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 Historical content remains viewable.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

What Are The Odds?

80 views
Skip to first unread message

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 9, 2006, 4:01:22 PM2/9/06
to
1. JFK was President for over 900 days. He traveled extensively, how is
it that many members of his detail got drunk the night before the
conspiracy? Never happened before, and JFK was supposed to speak in
Austin on the 22nd. The trip wasn't over, apparently the imbibers were
not in LBJ's protection detail.

2.JFK went to Houston, San Antonio & Ft. Worth before Dallas, therefore
he had passed dozens and dozens and dozens of Bldg's. Any one a
potential snipers attack, Ok how is it that the one the President is
alledgedly killed from, just happens to be owned by a man with huge
investments in the Miltary Industrial Cmplex and is a friend of LBJ?

3. Several members of the Autopsy team, including Humes have said that
probes were utilized & photographed at the autopsy to show wound
trajectory. These were taken when the 2 FBI agents were out of the room.
Why have they vanished along with 90 +% of the original Autopsy Photos?

Sam

unread,
Feb 9, 2006, 4:45:08 PM2/9/06
to
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28616-43E...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...


skull and bones needed more nicknacks in the tomb?


Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Feb 9, 2006, 6:08:46 PM2/9/06
to
Oh for heaven's sake! If you want to pick-and-choose certain unrelated
things and decide to "link" them together with make-believe "conspiracy
rope", sure, anyone could ask "What Are The Odds?" and probably raise a
few eyebrows.

The opposition can easily do the same thing (even more so actually,
given the wealth of "Oswald-Did-It" evidence to work with in this
case):

E.G.:

What Are The Odds......

Of the JFK murder actually having been a conspiracy and YET also having
every piece of physical evidence in the whole case come back to the
feet of the one man who happens to own the rifle up on the 6th Floor
(and who was seen firing a shot at JFK's car)?

And:

What Are The Odds......

Of the Tippit murder actually having been committed by somebody other
than Lee Oswald and YET have every scrap of evidence come back to
Oswald for that murder too? (Including gobs of witnesses who fingered
the so-called "Patsy"; plus the fact that the murder weapon was in
possession of the "Patsy" when he was captured; plus the mere fact that
Oswald was in the exact same general area of the murder when picked
up.) Odds that he was actually an uninvolved "Patsy" given these
parameters? Must be pretty low indeed (even utilizing CT-skewed
statistics).

And:

What Are The Odds......

Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 9, 2006, 6:02:19 PM2/9/06
to
Could be Sam- here's a couple other peripherally interesting LBJ
connections-In the Mary Meyer unsolved murder case the judge was Howard
Corcoran the brother of Tommy Corcoran one of LBJ's mafia of lobbyists
and wheeler dealers & the judge in Richard Nagell's case was Homer
Thornberry who just happened to be in Dallas on AF1 11-22-63.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 3:48:44 AM2/10/06
to
If this was any other case David- no knucklehead would even come outta
the woodwork and try and defend it. But, since it pays well to be a
career Govt. Ass Licker on the JFK Assassination-look at Bugliosi,
Myers, Schiller, Mailer etc. & probably Fuhrman since he's a buddy of
Vince's, there's always another braying jackass to scream Oswald did it
alone. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between you, Vaughn,
Zimmerman, Bud, and McAdams.
You guys have no integity, no curiosity, no sense of honesty, what is
obvious,what is interesting, what is important, zip nothing you are a
goddamn fucking waste of time!..you are liars thru and thru. 1984 is
alive and accepted and you are a big reason why promoting blatantly
apparent falsehoods.

Sam

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 12:08:52 PM2/10/06
to
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3532-43E...@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...

> If this was any other case David- no knucklehead would even come outta
> the woodwork and try and defend it. But, since it pays well to be a
> career Govt. Ass Licker on the JFK Assassination-look at Bugliosi,
> Myers, Schiller, Mailer etc. & probably Fuhrman since he's a buddy of
> Vince's, there's always another braying jackass to scream Oswald did it
> alone. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between you, Vaughn,
> Zimmerman, Bud, and McAdams.
> You guys have no integity, no curiosity, no sense of honesty,

knaves under hierarchical rocks trying to prove their fealty through
supporting lies, captives loyal to their captor

David VP

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 4:35:15 PM2/10/06
to
>> "You are a goddamn fucking waste of time! You are liars thru and thru."


Nice job, laz, at totally ignoring my perfectly-logical and forthright
"What Are The Odds?" scenarios. Ignoring the topic via insults and the
usual "You're All Liars And A-holes" tactic. Interesting.

Brings to mind the proverbial pot and kettle, doesn't it?

And if you think you're insulting me by placing me in an LN basket with
the likes of Chad, Todd, and Mr. McAdams (plus Mr. Myers and Vincent B.
too) -- you're goofy. That's far from an insult -- it's a handsome
compliment. Thank you.

Happy CT hunting. Perhaps by the year 2963 you'll be able to find a
shred of physical evidence to support the notion of a
conspiracy.....but I wouldn't bet the plantation on it. Esp. since
Vince is coming in mid-2007 or so.

Bud

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 5:16:43 PM2/10/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >> "You are a goddamn fucking waste of time! You are liars thru and thru."
>
>
> Nice job, laz, at totally ignoring my perfectly-logical and forthright
> "What Are The Odds?" scenarios. Ignoring the topic via insults and the
> usual "You're All Liars And A-holes" tactic. Interesting.
>
> Brings to mind the proverbial pot and kettle, doesn't it?
>
> And if you think you're insulting me by placing me in an LN basket with
> the likes of Chad, Todd, and Mr. McAdams (plus Mr. Myers and Vincent B.
> too) -- you're goofy. That's far from an insult -- it's a handsome
> compliment. Thank you.

<snicker> I notice you left out one name he dropped. Not that I
blame you, I don`t like being associated with me either.

Sam

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 5:27:17 PM2/10/06
to
"David VP" revealed his mindset as the owner of...

>I wouldn't bet the plantation on it.

<usual clicks>


Ben Holmes

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 5:19:13 PM2/10/06
to
In article <1139607315.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

He's been "coming" for quite some time. And he'll go down in flames the same
way Posner did. And for the same reason - it's not possible to make the
argument without misrepresentations or outrightly lying.

Bud

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 5:42:43 PM2/10/06
to

lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> If this was any other case David- no knucklehead would even come outta
> the woodwork and try and defend it.

You mean in no other case would anyone bother to use logic against a
kook playing his very own version of the "Kevin Bacon" game? You are
probably right.

> But, since it pays well to be a
> career Govt. Ass Licker on the JFK Assassination-look at Bugliosi,
> Myers, Schiller, Mailer etc. & probably Fuhrman since he's a buddy of
> Vince's,

Yah, nobody ever made a dime selling crackpot conspiracy books to
paranoid kooks.

>there's always another braying jackass to scream Oswald did it
> alone.

Like Oz`s own brother.

> There isn't a dime's worth of difference between you, Vaughn,
> Zimmerman, Bud, and McAdams.

Well, I wouldn`t expect a very astute apprasial from a person 9
cents short of a dime.

> You guys have no integity,

A shot of penicillin cleared it right up.

> no curiosity,

There are things worthy of a great deal of curiosity. This event is
not one of them.

> no sense of honesty,

Strange comment, coming from a kook who will latch onto anything
but the truth about Oz.

> what is
> obvious,

Oz, the political fanatic, took his rifle to his work, and shot
some political figures from there. It wasn`t even his first attempt at
killing political figures.

>what is interesting,

With enough embellishment.

> what is important,

Cop-killing being considered trivial by kooks.

> zip nothing you are a
> goddamn fucking waste of time!..you are liars thru and thru.

Picking on my poor beloved Ozzie. Diverting attention from the
boogieman I want to believe did this thing.

> 1984 is
> alive and accepted and you are a big reason why promoting blatantly
> apparent falsehoods.

A kook reads a work of fiction, and thinks he has it all figured
out. Rest, lazy, leave the thinking to those more capable.

David VP

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 6:06:27 PM2/10/06
to
>> "I notice you left out one name he dropped. Not that I blame you, I don`t like being associated with me either."


Oops. LOL.

You're right, Bud...I missed your name up there. My apologies, esp.
after reading your last post in this particular thread, which oozes
CS&L, something lacking in most CT accounts of the events of 11/22 (all
CT accounts actually). .....

For instance -- Take the whole "Patsy" plot in general terms (from the
always-ignored pre-11/22 POV) --- Can ANY CTer here tell the rest of
the world that they THEMSELVES would have "set up" Oswald the way many,
many CTers think he was set up on 11/22? -- By using many different
gunmen in various front & rear locales?

If I can get ONE CTer to say to me -- "Yes, David, that multi-gun,
one-patsy-in-the-rear plot was exactly the way I'd have planned it too"
-- it'll be the first such CTer to so admit. And if that happens, then
I'll pack my LN bags and head for the hills (or I'll head to Vince
Bugliosi's house in L.A., hat in hand, and ask him for a handout).

Anybody?

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 7:29:12 PM2/10/06
to
David VP wrote:
> Oh for heaven's sake! If you want to pick-and-choose certain unrelated
> things and decide to "link" them together with make-believe "conspiracy
> rope", sure, anyone could ask "What Are The Odds?" and probably raise a
> few eyebrows.
>
> The opposition can easily do the same thing (even more so actually,
> given the wealth of "Oswald-Did-It" evidence to work with in this
> case):
>
> E.G.:
>
> What Are The Odds......
>
> Of the JFK murder actually having been a conspiracy and YET also having
> every piece of physical evidence in the whole case come back to the
> feet of the one man who happens to own the rifle up on the 6th Floor
> (and who was seen firing a shot at JFK's car)?
>
Nobody saw Oswald fire from the TSBD. Only Brennan after being
kidnapped for 3 weeks by the FBI decided to after not identifying him
the day of the assassination. There were many witnesses who observed
two men on the sixth floor. The weapon found only serves as your
crutch. You don't care about any questions concerning it.

