
>so damn=3D
>> > >ed
>> > >> >> > STUPID, you understand that the investigators take photos of th=
>e sce=3D
>> > >ne
>> > >> >> > and the evidence BEFORE they collect that evidence. =3D3DA0Ha,h=

>a,ha,
>> > >> >> > hee,hee,hee....Watta dumbass!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > >> >> Did you learn that while watching Kojak reruns?
>>
>> > >> >son, are you a liar?
>>

>> > >> It's amazing how incredibly stupid these kooks can appear... they kn=

>ow
>> > >> just as well as everyone else that crime scene photos are virtually

>> > >> the first thing done, yet they pretend to not know that. So yes, the=

>y
>> > >> *are* liars...
>>
>> > >Yes, they certainly do make fools of themselves by making utterly
>> > >stupid statements like The Little Yellow Cur made.
>> > >They are so desperate to perserve the lie, that they are comfortable
>> > >with, that they'll openly display their dishonesty and cowardice.
>> > >Aaaaand .....they have no shame.
>>
>> > Yep... I'll agree that you hit the nail on the head - they have *NO* shame.
>>
>> You sure don't as you keep on telling provable lies.
>
>when you speak take that .john jockstrap from around your ears, you
>look the damn fool!

We got rid of Tony Marsh... but it looks like Rob Caprio took his place.

[Walt]

On Feb 23, 12:36 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I have no idea why Walt is so preoccupied with "fake" Sniper's Nest
> photos. We all know that there were definitely some re-created photos
> of the boxes taken by Studebaker and the DPD.

Apparently "WE" all don't know that the DPD created false photos and
gave them to LBJ's Warren Commission as though they were authentic
photos of the "crime scene". A couple of your lying buddies have
been denying this fact in this very thread.
And furthermore it's obvious that you yourself attempt to create
confusion by claiming some of the false photos are authentic. If you
were only half as clever as you think you are you'd still be a
halfwit.

This is no secret. And
> the DPD didn't attempt to hide the fact that photos were taken at a
> later time. Studebaker even talks about it in his WC testimony:
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you take this picture?
> Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that was after the boxes were dusted.
> Mr. BALL. That's after they were moved?
> Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that's when we was trying to get some prints
> right there.
>
> Plus, even without Studebaker admitting that pictures were taken at a
> later time, it couldn't be more obvious that some of the pictures of
> the SN boxes were taken after the boxes had been moved.
>
> For example, anyone who takes just a brief, cursory look at the
> configuration of the boxes in CE509, and then compares that picture to
> the boxes seen in CE1301 or Studebaker Exhibit J, will easily be able
> to immediately tell that the boxes are not in the same position in all
> of those photographs. So it's fairly obvious that the DPD wasn't
> attempting to hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the
> boxes had been moved. And CE509 (aka: Studebaker Exhibit D) is
> definitely one of the pictures taken after the boxes had been moved--
> and dusted for prints too.
>

> CE509:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...
>
> CE1301:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...
>
> STUDEBAKER EXHIBIT J:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...

[Walt]

On Feb 23, 12:36 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I have no idea why Walt is so preoccupied with "fake" Sniper's Nest
> photos. We all know that there were definitely some re-created photos
> of the boxes taken by Studebaker and the DPD. This is no secret. And
> the DPD didn't attempt to hide the fact that photos were taken at a
> later time. Studebaker even talks about it in his WC testimony:
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you take this picture?
> Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that was after the boxes were dusted.
> Mr. BALL. That's after they were moved?
> Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that's when we was trying to get some prints
> right there.
>
> Plus, even without Studebaker admitting that pictures were taken at a
> later time, it couldn't be more obvious that some of the pictures of
> the SN boxes were taken after the boxes had been moved.
>
> For example, anyone who takes just a brief, cursory look at the
> configuration of the boxes in CE509, and then compares that picture to
> the boxes seen in CE1301 or Studebaker Exhibit J, will easily be able
> to immediately tell that the boxes are not in the same position in all
> of those photographs. So it's fairly obvious that the DPD wasn't
> attempting to hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the
> boxes had been moved. And CE509 (aka: Studebaker Exhibit D) is
> definitely one of the pictures taken after the boxes had been moved--
> and dusted for prints too.
>

> CE509:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_...

Hey Dud.... Aren't you going to call Von Pea Brain a liar? How about
you Litte Yellow Cur?

>
> CE1301:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...
>
> STUDEBAKER EXHIBIT J:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>

> Interestingly, at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence mock trial, Dallas Deputy
> Sheriff Eugene Boone was shown [at 4:30 in the Boone video below] a
> picture of CE509, which shows the boxes after they had been moved.
> Now, why on Earth Bugliosi didn't use CE1301 to better illustrate the
> undisturbed box configuration (as well as the potential "rifle rest"
> configuration of the boxes) is a mystery to me.

I'm sure it is a mystery to you..... but perhaps da Bug was smart
enough to recognize that CE 1301 os a bogus photo, and it does NOT
show the so called SN as it appeared when Boone first reported it.

[bigdog]

You can always tell the retards. They are the ones that have to keep
claiming evidence is fake because they can't make the evidence work
for their retarded beliefs.

[David Von Pein]

Walt,

Some of the pictures of the Sniper's Nest depict the Nest as it was
found on 11/22/63. Others do not. And the DPD was very forthright
about this fact. They never attempted to hide the "re-created" photos.
And, as I mentioned previously, Studebaker even forthrightly tells the
WC that some pictures were taken after the boxes had been moved (CE509
and Studebaker Exhibit J, to name two).

Plus, it's blatantly obvious that the picture in CE509, taken by
Studebaker himself, is a picture that does not even ATTEMPT to
reconstruct the SN boxes in a manner that simulates the way they were
found right after the shooting.

I have no idea why the DPD needed any "re-created" pictures of the SN
(when they already had several photos showing the Nest the way Oswald
left it), but it's quite clear that nobody was attempting to perfectly
replicate the stack of boxes in CE509. (However, in Studebaker Exhibit
J, another "re-created" picture, the boxes WERE obviously being
situated in a way to duplicate the way the Nest looked prior to
anything being moved.)

In the final analysis, this whole topic of the boxes is just another
in a series of futile exercises engaged in by a conspiracy clown named
Walt. It's an exercise that should be filed in the drawer marked "IT
GOES NOWHERE". Because a slightly different stacking of the boxes will
not (and cannot) eliminate the physical evidence against Oswald in
John Kennedy's murder.

Even if the DPD had taken no pictures of the Nest at all and had
thrown all the boxes away after the shooting, Oswald would still be
guilty. And there's nothing that Mr. Fake Pictures (Cakebread) can do
about that fact. Because it's not the box configuration in the
Sniper's Nest that hangs Mr. Oswald -- it's all of that other stuff
that Walt also thinks is fake. E.G., the bullets, the shells, the
rifle, the prints, the fibers, and Oswald's pre- and post-
assassination actions.

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

BOX ADDENDUM (FROM 2007):

"Why on Earth Joe Ball didn't utilize either CE1301 or
Studebaker Exhibit J (the latter being a "re-creation" done by
Studebaker himself of the original box configuration in the SN window)
when questioning Luke Mooney is a mystery to me.

Either one of the two exhibits depicted above would have been
much better to use than CE509 or CE511. CE509, btw, was verified by
Robert Studebaker as being a picture taken (by Studebaker) AFTER the
boxes had already been moved and dusted for prints by the DPD.

So using CE509 when questioning Mooney about the "original box
configuration" is just plain silly. It makes me wonder if Mr. Ball of
the Warren Commission staff was deliberately trying to "trip up"
Mooney in some fashion (i.e., trying to find out if a member of Dallas
law enforcement would be willing to lie under oath to the WC about
some of the evidence).

A pretty good trick, I think, if that was what Ball had in
mind. But, of course, Mr. Mooney was not tripped up in any way when he
was asked if CE509 depicted the Sniper's Nest boxes before they had
been moved.

I guess it's possible that Ball, himself, didn't realize that
CE509 was not the actual configuration of the boxes before they had
been moved by the police. But it seems mighty strange to me that Ball
would not have known that fact before questioning Mooney.

In any event, Mooney's answers were perfectly consistent with
an ABOVE-BOARD AND TRUTHFUL Dallas Sheriff's Department with respect
to the box evidence found in the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63." -- DVP;
February 21, 2007

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-police-fake-evidence.html

[Walt]

On Feb 23, 6:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Walt,
>
> Some of the pictures of the Sniper's Nest depict the Nest as it was
> found on 11/22/63. Others do not. And the DPD was very forthright
> about this fact. They never attempted to hide the "re-created" photos.

That's all well and good.....But WHY take the phoney photos in the
first place????????

I'm sure that you'll spew some garbage that will attempt to put an
innocent explanation for the bastards creating photos that have
completely screwed up the investigation. I'm not convinced that you
are one of those individuals who have been left completely befuddled
by the presentation of the bogus photos..... You "may" be one of
those who isn't smart enough to sort this out, but I don't think
so........ I suspect that you are intelligent enough to know the
truth, but are being paid to propagate the lie.

[David Von Pein]

Regarding Walt's claim in his first post in this thread:

This photo is quite obviously NOT a picture that represents the way
the boxes were stacked when the police first got to the Sniper's Nest
on November 22nd:

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/m1/1/med_res/

Compare the above photo with CE509:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce509.jpg

CE509, as mentioned many times previously, has definitely been
identified by the DPD's Bob Studebaker as a photo taken after the
boxes had been moved. And while the angles of the stacked boxes don't
appear to be identical in both photographs above, they are similar--in
that the boxes are stacked THREE high, instead of the top box being
placed on the window ledge, which is positively where one of the
cartons was located when Oswald was killing Kennedy. Both Mooney and
Studebaker testified to there being a box tilted on the ledge of the
window before any boxes were moved.

And it's possible other officers testified to that fact as well. But
Mooney and Studebaker definitely did, because Studebaker's "Exhibit J"
is a re-created picture of the SN boxes, with Studebaker telling the
WC that that photo is the way the boxes were situated when the police
arrived.

Therefore, the top picture above is obviously NOT a picture that was
taken prior to the boxes being moved--because the top box isn't on the
window ledge. But Walt (for some reason) insists that it's one of the
few "authentic" photos taken of the SN on Nov. 22.

Go figure kooks.

http://Kennedy-Photos.blogspot.com/#The-Sniper's-Nest

[Walt]

You can lie and deny til yer exalted leaded (LBJ) is ice skating in
hell,but it will not change the photos.

The true photos need nobody to lie about what they show. They speak
for themselves, and no matter how you lie you cannot change the time
that the shadows indicate nor can you change the scenes in Dealey
plaza that are seen in the authentic photos.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <1e97d69e-d998-4bc6...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

>
>On Feb 23, 12:36=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I have no idea why Walt is so preoccupied with "fake" Sniper's Nest
>> photos. We all know that there were definitely some re-created photos
>> of the boxes taken by Studebaker and the DPD. This is no secret. And
>> the DPD didn't attempt to hide the fact that photos were taken at a
>> later time. Studebaker even talks about it in his WC testimony:
>>
>> Mr. BALL. Did you take this picture?
>> Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that was after the boxes were dusted.
>> Mr. BALL. That's after they were moved?
>> Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that's when we was trying to get some prints
>> right there.
>>
>> Plus, even without Studebaker admitting that pictures were taken at a
>> later time, it couldn't be more obvious that some of the pictures of
>> the SN boxes were taken after the boxes had been moved.
>>
>> For example, anyone who takes just a brief, cursory look at the
>> configuration of the boxes in CE509, and then compares that picture to
>> the boxes seen in CE1301 or Studebaker Exhibit J, will easily be able
>> to immediately tell that the boxes are not in the same position in all
>> of those photographs. So it's fairly obvious that the DPD wasn't
>> attempting to hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the
>> boxes had been moved. And CE509 (aka: Studebaker Exhibit D) is
>> definitely one of the pictures taken after the boxes had been moved--
>> and dusted for prints too.
>>

>> CE509:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol1=

>7_...
>
>Hey Dud.... Aren't you going to call Von Pea Brain a liar? How about
>you Litte Yellow Cur?
>
>
>
>>

>> CE1301:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol2=
>2_0...
>>
>> STUDEBAKER EXHIBIT J:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2=

>1/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>>
>> Interestingly, at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence mock trial, Dallas Deputy
>> Sheriff Eugene Boone was shown [at 4:30 in the Boone video below] a
>> picture of CE509, which shows the boxes after they had been moved.
>> Now, why on Earth Bugliosi didn't use CE1301 to better illustrate the
>> undisturbed box configuration (as well as the potential "rifle rest"
>> configuration of the boxes) is a mystery to me.
>
>I'm sure it is a mystery to you..... but perhaps da Bug was smart
>enough to recognize that CE 1301 os a bogus photo, and it does NOT
>show the so called SN as it appeared when Boone first reported it.