> And:
>
> What Are The Odds......
>
> Of the Tippit murder actually having been committed by somebody other
> than Lee Oswald and YET have every scrap of evidence come back to
> Oswald for that murder too? (Including gobs of witnesses who fingered
> the so-called "Patsy"; plus the fact that the murder weapon was in
> possession of the "Patsy" when he was captured; plus the mere fact that
> Oswald was in the exact same general area of the murder when picked
> up.) Odds that he was actually an uninvolved "Patsy" given these
> parameters? Must be pretty low indeed (even utilizing CT-skewed
> statistics).
>

Nobody got his coat right. Nobody got a good look at his face. People
had him in the theater at the same time or before the shooting. Mrs.
Markham told the shooting was 6 or 7 minutes after 1 P.M. She took the
1:12 bus everyday and was corroborated by time identifer's Bowley and
Craig. Actually, nobody identified Oswald without persuasion.


> And:
>
> What Are The Odds......
>
> Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
> gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
> Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
> news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
> report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
> the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
> Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
> have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
> 1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)

You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it
has a good theory. Unfortunately you must and ignore the cheek wound
of Mr. Tague, the first missed shot that struck pavement, ignore the
probabilities of the SBT, ignore the ear, nose, and eye witnesses of at
least one person firing from the Grassy Knoll with the remnants of
smoke emission and it's smell. Then, again you must ignore all the
medical evidence describing a blowout in the back of JFK's head, and
the frontal tiny hole in the throat by Parkland doctors which would be
impossible for a shot entering from the back from the sixth floor and
it's trajectory. I think your odds are in the google range.

CJ

David VP

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 8:03:37 PM2/10/06
to
>> "You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it as a good theory. ... You must and ignore the cheek wound of Mr. Tague."


And just exactly why are the 3 TSBD shells NOT good evidence? Why are
they considered "unreliable"? (Answer -- Because some CTer says so,
that's why. 'Nuff said.)

And no LNer "ignores" the Tague wounding. Why you're saying this is
anybody's guess, because it's dead wrong. The first (missed) shot
probably caused the Tague wound.


>> "I think your odds are in the google range."

And the odds that CTers will ignore (or mysteriously skew for no real
good reason) all of the raw physical evidence in the case are ....
quite high. In fact, it is a certainty.

Because the CTers have no choice but to "ignore" all of the following
items till the cows march home ---

1.) The Autopsy Report, which not only backs up the "LN" scenario, but
also provides the very important first step towards the adoption of the
SBT (which is often ignored as well)....because it wasn't Specter who
wrote this in the Autopsy Report: "The missile contused the strap
muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, AND MADE
ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF THE NECK." (Emphasis mine.)

2.) The WC testimony of every autopsy doctor who testified to NO
FRONTAL SHOT HITTING KENNEDY.

3.) The authenicated autopsy photos & X-rays.

4.) Oswald's rifle being positively linked to every bullet and fragment
and shell in the whole case.

5.) The eyewitnesses who apparently ALL LIED when IDing LHO as both
JFK's and Tippit's killer (and, IMO, letting Oswald off for this 2nd
11/22 murder is sickening and only tells me that ANYTHING else such a
CTer says cannot be believed, even remotely so, because their
pro-conspiracy bias is blatantly obvious via their silly claim that
Oswald was innocent of killing Tippit too).

6.) Oswald's own fingerprints being DEEP INSIDE the SN on 11/22. This
is undeniable solid evidence Oswald was in that Nest on 11/22. (Esp.
when coupled with the shells and eyewitness accounts and his rifle
being nearby.)

7.) The paper bag (with Oswald's prints on it in the exact places Buell
Frazier said Oswald's were located on the bag he carried into work on
11/22). This is a biggie to simply "ignore", IMO. Some amazing
"coincidences" are going to have to be proven to have that bag NOT
being the one Oswald took into work that Friday.

So, CTers must, in effect, "ignore" or skew the reliabilty of EVERY
LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in both the JFK and Tippit murder
cases. They have no choice but to skew/ignore it -- because it ALL
spells "Oswald's A Cop-Killing, President-Murdering Bastard".

Everyone should read "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan. It cuts
through the pro-CT tripe, to the crux of the whole case (i.e., the
physical evidence...which ALL could not have been fabricated to frame
Oswald if the whole FBI and the entire DPD had been involved in the
frame-up)......

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole .... with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- "The JFK
Myths" (Pg. 246)

Bud

unread,
Feb 10, 2006, 9:08:05 PM2/10/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > Oh for heaven's sake! If you want to pick-and-choose certain unrelated
> > things and decide to "link" them together with make-believe "conspiracy
> > rope", sure, anyone could ask "What Are The Odds?" and probably raise a
> > few eyebrows.
> >
> > The opposition can easily do the same thing (even more so actually,
> > given the wealth of "Oswald-Did-It" evidence to work with in this
> > case):
> >
> > E.G.:
> >
> > What Are The Odds......
> >
> > Of the JFK murder actually having been a conspiracy and YET also having
> > every piece of physical evidence in the whole case come back to the
> > feet of the one man who happens to own the rifle up on the 6th Floor
> > (and who was seen firing a shot at JFK's car)?
> >
> Nobody saw Oswald fire from the TSBD. Only Brennan

That was a quick reversal.

> after being
> kidnapped for 3 weeks by the FBI decided to after not identifying him
> the day of the assassination.

Yah, it was the bamboo under the fingernails that made this deeply
religious man bear false witness under oath. Kooky theory, lucky you
have so much to back up this
innuendo.

> There were many witnesses who observed
> two men on the sixth floor.

When the shots were fired?

> The weapon found only serves as your
> crutch.

Chuck it out, like any and all incriminating evidence against Oz.
That way you pretend what happened is some kind of mystery.

> You don't care about any questions concerning it.

Kooks have created "questions" about this damning evidence only
because they wish to ignore any indication of Oz`s guilt.

>
> > And:
> >
> > What Are The Odds......
> >
> > Of the Tippit murder actually having been committed by somebody other
> > than Lee Oswald and YET have every scrap of evidence come back to
> > Oswald for that murder too? (Including gobs of witnesses who fingered
> > the so-called "Patsy"; plus the fact that the murder weapon was in
> > possession of the "Patsy" when he was captured; plus the mere fact that
> > Oswald was in the exact same general area of the murder when picked
> > up.) Odds that he was actually an uninvolved "Patsy" given these
> > parameters? Must be pretty low indeed (even utilizing CT-skewed
> > statistics).
> >
> Nobody got his coat right. Nobody got a good look at his face. People
> had him in the theater at the same time or before the shooting. Mrs.
> Markham told the shooting was 6 or 7 minutes after 1 P.M. She took the
> 1:12 bus everyday and was corroborated by time identifer's Bowley and
> Craig. Actually, nobody identified Oswald without persuasion.

Yet they picked out Oz as the man who committed this crime. And the
suspicious acting man (so suspicious ordinary citizens followed him),
ducking into stores and theaters happened to have a gun on him. A gun
which when bullets were fired from it created identicle markings as the
bullets extracted from Tippit`s body. You think clothing and timing
issues trump this?

> > And:
> >
> > What Are The Odds......
> >
> > Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
> > gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
> > Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
> > news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
> > report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
> > the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
> > Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
> > have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
> > 1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)
>
> You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it
> has a good theory.

You mean actual tangible evidence? Nice to have in a murder case.

> Unfortunately you must and ignore the cheek wound
> of Mr. Tague,

Don`t need to ignore it, or account for it.

> the first missed shot that struck pavement, ignore the
> probabilities of the SBT,

Missed the recreation on the Discovery Channel, did you?

> ignore the ear, nose, and eye witnesses of at
> least one person firing from the Grassy Knoll with the remnants of
> smoke emission and it's smell.

This can never be laid to rest because someone said they smelled
smoke? There was no gunman on the gnoll, which accounts for there being
no movement in this direction in 40-plus years. There is just nowhere
to go.

> Then, again you must ignore all the
> medical evidence describing a blowout in the back of JFK's head,

Autopsy?

> and
> the frontal tiny hole in the throat by Parkland doctors which would be
> impossible for a shot entering from the back from the sixth floor and
> it's trajectory. I think your odds are in the google range.

So, it entered the throat, and exited where? The back? How does that
line up back to the knoll? Couldn`t just be that the shots came from
where people reported a gunman, saw a rifle, and shells were found, eh?
Naw, too easy.

> CJ

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 12:37:12 AM2/11/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it as a good theory. ... You must and ignore the cheek wound of Mr. Tague."
>
>
> And just exactly why are the 3 TSBD shells NOT good evidence? Why are
> they considered "unreliable"? (Answer -- Because some CTer says so,
> that's why. 'Nuff said.)
>
> And no LNer "ignores" the Tague wounding. Why you're saying this is
> anybody's guess, because it's dead wrong. The first (missed) shot
> probably caused the Tague wound.
>

Why can't you WC defenders agree on anything. Lattimer, Studivan many
other WC defenders claim that Tague was injured by a fragment from the
head shot.

>
>>> "I think your odds are in the google range."
>
> And the odds that CTers will ignore (or mysteriously skew for no real
> good reason) all of the raw physical evidence in the case are ....
> quite high. In fact, it is a certainty.
>
> Because the CTers have no choice but to "ignore" all of the following
> items till the cows march home ---
>
> 1.) The Autopsy Report, which not only backs up the "LN" scenario, but
> also provides the very important first step towards the adoption of the
> SBT (which is often ignored as well)....because it wasn't Specter who
> wrote this in the Autopsy Report: "The missile contused the strap
> muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, AND MADE
> ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF THE NECK." (Emphasis mine.)
>

Which autopsy report do you mean? Do you mean the FIRST autopsy report?
You know, the one which indicated conspiracy? The one which had an ice
bullet hitting JFK's back and penetrating only an inch?

> 2.) The WC testimony of every autopsy doctor who testified to NO
> FRONTAL SHOT HITTING KENNEDY.
>
> 3.) The authenicated autopsy photos & X-rays.
>
> 4.) Oswald's rifle being positively linked to every bullet and fragment
> and shell in the whole case.
>
> 5.) The eyewitnesses who apparently ALL LIED when IDing LHO as both
> JFK's and Tippit's killer (and, IMO, letting Oswald off for this 2nd
> 11/22 murder is sickening and only tells me that ANYTHING else such a
> CTer says cannot be believed, even remotely so, because their
> pro-conspiracy bias is blatantly obvious via their silly claim that
> Oswald was innocent of killing Tippit too).
>
> 6.) Oswald's own fingerprints being DEEP INSIDE the SN on 11/22. This
> is undeniable solid evidence Oswald was in that Nest on 11/22. (Esp.
> when coupled with the shells and eyewitness accounts and his rifle
> being nearby.)
>

Oswald worked there so of course his fingerprints would be found there.
In this latest murder case in Hopkinton, the husband's fingerprints were
found in the house. Do you think that Martha would be stupid enough to
claim that this fact proves that the husband was the murderer?

> 7.) The paper bag (with Oswald's prints on it in the exact places Buell
> Frazier said Oswald's were located on the bag he carried into work on
> 11/22). This is a biggie to simply "ignore", IMO. Some amazing
> "coincidences" are going to have to be proven to have that bag NOT
> being the one Oswald took into work that Friday.
>
> So, CTers must, in effect, "ignore" or skew the reliabilty of EVERY
> LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in both the JFK and Tippit murder
> cases. They have no choice but to skew/ignore it -- because it ALL
> spells "Oswald's A Cop-Killing, President-Murdering Bastard".
>

The problem is that WC defenders must refuse to look at the evidence
which conspiracy believers cite because it all spells conspiracy.

> Everyone should read "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan. It cuts
> through the pro-CT tripe, to the crux of the whole case (i.e., the
> physical evidence...which ALL could not have been fabricated to frame
> Oswald if the whole FBI and the entire DPD had been involved in the
> frame-up)......

You apparently did not read my criticisms of the JFK Myths, where I
showed where Sturdivan simply lied about facts.

David VP

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 1:03:37 AM2/11/06
to
>> "Why can't you WC defenders agree on anything."


Beautiful! This is the best pot-kettle statement ever spouted by a
CTer. Hilarious. As if any CTers agree on literally ANYTHING. .... 2
shooters...3 shooters...4 shooters...5 shots...7 shots...9 shots...The
Mob...The CIA...Ruby...Marcello...Umbrellas...Ice
bullets...Dum-dums...Hickey did it...Greer did it...Files on the
Knoll...Col. Mustard in the Conservatory with C2766...et al...

Now .... Let me repeat that first sentence from Tony again:

"Why can't you WC defenders agree on anything."

Just....beautiful! The hypocrisy of it is classic! Thanks.

David VP

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 1:22:58 AM2/11/06
to
>> "Which autopsy report do you mean? Do you mean the FIRST autopsy report?"


More Marsh Mangling (of the facts), as per the norm. The Final Autopsy
Report (signed by ALL THREE doctors, who Tony MUST think are all lying
bastards since they each signed off on the same batch of lies...per
CTers) is the ONLY worthwhile AR and everybody knows it....because the
first (burned) draft was not accurate, which is why Humes revised it.

Naturally, anything "revised" had to have been done to hide the truth,
per CTers. That's the beauty of paranoids....they're ALWAYS RIGHT.


>> "Oswald worked there so of course his fingerprints would be found there."


A weak excuse that'll only take so far. Sure, Oswald worked
there...and, sure, he MIGHT have handled those specific SN boxes within
the last three days (approx.) so that his prints showed up on them on
11/22. But when you factor in ALL THE OTHER STUFF on top of the
fingerprints (eg: HIS rifle on that floor; HIS prints also on an empty
bag in the same Nest; shells from HIS gun on the Nest floor; Brennan's
IDing of HIM (Oswald) .... then the fingerprints in the precise place
where they were found (DEEP INSIDE the SN) become part of the mosaic of
Oswald's guilt.

CTers would rather shrug it off as a pure coincidence that Oswald's
prints were on the boxes that JUST HAPPENED to make up parts of the
interior of the SN. Keep dreaming. Santa might still be real too. Ya
never know.


>> "You apparently did not read my criticisms of the JFK Myths, where I showed where Sturdivan simply lied about facts."


And I'm sure Mr. Sturdivan is losing all kinds of sleep over the fact
that "Mr. Paranoia" is critical of his findings. That must be tearin'
him up somethin' terrible.

Bud

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 6:31:43 AM2/11/06
to

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> >>> "You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it as a good theory. ... You must and ignore the cheek wound of Mr. Tague."
> >
> >
> > And just exactly why are the 3 TSBD shells NOT good evidence? Why are
> > they considered "unreliable"? (Answer -- Because some CTer says so,
> > that's why. 'Nuff said.)
> >
> > And no LNer "ignores" the Tague wounding. Why you're saying this is
> > anybody's guess, because it's dead wrong. The first (missed) shot
> > probably caused the Tague wound.
> >
>
> Why can't you WC defenders agree on anything. Lattimer, Studivan many
> other WC defenders claim that Tague was injured by a fragment from the
> head shot.

People don`t agree because it can`t be positively established. No
big deal, you don`t need every detail positively established to figure
out the basics. That Oz took his rifle to work, and shot some people
with it from there.

> >>> "I think your odds are in the google range."
> >
> > And the odds that CTers will ignore (or mysteriously skew for no real
> > good reason) all of the raw physical evidence in the case are ....
> > quite high. In fact, it is a certainty.
> >
> > Because the CTers have no choice but to "ignore" all of the following
> > items till the cows march home ---
> >
> > 1.) The Autopsy Report, which not only backs up the "LN" scenario, but
> > also provides the very important first step towards the adoption of the
> > SBT (which is often ignored as well)....because it wasn't Specter who
> > wrote this in the Autopsy Report: "The missile contused the strap
> > muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, AND MADE
> > ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF THE NECK." (Emphasis mine.)
> >
>
> Which autopsy report do you mean? Do you mean the FIRST autopsy report?
> You know, the one which indicated conspiracy? The one which had an ice
> bullet hitting JFK's back and penetrating only an inch?

What kind of autopsy spreculates "ice bullets"? And the wound was
probed an inch, that is not to say that was the extent of the wound.

> > 2.) The WC testimony of every autopsy doctor who testified to NO
> > FRONTAL SHOT HITTING KENNEDY.
> >
> > 3.) The authenicated autopsy photos & X-rays.
> >
> > 4.) Oswald's rifle being positively linked to every bullet and fragment
> > and shell in the whole case.
> >
> > 5.) The eyewitnesses who apparently ALL LIED when IDing LHO as both
> > JFK's and Tippit's killer (and, IMO, letting Oswald off for this 2nd
> > 11/22 murder is sickening and only tells me that ANYTHING else such a
> > CTer says cannot be believed, even remotely so, because their
> > pro-conspiracy bias is blatantly obvious via their silly claim that
> > Oswald was innocent of killing Tippit too).
> >
> > 6.) Oswald's own fingerprints being DEEP INSIDE the SN on 11/22. This
> > is undeniable solid evidence Oswald was in that Nest on 11/22. (Esp.
> > when coupled with the shells and eyewitness accounts and his rifle
> > being nearby.)
> >
>
> Oswald worked there so of course his fingerprints would be found there.

Yah? He just happened to be filling orders from the boxes right in
the SN? And the known prints found in that vicintity were exclusively
his, not any of the other workers in the TSBD?

> In this latest murder case in Hopkinton, the husband's fingerprints were
> found in the house. Do you think that Martha would be stupid enough to
> claim that this fact proves that the husband was the murderer?

Marsh produces an orange, and compares it to an apple. In a large
workplace, those prints put Oz in the out-of-the-way place the shots
were fired from. Unless you think that the boxes with Oz`s prints were
moved there. Then you have the astounding coincidence of boxes
containing Oz`s prints being moved to the vicintity the shots were
fired and Oz`s rifle, used in the assassination, being found on that
floor.

> > 7.) The paper bag (with Oswald's prints on it in the exact places Buell
> > Frazier said Oswald's were located on the bag he carried into work on
> > 11/22). This is a biggie to simply "ignore", IMO. Some amazing
> > "coincidences" are going to have to be proven to have that bag NOT
> > being the one Oswald took into work that Friday.
> >
> > So, CTers must, in effect, "ignore" or skew the reliabilty of EVERY
> > LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in both the JFK and Tippit murder
> > cases. They have no choice but to skew/ignore it -- because it ALL
> > spells "Oswald's A Cop-Killing, President-Murdering Bastard".
> >
>
> The problem is that WC defenders must refuse to look at the evidence
> which conspiracy believers cite because it all spells conspiracy.

Like?

> > Everyone should read "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan. It cuts
> > through the pro-CT tripe, to the crux of the whole case (i.e., the
> > physical evidence...which ALL could not have been fabricated to frame
> > Oswald if the whole FBI and the entire DPD had been involved in the
> > frame-up)......
>
> You apparently did not read my criticisms of the JFK Myths, where I
> showed where Sturdivan simply lied about facts.