If he was, he was also stupid enough to get completely confused between what
Perry and Carrico said, and what he *thought* they said...

>> But for some reason, Bugliosi elected to use a picture that positively
>> does not depict the boxes in the place they were in when Oswald was
>> shooting President Kennedy. And I think it's quite apparent (at least
>> it is to me) that either CE1301 or Studebaker Exhibit J depict the
>> "rifle rest" better than CE509.
>>
>> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/eugene-boone.html
>>
>> And the exact same type of thing regarding CE509 occurred during Luke
>> Mooney's Warren Commission testimony too, which I discuss in the 2007
>> post below:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5843c968260c94e3
>

[Walt]

On Feb 23, 8:05 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <1e97d69e-d998-4bc6-87c9-e43d38a84...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Yer referring to da Bug, Right Ben? If you're referring to
Bugliosi then you surely are being sarcastic, because we both know
that Da bug knew EXACTLY what Dr Carrico said about the wound on the
skin of JFK's throat. ( Dr Carrico said that it was a small
PENETRATING wound.) Da Bug was NOT confused....Just a lying
lawyer......He
attempted to confuse the reader of his heavy weight door stop.

>
> >> But for some reason, Bugliosi elected to use a picture that positively
> >> does not depict the boxes in the place they were in when Oswald was
> >> shooting President Kennedy. And I think it's quite apparent (at least
> >> it is to me) that either CE1301 or Studebaker Exhibit J depict the
> >> "rifle rest" better than CE509.
>
> >>http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/eugene-boone.html
>
> >> And the exact same type of thing regarding CE509 occurred during Luke
> >> Mooney's Warren Commission testimony too, which I discuss in the 2007
> >> post below:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5843c968260c94e3
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes

> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ben Holmes]

In article <143ac30d-7564-4332...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Feb 23, 8:05=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1e97d69e-d998-4bc6-87c9-e43d38a84...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Walt says...

>>
>> >On Feb 23, 12:36=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> I have no idea why Walt is so preoccupied with "fake" Sniper's Nest
>> >> photos. We all know that there were definitely some re-created photos
>> >> of the boxes taken by Studebaker and the DPD. This is no secret. And
>> >> the DPD didn't attempt to hide the fact that photos were taken at a
>> >> later time. Studebaker even talks about it in his WC testimony:
>>
>> >> Mr. BALL. Did you take this picture?
>> >> Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that was after the boxes were dusted.
>> >> Mr. BALL. That's after they were moved?
>> >> Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that's when we was trying to get some prints
>> >> right there.
>>
>> >> Plus, even without Studebaker admitting that pictures were taken at a
>> >> later time, it couldn't be more obvious that some of the pictures of
>> >> the SN boxes were taken after the boxes had been moved.
>>
>> >> For example, anyone who takes just a brief, cursory look at the
>> >> configuration of the boxes in CE509, and then compares that picture to
>> >> the boxes seen in CE1301 or Studebaker Exhibit J, will easily be able
>> >> to immediately tell that the boxes are not in the same position in all
>> >> of those photographs. So it's fairly obvious that the DPD wasn't
>> >> attempting to hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the
>> >> boxes had been moved. And CE509 (aka: Studebaker Exhibit D) is
>> >> definitely one of the pictures taken after the boxes had been moved--
>> >> and dusted for prints too.
>>

>> >> CE509:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_V=
>ol1=3D
>> >7_...
>>
>> >Hey Dud.... Aren't you going to call Von Pea Brain a liar? =A0How about
>> >you Litte Yellow Cur?
>>
>> >> CE1301:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_V=
>ol2=3D
>> >2_0...
>>
>> >> STUDEBAKER EXHIBIT J:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/=
>wh2=3D

>> >1/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>>
>> >> Interestingly, at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence mock trial, Dallas Deputy
>> >> Sheriff Eugene Boone was shown [at 4:30 in the Boone video below] a
>> >> picture of CE509, which shows the boxes after they had been moved.
>> >> Now, why on Earth Bugliosi didn't use CE1301 to better illustrate the
>> >> undisturbed box configuration (as well as the potential "rifle rest"
>> >> configuration of the boxes) is a mystery to me.
>>
>> >I'm sure it is a mystery to you..... but perhaps da Bug was smart
>> >enough to recognize that CE 1301 os a bogus photo, and it does NOT
>> >show the so called SN as it appeared when Boone first reported it.
>>
>> If he was, he was also stupid enough to get completely confused between what
>> Perry and Carrico said, and what he *thought* they said...
>
>Yer referring to da Bug, Right Ben? If you're referring to
>Bugliosi then you surely are being sarcastic, because we both know
>that Da bug knew EXACTLY what Dr Carrico said about the wound on the
>skin of JFK's throat. ( Dr Carrico said that it was a small

>PENETRATING wound.) Da bug was confused....Just a lying lawyer......He

>attempted to confuse the reader of his heavy weight door stop.

Yep.... Bugliosi's lies are the topic...

And yes, he deserves all the sarcasm that can be heaped on him... his Internet
mouthpiece, "DVP", argues that it was a simple mistake.

Of course, if Bugliosi were stupid enough to make mistakes like this, his entire
tome is indicted.

As it is anyway... Bugliosi was either incredibly stupid, or incredibly
dishonest... those are really the only two choices.