I didn`t bother reading it either.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 3:44:12 PM2/11/06
to
David VP wrote:
> >> "You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it as a good theory. ... You must and ignore the cheek wound of Mr. Tague."
>
>
> And just exactly why are the 3 TSBD shells NOT good evidence? Why are
> they considered "unreliable"? (Answer -- Because some CTer says so,
> that's why. 'Nuff said.)
>
See, that's the problem, "nuff said."? It, in a good investigation
would be just the BEGINNING of evidence, or basically something to look
at to compare to a larger hopefully more conise picture. Three shells
could mean a variety of things. It could mean that they were shot or
not shot. It could mean some were shot and one or more planted. Why
couldn't they just smell the gun and say that it was fired? The shots
if fired could have been a decoy, or they could have been fired at a
target. Why just assume that it was a certain person that was not
identified by sight, and assume the whole 'attack' was by 'him' and
from 'there'?

> And no LNer "ignores" the Tague wounding. Why you're saying this is
> anybody's guess, because it's dead wrong. The first (missed) shot
> probably caused the Tague wound.
>
>

Why, they had to make a whole theory surrounding it. They had another
theory before they decided that the Tague wounding forced them into a
corner to invent the SBT. If you count the witness testimony without
any medical evidence, you have more shots fired and from at least one
different location. The Tague shooting also forces one to develop a
theory of 'fragmentation' and that one must stick with it.

> >> "I think your odds are in the google range."
>
> And the odds that CTers will ignore (or mysteriously skew for no real
> good reason) all of the raw physical evidence in the case are ....
> quite high. In fact, it is a certainty.
>
> Because the CTers have no choice but to "ignore" all of the following
> items till the cows march home ---
>
> 1.) The Autopsy Report, which not only backs up the "LN" scenario, but
> also provides the very important first step towards the adoption of the
> SBT (which is often ignored as well)....because it wasn't Specter who
> wrote this in the Autopsy Report: "The missile contused the strap
> muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, AND MADE
> ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF THE NECK." (Emphasis mine.)
>

Your bold print is different from what many feel really happened.
There is so much evidence of a rear blowout from a frontal shot too.
Even the funeral professionals had to use plaster of paris to seal it
up. Don't even need a doctor for that. When one relies on an autopsy
report as gospel, then they are forced to ignore other evidence.

> 2.) The WC testimony of every autopsy doctor who testified to NO
> FRONTAL SHOT HITTING KENNEDY.
>

In doing so they had to ignore the Parkland testimony of otherwise.
The autopsists at Bethesda were not professional and they were
'guarded' by Military and FBI who broke the law to abscound the body of
the President. Of course when Humes said there were multi tiny
fragments in the brain, then that went against what the 'found' CE399
should have done, gone through the victim instead of fragmenting. Even
if there were a possibility that no frontal shot hit, it still would
not dismiss people from seeing, hearing, and smelling a gunshot from
the GK.

> 3.) The authenicated autopsy photos & X-rays.
>

It is hard to feel authencicity when the original draft had to be
burned.

> 4.) Oswald's rifle being positively linked to every bullet and fragment
> and shell in the whole case.
>

'His' rifle? The one at Klein's was about 4 inches off. Assuming that
it was his, and brought in by him and finalizing that forces one not to
consider a frame up. Anybody could have brought a rifle in and shot.

> 5.) The eyewitnesses who apparently ALL LIED when IDing LHO as both
> JFK's and Tippit's killer (and, IMO, letting Oswald off for this 2nd
> 11/22 murder is sickening and only tells me that ANYTHING else such a
> CTer says cannot be believed, even remotely so, because their
> pro-conspiracy bias is blatantly obvious via their silly claim that
> Oswald was innocent of killing Tippit too).
>

Scoggins the closest to the killing was shown two pictures, one of
Oswald and one of another, and he chose the other. If you could go to
the actual murder scene, you would see where Mrs. Markham lived and
where the murder took place further down 10th Street. She couldn't
have seen anybody well enough for an IDing. The only thing she could
be sure of however was when she went to work everyday, and when she got
on her bus. It was physically impossible for Oswald to walk from his
roominghouse and be at that murder scene. It was also in a wrong
direction from a movie theater from the rooming house. The only IDing
there was similiar to the Brennan IDing, they wanted to pin it on the
guy they wanted. How could they have cared about indentification when
they put an arrested Oswald against young people not of his race?

> 6.) Oswald's own fingerprints being DEEP INSIDE the SN on 11/22. This
> is undeniable solid evidence Oswald was in that Nest on 11/22. (Esp.
> when coupled with the shells and eyewitness accounts and his rifle
> being nearby.)
>

As well as other prints. That was not even a good place to shoot from.
There was a vertical bar on the left side of the window. I think the
best place for shots to line up for Connally's and Tague's would have
been from the West end not the East where the so-called SN was labeled.

> 7.) The paper bag (with Oswald's prints on it in the exact places Buell
> Frazier said Oswald's were located on the bag he carried into work on
> 11/22). This is a biggie to simply "ignore", IMO. Some amazing
> "coincidences" are going to have to be proven to have that bag NOT
> being the one Oswald took into work that Friday.
>

The bag was not big enough even for a dismantled MC. It had no oil on
it and wasn't in the early photographs.

> So, CTers must, in effect, "ignore" or skew the reliabilty of EVERY
> LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in both the JFK and Tippit murder
> cases. They have no choice but to skew/ignore it -- because it ALL
> spells "Oswald's A Cop-Killing, President-Murdering Bastard".
>

No, Oswald, innocent or guilty, had help. We look at all the evidence,
and don't 'trim' evidence we don't like.

> Everyone should read "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan. It cuts
> through the pro-CT tripe, to the crux of the whole case (i.e., the
> physical evidence...which ALL could not have been fabricated to frame
> Oswald if the whole FBI and the entire DPD had been involved in the
> frame-up)......
>
> "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
> been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
> team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
> whole .... with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
> in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- "The JFK
> Myths" (Pg. 246)

Sure they could, all you had to do was label the attack 3 bullets and
one gunman with a Communist motive and all one would have to do is
quell or obfuscate anything else. Just control the evidence gathering
through Hoover and it's filter organization via LBJ. It's really
nothing new. The American people have been easily fooled by politics
and politicans for years. It's the nature of "the beast."

CJ

David VP

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 4:15:09 PM2/11/06
to
Let me ask Curtjes one simple question ----

Would YOU, yourself, pre-plan a "One Patsy" assassination plot the way
many CTers seem to think it was pre-planned (i.e., using multiple
gunmen to frame just one lone guy in the Depository)?

Honestly now -- was that a really GOOD and WISE plot from a pre-11/22
perspective, knowing of all the bound-to-follow post-shooting
complications of such an action?

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 4:59:54 PM2/11/06
to

Simply, yes. The least patsies the better. LHO was the perfect
pre-planned choice if there ever was one. He was the easiest to pin it
on and have stick. Jack Ruby was a patsy also, and if one didn't
believe LHO shot Tippit, Tippit was also. If you believe people got
snuffed out for what they knew or potentially what they knew, they were
patsies also.

CJ

tomnln

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 5:06:53 PM2/11/06
to
BOTTOM POST;

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1139657503.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

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


>> You apparently did not read my criticisms of the JFK Myths, where I
>> showed where Sturdivan simply lied about facts.
>
> I didn`t bother reading it either.

There you have it Folks;
Bud reaches conclusions Before gathering all the facts.
==========================================================================

Bud

unread,
Feb 11, 2006, 6:43:54 PM2/11/06
to

What conclusions did you see me express about Sturdivan`s work, or
Tony`s critique of it?

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

David VP

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 1:10:08 AM2/12/06
to
>> "Simply, yes. The least patsies the better. LHO was the perfect pre-planned choice if there ever was one."


Nifty evasion of the actual Q. Because, of course, that's not at all
what I asked you. ... I asked:

Would you, yourself, have attempted to frame your one & only patsy by
using many different shooters in the front & rear?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 1:25:53 AM2/12/06
to

Yes, you need to have an insurance shot in case something goes wrong in
the TSBD, as actually happened.

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 1:40:33 AM2/12/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "Which autopsy report do you mean? Do you mean the FIRST autopsy report?"
>
>
> More Marsh Mangling (of the facts), as per the norm. The Final Autopsy
> Report (signed by ALL THREE doctors, who Tony MUST think are all lying
> bastards since they each signed off on the same batch of lies...per
> CTers) is the ONLY worthwhile AR and everybody knows it....because the
> first (burned) draft was not accurate, which is why Humes revised it.
>

Yes, all three autopsy doctors are lying bastards, although not all in
unison about the same things. Boswell lied about where the back wound
was, unbeknownst to Humes. Finck lied unbeknownst to Boswell. Humes did
not vet his lies with Boswell. Boswell would support whatever Humes said.

> Naturally, anything "revised" had to have been done to hide the truth,
> per CTers. That's the beauty of paranoids....they're ALWAYS RIGHT.
>
>
>>> "Oswald worked there so of course his fingerprints would be found there."
>
>
> A weak excuse that'll only take so far. Sure, Oswald worked
> there...and, sure, he MIGHT have handled those specific SN boxes within
> the last three days (approx.) so that his prints showed up on them on
> 11/22. But when you factor in ALL THE OTHER STUFF on top of the
> fingerprints (eg: HIS rifle on that floor; HIS prints also on an empty
> bag in the same Nest; shells from HIS gun on the Nest floor; Brennan's
> IDing of HIM (Oswald) .... then the fingerprints in the precise place
> where they were found (DEEP INSIDE the SN) become part of the mosaic of
> Oswald's guilt.
>

Only when you tailor the evidence to fit a pre-conceived conclusion.

> CTers would rather shrug it off as a pure coincidence that Oswald's
> prints were on the boxes that JUST HAPPENED to make up parts of the
> interior of the SN. Keep dreaming. Santa might still be real too. Ya
> never know.

You don't know the configuration of the sniper's nest because the
investigators changed it several times.

>
>
>>> "You apparently did not read my criticisms of the JFK Myths, where I showed where Sturdivan simply lied about facts."
>
>
> And I'm sure Mr. Sturdivan is losing all kinds of sleep over the fact
> that "Mr. Paranoia" is critical of his findings. That must be tearin'
> him up somethin' terrible.

Real scientists don't pay any attention to criticism.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 1:43:09 AM2/12/06
to

Thanks for pointing out that I am complaining about the hypocrisy of the
WC defenders who play that card against the conspiracy believers, but
are guilty of the same thing.

David VP

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 1:59:13 AM2/12/06
to
>> "Yes, you need to have an insurance shot in case something goes wrong in the TSBD, as actually happened."


In this case, then, you can't frame a lone patsy in the Depository too.
No way. No how. (Unless you're the goofiest "Patsy plotters" known to
man.)

You can either have multiple shooters, firing away a mile a minute at
the 1 & Only Target -- or: you can (maybe) have a chance at framing the
1 & Only Patsy by using just ONE single shooter in the TSBD.*

* = And even this one-shooter, one-Patsy plot automatically fails if
Oswald's own gun isn't being used (but yet IS the rifle "planted" to
frame Oswald with).

CTers want the cake, all the icing, and the baking pan too -- and they
simply cannot have all of the above and have a CHANCE of success.

But, in a CT Dream World, I guess it would be possible.

Sweet Patsy dreams.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 6:21:09 PM2/12/06
to

Oh well, I couldn't be so nifty, as I don't have any agenda here.
Basically I think it was a brazen display by a conspiracy to do this in
public and have no fear of retaliation from the American people or it's
institutions. As far a 'I', I am not in the assassination business. I
think a prerequisite is to have the person dead. I do think they
wanted as much discretion as would allow. If they just wanted to have
it put onto a lone TSBD gunman, they would have shot JFK as he came
down Houston, but they would have been able to see a gun and
immediately go upstairs and get the fellow. At least with confused
gunfire, you have people scrambling at which way to go. Maybe they
didn't know exactly how a shot would open up, and insured it with a
triangulation of fire. Whatever your reasoning attempt here is, it
can't protect itself from a wide conspiracy. If they would have
obtained two suspects in the killing, I am sure they still would have
had no problem evading separating themselves from the plot.

Of course you neglected not to answer my other stuff, but I could care
less. It's usually par for the course.

CJ

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 6:57:40 PM2/12/06
to
Bud wrote:
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > David VP wrote:
> > > Oh for heaven's sake! If you want to pick-and-choose certain unrelated
> > > things and decide to "link" them together with make-believe "conspiracy
> > > rope", sure, anyone could ask "What Are The Odds?" and probably raise a
> > > few eyebrows.
> > >
> > > The opposition can easily do the same thing (even more so actually,
> > > given the wealth of "Oswald-Did-It" evidence to work with in this
> > > case):
> > >
> > > E.G.:
> > >
> > > What Are The Odds......
> > >
> > > Of the JFK murder actually having been a conspiracy and YET also having
> > > every piece of physical evidence in the whole case come back to the
> > > feet of the one man who happens to own the rifle up on the 6th Floor
> > > (and who was seen firing a shot at JFK's car)?
> > >
> > Nobody saw Oswald fire from the TSBD. Only Brennan
>
> That was a quick reversal.
>
He saw the gun actually being fired?

> > after being
> > kidnapped for 3 weeks by the FBI decided to after not identifying him
> > the day of the assassination.
>
> Yah, it was the bamboo under the fingernails that made this deeply
> religious man bear false witness under oath. Kooky theory, lucky you
> have so much to back up this
> innuendo.
>

You should ask his boss, Sandy Speaker. Don't you think he knows when
an employee has been absent and for what reason? Maybe he had
something to protect when he came back like him and his family. God
would have understood.

> > There were many witnesses who observed
> > two men on the sixth floor.
>
> When the shots were fired?
>

No, and no Oz.

> > The weapon found only serves as your
> > crutch.
>
> Chuck it out, like any and all incriminating evidence against Oz.
> That way you pretend what happened is some kind of mystery.
>

Why we ain't achuckin'. Is the weapon the same as in the back yard
photos? Was the weapon fired that day? Was it of the same type and
length as was supposedly ordered out of the Klein's Sporting Goods
catalogue?

> > You don't care about any questions concerning it.
>
> Kooks have created "questions" about this damning evidence only
> because they wish to ignore any indication of Oz`s guilt.
>

Oz could have been a willing patsy. Some like going down in a flame of
glory. Of course he could have been an unwilling patsy too. Is this
too much for your kooky brain, Bud?

> >
> > > And:
> > >
> > > What Are The Odds......
> > >
> > > Of the Tippit murder actually having been committed by somebody other
> > > than Lee Oswald and YET have every scrap of evidence come back to
> > > Oswald for that murder too? (Including gobs of witnesses who fingered
> > > the so-called "Patsy"; plus the fact that the murder weapon was in
> > > possession of the "Patsy" when he was captured; plus the mere fact that
> > > Oswald was in the exact same general area of the murder when picked
> > > up.) Odds that he was actually an uninvolved "Patsy" given these
> > > parameters? Must be pretty low indeed (even utilizing CT-skewed
> > > statistics).
> > >
> > Nobody got his coat right. Nobody got a good look at his face. People
> > had him in the theater at the same time or before the shooting. Mrs.
> > Markham told the shooting was 6 or 7 minutes after 1 P.M. She took the
> > 1:12 bus everyday and was corroborated by time identifer's Bowley and
> > Craig. Actually, nobody identified Oswald without persuasion.
>
> Yet they picked out Oz as the man who committed this crime. And the
> suspicious acting man (so suspicious ordinary citizens followed him),
> ducking into stores and theaters happened to have a gun on him. A gun
> which when bullets were fired from it created identicle markings as the
> bullets extracted from Tippit`s body. You think clothing and timing
> issues trump this?
>

Crazy man on street = Killer of JFK. I am sure that type of reasoning
works for a kook.

> > > And:
> > >
> > > What Are The Odds......
> > >
> > > Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
> > > gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
> > > Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
> > > news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
> > > report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
> > > the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
> > > Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
> > > have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
> > > 1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)
> >
> > You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it
> > has a good theory.
>
> You mean actual tangible evidence? Nice to have in a murder case.
>

Made the whole case for you, eh? What you going to do with the missed
bullet hitting the sidewalk? What you going to do with the slug, Agent
Barrett picked out of the grass? Aren't you even going to fire 'Oz's'
gun and see if it matches what the CE399 bullet looked like after he
hit the President twice? How come Hume found 50 little pieces in
JFK's brain at the autopsy? Come on bullet expert.

> > Unfortunately you must and ignore the cheek wound
> > of Mr. Tague,
>
> Don`t need to ignore it, or account for it.
>

I see, the SHT has come to fore.

> > the first missed shot that struck pavement, ignore the
> > probabilities of the SBT,
>
> Missed the recreation on the Discovery Channel, did you?
>

I heard they got the trajectory from the sixth floor to the limo
assbackwards. Wasn't it more like a 45 to 60 degree shot, that would
have had a 'smart' bullet not even going in JBC's seat area? Did not 3
people testify that a bullet dropped out of the sheets from the back
area when they lifted him from the coffin at Bethesda?

> > ignore the ear, nose, and eye witnesses of at
> > least one person firing from the Grassy Knoll with the remnants of
> > smoke emission and it's smell.
>
> This can never be laid to rest because someone said they smelled
> smoke? There was no gunman on the gnoll, which accounts for there being
> no movement in this direction in 40-plus years. There is just nowhere
> to go.
>

Are you counting on the smoke from the sixth floor of the TSBD wafting
to your wind swept delight? Nowhere to go? There wasn't anybody up
there for 70 seconds after the final shots. It's a parking lot. None
of the cars were ever checked. Fire and put it in the car. Fire and
put it in the tool box. Fire and put it in the storm drain. Fire at
put it in your coat. Fire and walk away. Fire and sit in the storm
drain. Fire, and walk to a railroad car. Fire and mingle with the so
called secret police that were there, (that were not on duty). Fire
and give it to the Secret Police.

> > Then, again you must ignore all the
> > medical evidence describing a blowout in the back of JFK's head,
>
> Autopsy?
>

Which notes you prefer, the burnt one's or the fresh one's?

> > and
> > the frontal tiny hole in the throat by Parkland doctors which would be
> > impossible for a shot entering from the back from the sixth floor and
> > it's trajectory. I think your odds are in the google range.
>
> So, it entered the throat, and exited where? The back? How does that
> line up back to the knoll? Couldn`t just be that the shots came from
> where people reported a gunman, saw a rifle, and shells were found, eh?
> Naw, too easy.

I believe there was one report of a bullet in JFK's lung. It could
have stayed in the body. It could have possibly been a lower back
wound. People reporting a gunman? Nobody saw Oz. Nobody really saw
firing from the TSBD. People did hear gunfire from both directions,
especially reliable were the people standing between both places and
hearing from both directions. It's really too easy to ignore what you
don't like to hear. The bullets in you sixth floor are only your
'catharsis'.

CJ


>
> > CJ

David VP

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 7:50:22 PM2/12/06
to
>> "As far a 'I', I am not in the assassination business."


Once more, the very simple question at hand is totally ignored and
unanswered. ..... Which tells me one thing for certain -- i.e., not
even a hardline CTer is insane enough to say the following out loud to
anyone......