[Walt]

On Feb 23, 6:13 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Walt,
>
> Some of the pictures of the Sniper's Nest depict the Nest as it was
> found on 11/22/63. Others do not. And the DPD was very forthright
> about this fact. They never attempted to hide the "re-created" photos.
> And, as I mentioned previously, Studebaker even forthrightly tells the
> WC that some pictures were taken after the boxes had been moved (CE509
> and Studebaker Exhibit J, to name two).
>
> Plus, it's blatantly obvious that the picture in CE509, taken by
> Studebaker himself, is a picture that does not even ATTEMPT to
> reconstruct the SN boxes in a manner that simulates the way they were
> found right after the shooting.
>
> I have no idea why the DPD needed any "re-created" pictures of the SN
> (when they already had several photos showing the Nest the way Oswald
> left it), but it's quite clear that nobody was attempting to perfectly
> replicate the stack of boxes in CE509. (However, in Studebaker Exhibit
> J, another "re-created" picture, the boxes WERE obviously being
> situated in a way to duplicate the way the Nest looked prior to
> anything being moved.)
>
> In the final analysis, this whole topic of the boxes is just another
> in a series of futile exercises

In the final analysis, this whole topic of the boxes is just another
in a series of futile exercises

That's exactly what was intended when the bastards mixed the phoney
photos in with the authentic photos. ( in essence this issue is a
microcosm of the entire case) They create confusion about the case by
introducing false evidence. The inroduction of false evidence has
gave birth to conspiracy theories.

However the truth can still be seen shining forth in the photos of the
imaginary "Sniper's Nest". They first cops on the scene imagined they
had stumbled upon a "Sniper's Nest" because someone had planted spent
shells beneath that window. Hence it was treated as a crime scene and
nothing was touched until photos were taken of the scene. Those
original photos show the sunshine and shadow on the top of a stack of
three Rolling Readers boxes. The shadow can be used as a clock to
determine exactly when the photo was taken.

David Von Pea Brain has admitted that he knows that the DPD created
phoney photographs of the imaginary SN, and he labels the authentic
photos as the phoney photos and calls the phoney photos authentic.
(Just as LBJ's Warren Commission did.) He's a liar and he knows
it..... He simply can't refute God's shining light on the top of the
boxes.

[Walt]

On Feb 20, 10:45 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:22 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 7:03 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 7:17 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 3:43 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 19, 11:19 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Here's a link to a photo of the SN as it appeared at about 1:15 on the
> > > > > > afternoon of 11 ?22 /63.
>
> > > > > >  http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49531/
>
> > > > > > This photo never appeared in the official LBJ approved lie that was
> > > > > > released to the public in September 1964. Ten months after the murder
> > > > > > of President John Kennedy.  The reason this photo and several
> > > > > > companion photos were never printed in the Warren report is because
> > > > > > they are authentic photos of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".  These
> > > > > > photos show that it would have been physically impossible for Lee
> > > > > > Oswald to have shot President Kennedy in the back of the head as LBJ's
> > > > > > "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" charged.
>
> > > > > > On page 138 and 139 there is a couple of photos that the authorities
> > > > > > created after they murdered Lee Oswald.  The photo on page 138 was
> > > > > > taken at night by the DPD. It is a dishonest "re-construction of the
> > > > > > so called "Sniper's Nest".  It is intended to fool the viewer into
> > > > > > believing that they found Lee Oswald's prints on the boxes behind the
> > > > > > window, and trick the unwary into believing the lie that Lee Oswald
> > > > > > murdered JFK.
>
> > > > > > We'll compare the authentic photo with the fake photo and the viewer
> > > > > > will be able to see with his own eyes that Lee Oswald was framed.
>
> > > > > Do you ever get tired of proving what a dumbfuck you are. Apparently
> > > > > not.-
>
> > > > Nothing but ad hominem..... Typical response from a person who has no
> > > > other way of attempting to refute the facts.
>
> > > > been smoking. If you think that is a smoker's nook, one has to wonder what you've
>
> > The three spent shells and the eyewitnesses who saw a
>
> > > rifleman in that window are ample proof it was used for something
> > > other than someone trying to sneak a smoke.
> > Some ignorant fool wrote:......If you think that is a smoker's nook,
>
> > one has to wonder what you've
> > been smoking.
>
> > Dear mr ignorant of the facts.....  It is a fact that the cops picked
> > up an empty Viceroy cigarette package and some cigarette butts from
> > the floor in the Smokers Nook.
>
> No one has said that it was never used to sneak a smoke. I said it was
> used for something quite a bit more significant at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
> It may well have been an out of the way corner where somebody could
> sneak a smoke undetected. That would also make it an ideal place for
> an assassin to hide undetected.
>
An ignorant idiot wrote:....." No one has said that it was never used
to sneak a smoke."

Dear Idiot.....Thank you for displaying your ignorance about the
imaginary "Sniper's Nest"..... The authorities clained that Lee Oswald
constructed the so called "Sniper's Nest". And he built it to conceal
himself from anybody who might encounter him while he was preparing to
shoot JFK. THAT'S the lie they created..... And since Lee Oswald
didn't smoke, who would have used it as a place to "sneak a smoke" ?
Are you suggesting that Oswald was a smoker but just lied about it and
concealed his habit from everybody?
>
>
>
> > There are many photos of Dectectives
> > Marvin Johnson and LD Montgomery departing the TSBD with the empty
> > Viceroy package and a Dr pepper bottle. Several DPD detectives
> > testified that the cigarette butts and the empty cig package were
> > found on the floor of the imaginary "Sniper's Nest".
> > If someone hadn't used the area for a hidden smoker's nook, why would
> > there be cigarette butts and an empty cigarette package there???
>
> > And I'm glad that you've challenged me...because your equally ignorant
> > partner wrote this:
>
> > "That photo is number 91-001/ 079. Here is the next photo taken on
> > that roll, 91-001/ 080. The one end of the sniper nest barricade has
> > been dismantled to show the shells on the floor. Note the small box on
> > the windowsill.
> >    http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49532/m1/1/
>
> > This is the next photo taken, 91-001/ 081, showing the shells in the
> > SN from the west facing east.
>
> >  http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49534/m1/1/
>
> > In this link you ignorant buddy has posted a link to a fake photo the
> > the DPD created to support their lie that Lee Oswald shot JFK while
> > sitting in the smoker's nook.  If this was an authentic photo there
> > should be cigarette butts and an empty Viceroy package there on the
> > floor..... Do you see any cigarette butts or the empty cigarette
> > package in the photo??
>
> > That's just one of the many discrepancies that reveal that this photo
> > is a fake....and that you're a gullible idiot.
>
> You are assuming that the photo shows the section of the floor where
> the cigarette butts were found and also assuming the photos were taken
> before that evidence was removed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[bigdog]

Nobody should be surprised at your lack of reading comprehension or
your ability to read things into things that were never said. It is
not known whether Oswald configured the boxes to create the sniper's
nest or simply took advantage of what was already there. The boxes had
been moved to that side of the building because the other half of the
floor had to be cleared to put a new floor down. Prior to Oswald using
the boxes as a sniper's nest, had somebody used it to sneak a smoke.
Who knows. Who cares. We know how the boxes were configured during the
shooting and they provided Oswald with a concealed location. It is
unimportant to know whether they boxes had been configured that way by
chance or whether Oswald rearranged them to create the sniper's nest.
Nobody said Oswald tried to sneak a smoke there, Somebody else may or
may not have. We don't need to know that. We do know that Oswald used
the wall of boxes as a sniper's nest.