"Yes, I myself would have pre-arranged the JFK killing in exactly the
same manner most CTers believe it was pre-planned -- by letting Oswald
wander free anywhere he wanted to wander at 12:30 and by using a whole
bunch of shooters, front and rear, to knock off the one target; even
though one good marksman with LHO's rifle could have done the job
easily from the place where Oswald was supposed to be. Yes, yes,
indeed....that multi-shooter, single-dupe plan is exactly the way I
would have arranged it myself."

-------

Only a moron would utter those above words. (And, per CTers, there must
have been quite a few "morons" pre-planning JFK's hit....because a
whole boatload of CTers actually think it was carried out in such a
nutty fashion.)

Still waiting for a single CTer to be willing to look foolish enough to
speak those words I bracketed above. But the mere fact that NOBODY, in
hindsight, would even begin to arrange the Patsy Plot in such a stupid
fashion should be a good indication that nobody would have considered
it in 1963 either.

aeffects

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 8:40:54 PM2/12/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >> "As far a 'I', I am not in the assassination business."
>
>
> Once more, the very simple question at hand is totally ignored and
> unanswered. ..... Which tells me one thing for certain -- i.e., not
> even a hardline CTer is insane enough to say the following out loud to
> anyone......
>
> "Yes, I myself would have pre-arranged the JFK killing in exactly the
> same manner most CTers believe it was pre-planned -- by letting Oswald
> wander free anywhere he wanted to wander at 12:30 and by using a whole
> bunch of shooters, front and rear, to knock off the one target; even
> though one good marksman with LHO's rifle could have done the job
> easily from the place where Oswald was supposed to be. Yes, yes,
> indeed....that multi-shooter, single-dupe plan is exactly the way I
> would have arranged it myself."
>
no, no insane CTer would say something like that -- only a Lone Neuter
could dream this up

>
> Only a moron would utter those above words. (And, per CTers, there must
> have been quite a few "morons" pre-planning JFK's hit....because a
> whole boatload of CTers actually think it was carried out in such a
> nutty fashion.)
>
> Still waiting for a single CTer to be willing to look foolish enough to
> speak those words I bracketed above. But the mere fact that NOBODY, in
> hindsight, would even begin to arrange the Patsy Plot in such a stupid
> fashion should be a good indication that nobody would have considered
> it in 1963 either.

by the fact you've posted them and the included criteria, I suspect
others have come to the simple conclusion I have: you're a CTer
disguising yourself as a Lone Neuter?

David VP

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 8:50:58 PM2/12/06
to
>> "no, no insane CTer would say something like that -- only a Lone Neuter could dream this up."


H-h-huh???

Talk about backward thinking.

So are you saying it's really the LNers who have "dreamed up" the
"multi-gun, one-patsy" assassination plot (that was supposedly
pre-planned by a group of "professional" killers in the weeks
(months??) prior to 11/22/63)?

Only three letters need be printed out now.....

W...T...F???

Bud

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 9:00:55 PM2/12/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > David VP wrote:
> > > > Oh for heaven's sake! If you want to pick-and-choose certain unrelated
> > > > things and decide to "link" them together with make-believe "conspiracy
> > > > rope", sure, anyone could ask "What Are The Odds?" and probably raise a
> > > > few eyebrows.
> > > >
> > > > The opposition can easily do the same thing (even more so actually,
> > > > given the wealth of "Oswald-Did-It" evidence to work with in this
> > > > case):
> > > >
> > > > E.G.:
> > > >
> > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > >
> > > > Of the JFK murder actually having been a conspiracy and YET also having
> > > > every piece of physical evidence in the whole case come back to the
> > > > feet of the one man who happens to own the rifle up on the 6th Floor
> > > > (and who was seen firing a shot at JFK's car)?
> > > >
> > > Nobody saw Oswald fire from the TSBD. Only Brennan
> >
> > That was a quick reversal.
> >
> He saw the gun actually being fired?

That is what the man said.

> > > after being
> > > kidnapped for 3 weeks by the FBI decided to after not identifying him
> > > the day of the assassination.
> >
> > Yah, it was the bamboo under the fingernails that made this deeply
> > religious man bear false witness under oath. Kooky theory, lucky you
> > have so much to back up this
> > innuendo.
> >
> You should ask his boss, Sandy Speaker.

Why do you say this was his boss?

> Don't you think he knows when
> an employee has been absent and for what reason?

According to Brennan, he went job to job straight out of the union
hall.

> Maybe he had
> something to protect when he came back like him and his family.

Or maybe he told just what he saw, and any coercion is just the
invention of crackpots who can`t accept reality.

> God
> would have understood.

Then why did he include "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
your neighbor" in the Ten Commandments?

> > > There were many witnesses who observed
> > > two men on the sixth floor.
> >
> > When the shots were fired?
> >
> No, and no Oz.

They saw people in the TSBD. There were people in the TSBD.

> > > The weapon found only serves as your
> > > crutch.
> >
> > Chuck it out, like any and all incriminating evidence against Oz.
> > That way you pretend what happened is some kind of mystery.
> >
> Why we ain't achuckin'. Is the weapon the same as in the back yard
> photos?

Yah.

> Was the weapon fired that day?

<snicker> Still stuck on the easy ones?

> Was it of the same type and
> length as was supposedly ordered out of the Klein's Sporting Goods
> catalogue?

It was the same type and model as the one fired from the TSBD that
day.

> > > You don't care about any questions concerning it.
> >
> > Kooks have created "questions" about this damning evidence only
> > because they wish to ignore any indication of Oz`s guilt.
> >
> Oz could have been a willing patsy. Some like going down in a flame of
> glory. Of course he could have been an unwilling patsy too. Is this
> too much for your kooky brain, Bud?

Anything that pops into you head is acceptable but reality. Oz as a
lone gunman.

> > >
> > > > And:
> > > >
> > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > >
> > > > Of the Tippit murder actually having been committed by somebody other
> > > > than Lee Oswald and YET have every scrap of evidence come back to
> > > > Oswald for that murder too? (Including gobs of witnesses who fingered
> > > > the so-called "Patsy"; plus the fact that the murder weapon was in
> > > > possession of the "Patsy" when he was captured; plus the mere fact that
> > > > Oswald was in the exact same general area of the murder when picked
> > > > up.) Odds that he was actually an uninvolved "Patsy" given these
> > > > parameters? Must be pretty low indeed (even utilizing CT-skewed
> > > > statistics).
> > > >
> > > Nobody got his coat right. Nobody got a good look at his face. People
> > > had him in the theater at the same time or before the shooting. Mrs.
> > > Markham told the shooting was 6 or 7 minutes after 1 P.M. She took the
> > > 1:12 bus everyday and was corroborated by time identifer's Bowley and
> > > Craig. Actually, nobody identified Oswald without persuasion.
> >
> > Yet they picked out Oz as the man who committed this crime. And the
> > suspicious acting man (so suspicious ordinary citizens followed him),
> > ducking into stores and theaters happened to have a gun on him. A gun
> > which when bullets were fired from it created identicle markings as the
> > bullets extracted from Tippit`s body. You think clothing and timing
> > issues trump this?
> >
>
> Crazy man on street = Killer of JFK. I am sure that type of reasoning
> works for a kook.

"crazy man" is your creation. I said a person acting suspicious. You
think Brewer made a habit of following visitors to his store? What
reason did he have to be suspicious of Oz, and for what reason was Oz
acting suspicious? Why did Oz even enter this store, any idea?

> > > > And:
> > > >
> > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > >
> > > > Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
> > > > gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
> > > > Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
> > > > news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
> > > > report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
> > > > the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
> > > > Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
> > > > have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
> > > > 1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)
> > >
> > > You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it
> > > has a good theory.
> >
> > You mean actual tangible evidence? Nice to have in a murder case.
> >
> Made the whole case for you, eh?

You think Brennan was just lucky to indicate a window with shells
under it? It`s all connected. There is no other reasonable
explaination. Kooks won`t even venture one, they think picking away at
what the WC found is good enough.

> What you going to do with the missed
> bullet hitting the sidewalk?

Nothing, You think you can`t figure out what happened unless every
question you can think of is answered? You think a conviction can`t be
obtained without accounting for the trajectory of all bullets,
fragments, shrapnel, skull, ect?

> What you going to do with the slug, Agent
> Barrett picked out of the grass?

What slug? Got a picture of it?

> Aren't you even going to fire 'Oz's'
> gun and see if it matches what the CE399 bullet looked like after he
> hit the President twice?

That isn`t the method they used.

> How come Hume found 50 little pieces in
> JFK's brain at the autopsy? Come on bullet expert.

Is this the game where I have to answer all questions to your
satisfaction or you get to believe stupid shit. By all means, believe
stupid shit CJ.

> > > Unfortunately you must and ignore the cheek wound
> > > of Mr. Tague,
> >
> > Don`t need to ignore it, or account for it.
> >
> I see, the SHT has come to fore.

In what way does Tague`s wounding rule out Oz as lone assassin?

> > > the first missed shot that struck pavement, ignore the
> > > probabilities of the SBT,
> >
> > Missed the recreation on the Discovery Channel, did you?
> >
> I heard they got the trajectory from the sixth floor to the limo
> assbackwards.

"you heard"? Play loud music, drown out those voices, Curt. If they
tell you to kill anyone, I urge you to ignore them.

> Wasn't it more like a 45 to 60 degree shot, that would
> have had a 'smart' bullet not even going in JBC's seat area?

Thirty degrees is more like, lining up the wounds back to the TSBD.

> Did not 3
> people testify that a bullet dropped out of the sheets from the back
> area when they lifted him from the coffin at Bethesda?

Yah, and another dropped out during the autopsy, according to the
x-ray tech. JFK was riddled like Bonnie and Clyde`s car. So, that was
the plan, shoot a bunch of bullets, and then court disaster by
collecting all the bullets. Lets see, *they* swooped in and got the
bullet from Agent Barret, the coffin bullet, the autopsy bullet and
the stretcher bullet. Wherever a bullet falls, *they* are there to
effortlessly appear and neutralize this damning evidence. A thinking
person might wonder why they would trust their luck to be everywhere to
collect bullets when the easy shot at 313 was the only one needed. And,
of course, kooks are left holding their dicks, with none of this
evidence to produce. So, either their was no conspiracy, or one of
superhuman precision, well above the capabilities of mere kooks to
uncover.

> > > ignore the ear, nose, and eye witnesses of at
> > > least one person firing from the Grassy Knoll with the remnants of
> > > smoke emission and it's smell.
> >
> > This can never be laid to rest because someone said they smelled
> > smoke? There was no gunman on the gnoll, which accounts for there being
> > no movement in this direction in 40-plus years. There is just nowhere
> > to go.
> >
> Are you counting on the smoke from the sixth floor of the TSBD wafting
> to your wind swept delight? Nowhere to go?

Thanks for the example. Are you planning on going somewhere with the
6th floor smoke any time soon? Won`t it be an issue frozen in time when
the 100th anniversary rolls around?

> There wasn't anybody up
> there for 70 seconds after the final shots. It's a parking lot. None
> of the cars were ever checked.

Quick, check them now. And the trunks. Leave no stone unturned,
kooks are unsatisfied.

> Fire and put it in the car. Fire and
> put it in the tool box. Fire and put it in the storm drain. Fire at
> put it in your coat. Fire and walk away. Fire and sit in the storm
> drain. Fire, and walk to a railroad car. Fire and mingle with the so
> called secret police that were there, (that were not on duty). Fire
> and give it to the Secret Police.

That a kook can imagine things endlessly is not in dispute.

> > > Then, again you must ignore all the
> > > medical evidence describing a blowout in the back of JFK's head,
> >
> > Autopsy?
> >
> Which notes you prefer, the burnt one's or the fresh one's?
>
> > > and
> > > the frontal tiny hole in the throat by Parkland doctors which would be
> > > impossible for a shot entering from the back from the sixth floor and
> > > it's trajectory. I think your odds are in the google range.
> >
> > So, it entered the throat, and exited where? The back? How does that
> > line up back to the knoll? Couldn`t just be that the shots came from
> > where people reported a gunman, saw a rifle, and shells were found, eh?
> > Naw, too easy.
>
> I believe there was one report of a bullet in JFK's lung.

Point to it in the x-rays.

> It could
> have stayed in the body.

Or the report was faulty.

> It could have possibly been a lower back
> wound. People reporting a gunman? Nobody saw Oz.

One did. Brennan.

> Nobody really saw
> firing from the TSBD.

At least one did. Brennan.

> People did hear gunfire from both directions,

The vast majority of people only indicated one direction for all the
shots they heard.
That is a strong indicator that all the shots came from one location.

> especially reliable were the people standing between both places and
> hearing from both directions.

What scientific method did you use to establish this reliability?

> It's really too easy to ignore what you
> don't like to hear.

<snicker> Why did Oz tell Fritz he didn`t own a rifle? Oh, thats
right, you ignore that because it isn`t what you want to hear.

> The bullets in you sixth floor are only your
> 'catharsis'.

Yah, evidence that shots were fired from the location witnesses said
shots were fired from. See how that works?

> CJ
>
>
> >
> > > CJ

aeffects

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 9:07:14 PM2/12/06
to
my goodness vonPein -- rest easy, Tony will pull your ass out of
this....

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 9:33:44 PM2/12/06
to
I don't need Tony to do anything. (Much less do what you
suggested...yikes.).

I just want to hear one CTer state that they actually think the
"Multi-Gun, Single-Patsy, More-Than-Three-Shots-Fired" assassination
plan was a whale of a pre-arranged plot that just couldn't help but
succeed.

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 9:44:48 PM2/12/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >> "Which autopsy report do you mean? Do you mean the FIRST autopsy report?"
>
>
> More Marsh Mangling (of the facts), as per the norm. The Final Autopsy
> Report (signed by ALL THREE doctors, who Tony MUST think are all lying
> bastards since they each signed off on the same batch of lies...per
> CTers) is the ONLY worthwhile AR and everybody knows it....because the
> first (burned) draft was not accurate, which is why Humes revised it.


Why are pages *NEVER* torn from Laboratory Notebooks, lines always
drawn through in a fashion such that the *revised* version can be
compared to the original and no suspicion aroused? In accounting
records and lab notebooks, a simple line through the mistake or "X"
over the bad page is not only completely sufficient, but demanded, as a
requisite for credibility maintenance. Standard procedure is not to
furtively burn any document, especially one of monumental importance,
in your fireplace over the weekend, unless you have a secret to
protect. Also, your colleages aren't cagey on examination and with
*their* records in safe-depositories in Switzerland.

Will

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 10:19:35 PM2/12/06
to
>> "Standard procedure is not to furtively burn any document, especially one of monumental importance, in your fireplace over the weekend, unless you have a secret to protect."


Well, let me ask this of CTers then ..... If Humes' mission (from the
get-go on 11/22) was to "conspire" with others to hide the evidence of
conspiracy via the final autopsy report (as many CTers believe) -- then
WHY would Humes have ever written up that first AR in the first place?
And WHY would he have ADMITTED that he burned some of his original
autopsy materials at all? He certainly didn't have to admit to there
even BEING an original draft of the autopsy report at all. So why did
he even say there were two versions if his mission was to hide the
truth?

And he most certainly didn't have to admit to burning some of his
autopsy notes in his own fireplace! Why on this Earth would a
"conspirator" have admitted to doing such a silly thing?

If Dr. Humes' motives were to "hide" something via burning stuff in his
fireplace, don't you think that he would also know that ADMITTING to
this burning of notes and changing around the official report would
look just a tad "suspicious" in the minds of others?

There is no way in hell that Humes would have said in front of the WC
that he burned his notes and changed the AR if he was actually part of
some elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth re. the President's death.

His saying anything about the "burning" of his notes indicates that he
had NOTHING AT ALL TO HIDE with respect to said "burning".

In reality, CTers have no reason, other than their own built-in
paranoia, to think that Humes' motives were conspiratorial in nature
when he burned his notes and revised the AR.

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 11:10:45 PM2/12/06
to
________________________________________
<Read quoted text>

David,

"Dr. Humes in the drawing room with the [lit] candlestick..."(LOL )

Assuming there *was* a conspiracy, I don't think Humes had a motive
outside of self-preservation. The tip-off, to which I alluded, is Dr.
Finck's "scared-rabbit" posture and his records safe in "Die Schweitz."

You raise a very good point RE: Hume's *admission* that he had done
something highly irregular.

I counter that this was post-facto damage control. By coming clean
regarding destruction of evidence, Dr. Humes should have headed off
more suspicion than had already been created. The benign explanation,
to CTer's disappointment, is that, by dictum from above, all
conflicting evidence and reports be destroyed in hope that the WCR
would be consistent and settle the matter. If so, that objective was
not accomplished, as evidenced by this group's activities. Ken Rahn has
lamented that Hoover's burial of ballistic evidence, which was
confusing and, therefore, apt to provoke suspicion, ironically fanned
the flames of suspicion.

Dr. Hume's *admission* that he burned some of the most vital evidence
in the assasination of the President *does not* exonerate him from a
cover-up, be it benign or perfidous.

Will

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 11:30:33 PM2/12/06
to
Laplace: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be
proportioned to its strangeness."

"It is therefore obvious that...[insert a claim which is inductively
likely, but hard to prove]"

tomnln

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 11:48:22 PM2/12/06
to
MIDDLE POST;

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:1139796055.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

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


> Then why did he include "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
> your neighbor" in the Ten Commandments?

An "Athiest" quoting 1 of the 10 commandments?
=======================================================================

David VP

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 11:50:25 PM2/12/06
to
>> "Dr. Hume's *admission* that he burned some of the most vital evidence in the assassination of the President *does not* exonerate him from a cover-up, be it benign or perfidous."


Therefore, all CTers will choose to believe the "conspiratorial" line
of thought re. the Humes' note-burning (quite obviously). Even though
the innocent explanation always given by Humes should hold the same
weight as the CT version. (But it never will, because CTers are
paranoids and MUST believe the "shady" option even if they have to put
the "shady" intent in the theory themselves...and they have, of
course.)

So, to do a little table-turning re."things people say" --- Oswald's
saying "I'm just a patsy" does not make him a patsy automatically and
does not erase the mile-high stack of physical evidence supporting his
lone guilt in two murders on 11/22.

I cannot wait to see Vince Bugliosi rip to shreds the weak-ass CT
argument of Oswald being a mere unwitting "Patsy" (with many CTers
ACTUALLY taking the word of the accused double-murderer, at face
value).

Vince will demolish the notion that Oswald was (or even could have
been, or WOULD have been) an innocent "Patsy", set up by a group of
always-unknown plotters, using XX number of guns to pelt the target
with obvious non-Oswald evidence.

VB will have no trouble destroying that CT myth. Heck, I can even do
that...and I'm not even close to being in Vincent's league on this
subject.

tomnln

unread,
Feb 12, 2006, 11:53:21 PM2/12/06
to
BOTTOM POST;

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1139799645....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


>>> "Standard procedure is not to furtively burn any document, especially
>>> one of monumental importance, in your fireplace over the weekend, unless
>>> you have a secret to protect."
>
>

> Well, let me ask this of CTers then ..... If Humes' mission (from the
> get-go on 11/22) was to "conspire" with others to hide the evidence of
> conspiracy via the final autopsy report (as many CTers believe) -- then
> WHY would Humes have ever written up that first AR in the first place?