[aeffects]

provided who again dipshit? hell, you overrated dipshit -- even the
good Dallas sherrif said he couldn't get Oswald in the 6th floor
window, yet YOU can? rotflmfao!......what are you smoking crack or
sumpin'?

[Walt]

Very good.....So you now admit that we were being lied to when the
authorities told us that Lee Harvey Oswald ( they usually used his
full entire name with a sinister artticulation) built that imaginary
"Sniper's Nest". Is it because you were cornered and were forced to
admit the the cigarette butts and the empty cigarette pack is proof
that some other person built and used the cubby hole as a hidden
Smoker's Nook.

Now then perhaps you'd like to explain WHY the cops didn't attempt to
determine WHO that other person was?? Wouldn't it have essential for
an honest investigation to attempt to determine who had used that area
they called a "Sniper's Nest". I mean IF it truely was a sniper's
nest shouldn't they have questioned everyone who may have used that
area? Why did they focus on Oswald only??

The boxes had
> been moved to that side of the building because the other half of the
> floor had to be cleared to put a new floor down. Prior to Oswald using
> the boxes as a sniper's nest, had somebody used it to sneak a smoke.
> Who knows. Who cares. We know how the boxes were configured during the
> shooting and they provided Oswald with a concealed location. It is
> unimportant to know whether they boxes had been configured that way by
> chance or whether Oswald rearranged them to create the sniper's nest.
> Nobody said Oswald tried to sneak a smoke there, Somebody else may or
> may not have. We don't need to know that. We do know that Oswald used

> the wall of boxes as a sniper's nest.- Hide quoted text -

[Bud]

You still haven`t supported that the cigarette butts and pack was
found in the SN.

> Now then perhaps you'd like to explain WHY the cops didn't attempt to
> determine WHO that other person was??  Wouldn't it have essential for
> an honest investigation to attempt to determine who had used that area
> they called a "Sniper's Nest".      I mean IF it truely was a sniper's
> nest shouldn't they have questioned everyone who may have used that
> area?   Why did they focus on Oswald only??

Why would they focus on people who didn`t shoot Kennedy?

[Walt]

Hmmmmm... Is this really what passes for logical thinking for you??
I'm surprised that you would admit that the cops knew that Lee Oswald
was the designated patsy, so there was no need to investigate and
determine who the other people were who used that cubby hole.

>
>
>
> > The boxes had
>
> > > been moved to that side of the building because the other half of the
> > > floor had to be cleared to put a new floor down. Prior to Oswald using
> > > the boxes as a sniper's nest, had somebody used it to sneak a smoke.
> > > Who knows. Who cares. We know how the boxes were configured during the
> > > shooting and they provided Oswald with a concealed location. It is
> > > unimportant to know whether they boxes had been configured that way by
> > > chance or whether Oswald rearranged them to create the sniper's nest.
> > > Nobody said Oswald tried to sneak a smoke there, Somebody else may or
> > > may not have. We don't need to know that. We do know that Oswald used
> > > the wall of boxes as a sniper's nest.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bud]

You think it`s logical to focus on people who didn`t shoot Kennedy?

> I'm surprised that you would admit that the cops knew that Lee Oswald
> was the designated patsy, so there was no need to investigate and
> determine who the other people were who used that cubby hole.

The determined who used it to shoot Kennedy from. Oswald.

[bigdog]

It is amazing how fucking stupid you are. It is amazing how you can
read something and think it means something completely different than
what was written. How could you possibly think that the WC concluded
Oswald had built the sniper's nest. The WC stated that the wall of
boxes might well have been stacked by the floor laying crew. The only
thing they did say was that the Rolling Reader boxes appeared to have
been stacked for the purpose of creating a rifle rest and that another
box appeared to have been placed to create a place to sit. Where do
they say they believe Oswald had stacked the boxes? Where do I say
Oswald did or did not stack the boxes. The WC's position and my
position is that it is uncertain whether Oswald stacked the wall of
boxes or simply took advantage of the way they were configured. The
fact is that nobody knows for sure why the boxes were stacked as they
were. It is only retards such as yourself who would pretend to know
that those boxes had been stacked to form a "smoker's nook" when you
have no information that could tell you such a thing. The one thing we
can say with certainty is that you are a fucking asshole.

> Now then perhaps you'd like to explain WHY the cops didn't attempt to
> determine WHO that other person was??

Why would that be important. If the boxes weren't stacked specifically
to create the sniper's nest, it would have no evidentiary value. It
was known that the boexes had been moved to that side of the building
to clear the other side for the floor laying crew. Why would anyone
need to know more than that.

> Wouldn't it have essential for
> an honest investigation to attempt to determine who had used that area
> they called a "Sniper's Nest".

They did determine that Oswald used it as a sniper's nest. That might
not have been the original purpose in stacking the boxes in that
manner, but that is what Oswald used that space for.

>  I mean IF it truely was a sniper's
> nest shouldn't they have questioned everyone who may have used that
> area?   Why did they focus on Oswald only??

Because they had ample evidence that it was Oswald who had fired the
shots from that location. His rifle. Spent shells from his rifle. His
prints on the rifle. His shirt fibers on the rifle. His prints on the
boxes. His prints on the paper bag found next to the boxes. And an
eyewitness. What evidence is there that someone else had been there at
12:30pm on 11/22/63. Only a retard would look at all that information
and think somebody else had been there at the time of the shooting.

[Walt]

Well not exactly......They just said that Oswald was guilty, without
bothering to investigate any other leads.
You probably don't understand ......but an honest and proper
investigation would have determined who had left the cigarette butts
and the empty cigarette package on the floor in that cubby hole. If
there really had been a conspirator up there it can't be argued that
he wouldn't have been very nervous, and probably have smoked a few
cigarettes while awaiting the motorcade. ( At least that would be a
logical path to follow) But the cops didn't even bother to determine
who had left that evidence up there.....they just picked a non-smoker
and said he was guilty.

[bigdog]

Because that non-smoker owned the murder weapon, had his prints on the
murder weapon, had his shirt fibers on the murder weapon, had his
prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest, had his prints on the rifle
bag next to the boxes, and was identified by a witness as the shooter.
Why would they ignore that evidence and focus on cigarette butts?
Those could have been left there by anyone at any time. The cigarette
butts were not found in the nest. There is nothing that indicates the
person who smoked those cigarettes had anything to do with the
shooting. Only the anybody but Oswald crowd would turn away from the
real evidence and try to find reason to focus on somebody else.

[Bud]

That Oswald was their man with only two or three of the dozens of
indications they had early on.

>who had left the cigarette butts
> and the empty cigarette package on the floor in that cubby hole.

You haven`t supported where those items were found.

>  If
> there really had been a conspirator up there it can't be argued that
> he wouldn't have been very nervous, and probably have smoked a few
> cigarettes while awaiting the motorcade.   ( At least that would be a
> logical path to follow)   But the cops didn't even bother to determine
> who had left that evidence up there.....they just picked a non-smoker
> and said he was guilty.

They didn`t "just pick" Oswald, retard. You are so out of touch with
reality there is no point even talking to you.

[Walt]

Not proven

had his prints on the murder weapon,

A lie....No identifiable prints were ever found on the rifle.

had his shirt fibers on the murder weapon,

The shirt fibers matched the shirt the DPD took off his back AFTER his
arrest, they DID NOT match the shirt he wore that morning.

had his prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest,

He worked in the TSBD handling boxes

had his prints on the rifle bag next to the boxes,

The bag that they IMAGINED to be a gun case was too small to conceal
the rifle.

When Fritz was told the bag was too small he said....." well he must
have broke the gun down, and I assume he did"

Is this too difficult for you?..... The chief investigator was told
that the bag was too small to hold the rifle, so rather than re-
evaluating their theory, he simply said.....(paraphased) "Well that
little SOB is guilty and I don't care what the evidence indicates"
You take that same position Little Yellow Cur.

and was identified by a witness as the shooter.

A bare faced lie....... NOBODY identified Lee Oswald as the shooter ON
THE WEEKEND OF THE MURDER.

Little Yellow Cur..... You're a gutless liar, and a unthinking and
unreasonable moron.

> Why would they ignore that evidence and focus on cigarette butts?
> Those could have been left there by anyone at any time. The cigarette
> butts were not found in the nest. There is nothing that indicates the
> person who smoked those cigarettes had anything to do with the
> shooting. Only the anybody but Oswald crowd would turn away from the

> real evidence and try to find reason to focus on somebody else.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

Wrong......YOU are the one who is totally out of touch..... They most
certainly DID pick Lee Oswald. You've probably conveniently forgotten
that Roy Truly "picked" Oswald as a suspect and told Fritz that
Oswald was unaccounted for, even though he'd seen Lee Oswald calmly
drinking a coke in the lunchroom just seconds after the shooting.
Truly never bothered to tell Fritz that there were other employees who
were unaccounted for.....and he hadn't seen them at all after the
shooting.

[bigdog]

Not to the satisfaction of retards. Only to the intelligent people.

>  had his prints on the murder weapon,
>
> A lie....No identifiable prints were ever found on the rifle.
>

As I was saying....

> had his shirt fibers on the murder weapon,
>
> The shirt fibers matched the shirt the DPD took off his back AFTER his
> arrest, they DID NOT match the shirt he wore that morning.
>

There is one advantage to being as stupid as you are. You are too
stupid to be embarassed byt writing such horseshit.

> had his prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest,
>
> He worked in the TSBD handling boxes
>

That's why his prints were on TOP of the boxes in the sniper's nest.
Retard.

>  had his prints on the rifle bag next to the boxes,
>
> The bag that they IMAGINED to be a gun case was too small to conceal
> the rifle.
>

That bag was MEASURED at 38 inches. The longest piece of the
disassembled rifle was 34.5 inches.

> When Fritz was told the bag was too small he said....." well he must
> have broke the gun down, and I assume he did"
>

That wasn''t hard to figure out and Fritz was not a retard.

> Is this too difficult for you?..... The chief investigator was told
> that the bag was too small to hold the rifle, so rather than re-
> evaluating their theory, he simply said.....(paraphased) "Well that
> little SOB is guilty and I don't care what the evidence indicates"
> You take that same position Little Yellow Cur.
>

The rest of the evidence was so overwhelming so the only logical
conclusion was that the rifle was disassembled to make it possible to
smuggle into the TSBD.

>  and was identified by a witness as the shooter.
>
> A bare faced lie....... NOBODY identified Lee Oswald as the shooter ON
> THE WEEKEND OF THE MURDER.
>
> Little Yellow Cur..... You're a gutless liar, and a unthinking and
> unreasonable moron.
>

If believing things that make sense makes me gullible, I'll settle for
that over believing nonsense which makes you a retard.
>
>

[Bud]

Truly didn`t see Oswald during the shooting, only Brennan did. And
it was Oswald who chose to make himself a suspect by fleeing the scene
of the crime. The cops didn`t make him do this.

> Truly never bothered to tell Fritz that there were other employees who
> were unaccounted for.....

Can you establish there were other employees unaccounted for?

>and he hadn't seen them at all after the
> shooting.

Givens may have been accounted for by being seen outside the
building during or before the shooting. Your darling was inside during

[Walt]

Duh.....The very fact that Detective Johnson was photographed
carrying the Viceroy package on the end of a pencil and the small
brown lunch sack containing chicken bones, is mute proof that they had
found the evidence in the cubby hole, that they imagined to be a
"sniper's Nest". Perhaps you think the cigarette butts and the empty
Viceroy cigarette package was found in the lunchroom, but the cops
were so dumb that they just grabbed them and said..."Hey, these were
probably used by Oswald let's take them to the lab."........

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

A lying idiot wrote:...."Truly didn`t see Oswald during the shooting,
only Brennan did."


Deat lying idiot, Howard Brennan did NOT see Lee Oswald during the
shooting.....Howard Brennan saw a man who was in his early thirties,
(LHO early twenties) who weighed as much as 175 pounds (LHO 140) who
was dressed in light colored clothing ( LHO dressed in dark colored
clothing) Why do you lie...... are you insane?

And
> it was Oswald who chose to make himself a suspect by fleeing the scene
> of the crime. The cops didn`t make him do this.
>
> > Truly never bothered to tell Fritz that there were other employees who
> > were unaccounted for.....
>
>   Can you establish there were other employees unaccounted for?
>
> >and he hadn't seen them at all after the
> > shooting.
>
>   Givens may have been accounted for by being seen outside the
> building during or before the shooting. Your darling was inside during
> the shooting.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > The boxes had
>
> > > > > > > > > been moved to that side of the building because the other half of the
> > > > > > > > > floor had to be cleared to put a new floor down. Prior to Oswald using
> > > > > > > > > the boxes as a sniper's nest, had somebody used it to sneak a smoke.
> > > > > > > > > Who knows. Who cares. We know how the boxes were configured during the
> > > > > > > > > shooting and they provided Oswald with a concealed location. It is
> > > > > > > > > unimportant to know whether they boxes had been configured that way by
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Bud]

He said he did. He was there, retard, not you.

>Howard Brennan saw a man who was in his early thirties,
> (LHO early twenties) who weighed as much as 175 pounds (LHO 140) who
> was dressed in light colored clothing ( LHO dressed in dark colored
> clothing)    Why do you lie...... are you insane?

Brennan recognized Oswald as the slender white man he saw shooting
at Kennedy. It`s not my fault you are to retarded to accept this
truth.

[Walt]

Brennan DESCRIBED a man who was NOT Lee Oswald, he DESCRIBED a gun
that was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano, and he DESCRIBED a site that was
NOT the SE corner window. These are FACTs liar........

>
> >Howard Brennan saw a man who was in his early thirties,
> > (LHO early twenties) who weighed as much as 175 pounds (LHO 140) who
> > was dressed in light colored clothing ( LHO dressed in dark colored
> > clothing)    Why do you lie...... are you insane?
>
>   Brennan recognized Oswald as the slender

[Bud]

No, these aren`t facts, they are your retarded opinions. Your
opinions are meaningless, seeing as you are just a kook trying to
pretend Oswald didn`t shoot Kennedy. If you were honestly trying to
determine whether Brennan saw Oswald in that window you wouldn`t omit
the word "slender" Brennan used to describe the man he saw. But you
aren`t being honest, are you retard, you are being deceptive. The
reason you are being deceptive is you aren`t man enough to admit
Oswald`s guilt.

[Walt]

"I'M" being deceptive???? .... The man pointing the finger has three
fingers pointing at himself!

"I'M' not the one who refuse to acknowledge these FACTS........ Howard

[Ben Holmes]

In article <c4000975-5463-4ca8...@i6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On Feb 26, 9:50=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 10:01=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 26, 3:29=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 25, 8:47=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 25, 6:14=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 25, 6:18=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Feb 25, 4:07=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Feb 25, 4:44=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 4:31=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 7:36=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> w=
>rote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 4:23=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:35=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.ne=
>t> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 10:45=A0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.=
>com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 10:22=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evert=
>ek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 7:03=A0am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yah=
>oo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 19, 7:17=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@ev=
>ertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 19, 3:43=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...=
>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 19, 11:19=A0am, Walt <papakochenb.=
>..@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a link to a photo of the SN as i=

>t appeared at about 1:15 on the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > afternoon of 11 ?22 /63.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/675=
>31/metapth49531/
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This photo never appeared in the offici=

>al LBJ approved lie that was

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > released to the public in September 196=

>4. Ten months after the murder

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of President John Kennedy. =A0The reaso=

>n this photo and several

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > companion photos were never printed in =

>the Warren report is because

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they are authentic photos of the imagin=
>ary "Sniper's Nest". =A0These
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > photos show that it would have been phy=
>sically impossible for Lee
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oswald to have shot President Kennedy i=

>n the back of the head as LBJ's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" charged.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On page 138 and 139 there is a couple o=

>f photos that the authorities

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created after they murdered Lee Oswald.=
> =A0The photo on page 138 was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > taken at night by the DPD. It is a dish=
>onest "re-construction of the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so called "Sniper's Nest". =A0It is int=

>ended to fool the viewer into

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believing that they found Lee Oswald's =

>prints on the boxes behind the

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > window, and trick the unwary into belie=

>ving the lie that Lee Oswald
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > murdered JFK.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We'll compare the authentic photo with =

>the fake photo and the viewer

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be able to see with his own eyes t=

>hat Lee Oswald was framed.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you ever get tired of proving what a d=

>umbfuck you are. Apparently
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not.-
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing but ad hominem..... Typical respons=

>e from a person who has no

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other way of attempting to refute the facts=
>.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been smoking. If you think that is a smoker=

>'s nook, one has to wonder what you've
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The three spent shells and the eyewitnesses who=
> saw a
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rifleman in that window are ample proof it wa=

>s used for something
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other than someone trying to sneak a smoke.

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some ignorant fool wrote:......If you think tha=

>t is a smoker's nook,
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one has to wonder what you've
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > been smoking.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear mr ignorant of the facts..... =A0It is a f=

>act that the cops picked

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > up an empty Viceroy cigarette package and some =

>cigarette butts from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the floor in the Smokers Nook.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > No one has said that it was never used to sneak a=

> smoke. I said it was

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > used for something quite a bit more significant a=

>t 12:30 on 11/22/63.

>> > > > > > > > > > > > > It may well have been an out of the way corner wh=
>ere somebody could
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > sneak a smoke undetected. That would also make it=

> an ideal place for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > an assassin to hide undetected.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0An ignorant idiot wrote:....." No one has said t=

>hat it was never used
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to sneak a smoke."
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Idiot.....Thank you for displaying your ignora=
>nce about the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > imaginary "Sniper's Nest"..... The authorities clai=
>ned that Lee Oswald
>> > > > > > > > > > > > constructed the so called "Sniper's Nest". And he b=
>uilt it to conceal
>> > > > > > > > > > > > himself from anybody who might encounter him while =
>he was preparing to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > shoot JFK. =A0THAT'S the lie they created..... And =
>since Lee Oswald
>> > > > > > > > > > > > didn't smoke, who would have used it as a place to =
>"sneak a smoke" ?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that Oswald was a smoker but jus=

>t lied about it and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > concealed his habit from everybody?
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > > Nobody should be surprised at your lack of reading co=
>mprehension or
>> > > > > > > > > > > your ability to read things into things that were nev=
>er said. It is
>> > > > > > > > > > > not known whether Oswald configured the boxes to crea=
>te the sniper's
>> > > > > > > > > > > nest or simply took advantage of what was already the=
>re.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Very good.....So you now admit that we were being lied =
>to when the
>> > > > > > > > > > authorities told us that Lee Harvey Oswald ( they usual=
>ly used his
>> > > > > > > > > > full entire name with a sinister artticulation) built t=
>hat imaginary
>> > > > > > > > > > "Sniper's Nest". =A0Is it because you were cornered and=
> were forced to
>> > > > > > > > > > admit the the cigarette butts and the empty cigarette p=
>ack is proof
>> > > > > > > > > > that some other person built and used the cubby hole as=

> a hidden
>> > > > > > > > > > Smoker's Nook.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > =A0 You still haven`t supported that the cigarette butts =

>and pack was
>> > > > > > > > > found in the SN.
>>

>> > > > > > > > > > Now then perhaps you'd like to explain WHY the cops did=
>n't attempt to
>> > > > > > > > > > determine WHO that other person was?? =A0Wouldn't it ha=
>ve essential for
>> > > > > > > > > > an honest investigation to attempt to determine who had=
> used that area
>> > > > > > > > > > they called a "Sniper's Nest". =A0 =A0 =A0I mean IF it =

>truely was a sniper's

>> > > > > > > > > > nest shouldn't they have questioned everyone who may ha=
>ve used that
>> > > > > > > > > > area? =A0 Why did they focus on Oswald only??
>>
>> > > > > > > > > =A0 Why would they focus on people who didn`t shoot Kenne=
>dy?
>>
>> > > > > > > > Hmmmmm... Is this really what passes for logical thinking f=
>or you??
>>
>> > > > > > > =A0 You think it`s logical to focus on people who didn`t shoo=
>t Kennedy?
>>
>> > > > > > > > I'm surprised that you would admit that the cops knew that =
>Lee Oswald
>> > > > > > > > was the designated patsy, so there was no need to investiga=
>te and
>> > > > > > > > determine who the other people were who used that cubby hol=
>e.
>>
>> > > > > > > =A0 The determined who used it to shoot Kennedy from. Oswald.
>>
>> > > > > > Well not exactly......They just said that Oswald was guilty, wi=

>thout
>> > > > > > bothering to investigate any other leads.
>> > > > > > You probably don't understand ......but an honest and proper
>> > > > > > investigation would have determined
>>

>> > > > > =A0 That Oswald was their man with only two or three of the dozen=

>s of
>> > > > > indications they had early on.
>>
>> > > > > >who had left the cigarette butts

>> > > > > > and the empty cigarette package on the floor in that cubby hole=
>.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 You haven`t supported where those items were found.
>>
>> > > > > >=A0 If
>> > > > > > there really had been a conspirator up there it can't be argued=
> that
>> > > > > > he wouldn't have been very nervous, and probably have smoked a =
>few
>> > > > > > cigarettes while awaiting the motorcade. =A0 ( At least that wo=
>uld be a
>> > > > > > logical path to follow) =A0 But the cops didn't even bother to =
>determine
>> > > > > > who had left that evidence up there.....they just picked a non-=

>smoker
>> > > > > > and said he was guilty.
>>

>> > > > > =A0 They didn`t "just pick" Oswald, retard. You are so out of tou=

>ch with
>> > > > > reality there is no point even talking to you.
>>

>> > > > Wrong......YOU are the one who is totally out of touch..... They mo=
>st
>> > > > certainly DID pick Lee Oswald. =A0You've probably conveniently forg=
>otten
>> > > > that Roy Truly =A0"picked" Oswald as a suspect and told Fritz that

>> > > > Oswald was unaccounted for, even though he'd seen Lee Oswald calmly
>> > > > drinking a coke in the lunchroom just seconds after the shooting.
>>

>> > > =A0 Truly didn`t see Oswald during the shooting, only Brennan did.

>> > A lying idiot wrote:...."Truly didn`t see Oswald during the shooting,
>>
>> > only Brennan did."
>>
>> > Deat lying idiot, Howard Brennan did NOT see Lee Oswald during the
>> > shooting.....
>>
>> He said he did. He was there, retard, not you.
>
>Brennan DESCRIBED a man who was NOT Lee Oswald, he DESCRIBED a gun
>that was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano, and he DESCRIBED a site that was
>NOT the SE corner window. These are FACTs liar........

Unfortunately, you can't argue with liars... all you can do is point out that
they are lying.

>> > Howard Brennan saw a man who was in his early thirties,
>> > (LHO early twenties) who weighed as much as 175 pounds (LHO 140) who
>> > was dressed in light colored clothing ( LHO dressed in dark colored
>> > clothing) Why do you lie...... are you insane?
>>
>> Brennan recognized Oswald as the slender
>> ...

[Bud]

Of course you are. Why else would you never use the descriptive term
Brennan used twice to describe the shooters build?

> The man pointing the finger has three
> fingers pointing at himself!
>
> "I'M' not the one who refuse to acknowledge these FACTS........ Howard
> Brennan saw a man who was in his early thirties,
> (LHO early twenties) who weighed as much as 175 pounds (LHO 140) who
> was dressed in light colored clothing ( LHO dressed in dark colored
> clothing)

He said the man he saw was Oswald, retard. This means that this is
the description Howard Brennan gives of Oswald under those conditions,
retard. You can sputter all you want, you can`t show that Brennan
could not have given that description had it been Oswald he saw.