> And WHY would he even have ADMITTED that he burned some of his original


> autopsy materials at all? He certainly didn't have to admit to there
> even BEING an original draft of the autopsy report at all. So why did
> he even say there were two versions if his mission was to hide the
> truth?
>

> In reality, CTers have no reason, other than paranoia, to think that


> Humes' motives were conspiratorial in nature when he burned his notes
> and revised the AR.

The Original autopsy report would have been scrutinized by the Adversary
Procedure
had there been a Trial.

Humes rewrote the Autopsy Report Sunday morning AFTER learning that Oswald
had been killed by Jack Ruby.

Knowing that there would be NO Trial/Adversary Procedure.
=======================================================================


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:31:43 AM2/13/06
to
An easy, but exotic, way to have as many shooters as the conspirators
want, and no pesky, errant fragments found:

1) Blend the bullet material with a radioisotope label, or irradiate
the material as done in NAA.
2) Fire those labelled missles at the limo.
3) Post-shooting, retrieve the missles and frags with a geiger-counter,
leaving only the evidence that fits LN-scenario.

According to Jennet Conant, James B. Conant's grandaughter, Alfred
Loomis, wealthy private scientist, was approached by FBI and/or ONI, in
midst of RADAR and Manhattan research during early 40s, to develop a
method of tracking documents for counter-espionage purposes. E.O.
Lawrence (cyclotron) suggested a radionuclide suitable for the purpose,
and assigned help to Luis Alvarez to develop the idea.
These methods were therefore known early to the intelligence community.

"Tuxedo Park" (2002) by Jennet Conant : Simon and Shuster, NYC

What about medical X-Rays? If this scenario is to be considered, the
films would either have to be faked or the labeling isotope adjusted to
provide low levels of radiation, so that frags would still show up on
the film. This is way on the fringe, but then, on the other hand, the
more unbelievable and uncommon the method, the more effective.

Does anyone have much info on the JBC surgeries? I wonder if the
surgeons relied heavily on X-ray films to locate the frags or did they
just dig out what they ran into?
Also, what do the films from Parkland look like? Anything strange about
the images??
No end to paranoia and imagination here.

Will

David VP

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:32:13 AM2/13/06
to
>> "The Original autopsy report would have been scrutinized by the Adversary
Procedure had there been a Trial. Humes rewrote the Report Sunday
morning AFTER learning that Oswald had been killed...knowing that there
would be NO Trial."


Therefore, if Humes was worried about the original report being
"scrutinized at trial" (and thusly that was his reason for burning the
stuff), and he only burned them AFTER he knew there would never be an
Oswald trial, then WHY did he bother burning anything at that time? The
original report was, by that time, free from "Oswald Trial Scrutiny".

You also seem to be implying that Humes lied about gobs of other stuff
to the WC (and subsequent investigative panels) re. the President's
wounds, etc., and yet you think he'd be compelled to TELL THE TRUTH
with respect to the note-burning incident (which nobody else knew about
but him)???

A most curious pro-CT stance which advocates the following motto --
"Sometimes He's Truthful And Sometimes He's A Lying Bastard".

Your logic is backward, making little to no sense.

Message has been deleted

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 1:01:21 AM2/13/06
to

I can't wait to hear the Bugliosi version. In "Helter-Skelter" Bugliosi
argued against one of Manson's attorneys who claimed that any link in
the chain to Manson, if broken, must lead to aquittal. However,
Bugliosi countered that the chain of evidence was more akin to a rope
than a chain. Fraying the rope only left a still intact link. This
argument can be applied on both sides of our debate.

David VP

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 1:01:44 AM2/13/06
to
>> "An easy, but exotic, way to have as many shooters as the conspirators
want, and no pesky, errant fragments found:

1) Blend the bullet material with a radioisotope label, or irradiate
the material as done in NAA.
2) Fire those labelled missles at the limo.
3) Post-shooting, retrieve the missles and frags with a geiger-counter,
leaving only the evidence that fits LN-scenario."

------

And Elvis is picking peaches and singing "My Way" in my backyard right
now too. (Can't get rid of him. He's always there.)

Your nifty "As Many Shooters As They Want" scenario is laughable at
best. You've totally ignored the very high likelihood that many
Parkland Hospital witnesses will blow the plot to Kingdom Come
(regardless of your fancy-schmancy "radioisotope" thingies. Because if
you truly think that "All The Shooters They Want" are ALL going to
somehow miss the one target of JFK's body, then those many shooters
have no business firing a gun at all, because they must all be the
worst gunmen ever...or completely blind.

But possibly the better question to ask when discussing these silly
multi-shooter "One-Patsy" scenarios, IMO, is not whether any of these
theories COULD have actually been pulled off (in some miraculous
fashion) after the fact -- the bigger question to ask, IMO, is:

"WOULD ANY PROFESSIONAL PLOTTERS, WANTING TO FRAME JUST ONE GUY,
ACTUALLY UTILIZE ALL THESE SHOOTERS" (with these plotters, as a result,
having to KNOW that a whole bunch of "covering up" would be needed
afterward)?

And how could any plotters be so stupid to think that many people at a
local hospital (where the victim is bound to be taken--surely they KNEW
this ahead of time, right?) would either just not notice the wounds
caused by the non-Oswald shooters or would be willing to just shut up
about the conspiracy they've just seen proven via their own eyes at the
hospital?

In short -- It's a dumb plot. Plain and simple. And no amount of
Monday-morning assassination quarterbacking will change the fact that a
pre-planned, multi-shooter, Single-Patsy plot is just.....dumb!

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 1:22:40 AM2/13/06
to

David VP wrote:
> An easy, but exotic, way to have as many shooters as the conspirators
> want, and no pesky, errant fragments found:
>
> 1) Blend the bullet material with a radioisotope label, or irradiate
> the material as done in NAA.
> 2) Fire those labelled missles at the limo.
> 3) Post-shooting, retrieve the missles and frags with a geiger-counter,
> leaving only the evidence that fits LN-scenario.
>
>

As for radioisotopic labelling as "fancy-schmancy," it has been an
accessible, easy way of tracking all sorts of things. Only the term is
fancy, the method is plain old science, especially back then, at a time
when peaceful nuclear applications were sought out for virtually any
problem, witness NAA, a technique which is inferior to MassSpec, a much
older analytical method. And I can cite the proof. Or just google
"history of Mass Spectrometry" and follow the links. MassSpec could
have settled the parrafin test results, the bullets and fragments and
on and on...

The Parkland people *did* notice the wounds. That may be why JFK and
limo were whisked to Washington 100 minutes later and why Humes had his
little fire.
The conspirators could do just about anything they wanted, because they
controlled the inquiries. If you are willing to believe LHO got lucky
twice, is it anymore unrealistic to consider the CT line, given that
the conspirators had unlimited access to evidence, witness-intimidation
and control of the crime scene? Do you really believe that guys who
could arrange to kill the President were afraid of a handful of Doctors
and Nurses?
Hell, if anything got seriously out of control, they could just arrange
a gas-line leak at Parkland and blow everyone up. Dr. Finck was scared.
Dosen't that tell you something ?
"Forensic Files, CSI and Unsolved Mysteries" only works when the
victims are nobodies and the murderers are psychotic loosers. This is a
whole 'nother level.

Will

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 2:34:52 AM2/13/06
to
>> "If you are willing to believe LHO got lucky twice, is it anymore unrealistic to consider the CT line, given that the conspirators had unlimited access to evidence, witness-intimidation and control of the crime scene?"


You jest (surely).

Yes...that "CT" scenario is FAR more "unrealistic", and everybody knows
(or should know) why.

You actually think that that CT scenario is as realistic (or more so)
than a simple Oswald-Did-It-Alone conclusion? With the CT scenario
featuring a band of conspirators (who MUST have been in cahoots with
the after-the-shooting Govt. cover-uppers as well, correct?) arranging
to shoot just one almost-stationary target in the OPEN, in front of
hundreds of WITNESSES, while using SEVERAL GUNS, while at the same time
trying to frame just ONE PATSY -- and then the plotters managed to
coerce many doctors and other witnesses to just go with the LN flow,
even though these people knew it was a lie?

And LHO, in reality, got "lucky" with just one shot ... the last one.
That's only 33% accurate shooting. Nothing miraculous here. Far from
it, in fact. Oswald missed 2 times of 3. What's so amazing about it
(other than in a CTer's head)?


>> "Hell, if anything got seriously out of control, they could just arrange a gas-line leak at Parkland and blow everyone up."


Sure. Great plan. That'll never trigger the "It Was A Conspiracy"
portion of anyone's thought process, will it?

Better still -- Why didn't the plotters just "arrange" for the
limousine to blow up (or enter Rod Serling's "Zone") BEFORE it got to
Parkland, thereby destroying any and all evidence inside the car
immediately?

~smirk~

tomnln

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 11:47:11 AM2/13/06
to
First of all, it's not a good idea to SNIP.
It makes it harder for others to follow the conversation.

Secondly, the first report (considering Truth) it would have shown Frontal
Entrances.
Thus Conspiracy.


"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1139807367....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


>>> "The Original autopsy report would have been scrutinized by the
>>> Adversary Procedure had there been a Trial. Humes rewrote the Autopsy
>>> Report Sunday morning AFTER learning that Oswald had been killed by Jack
>>> Ruby. Knowing that there would be NO Trial/Adversary Procedure."
>
>

> Therefore, if Humes was worried about the original report being
> "scrutinized at trial" (and thusly that was his reason for burning the
> stuff), and he only burned them AFTER he knew there would never be an

> Oswald trial, then WHY did he bother burning anything at that time. The


> original report was, by that time, free from "Oswald Trial Scrutiny".
>

tomnln

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 11:48:35 AM2/13/06
to
Sorry David;

Every Lie must have some degree of Truth in it to be believed.
I thought you knew that.


"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1139808382.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...


>>> "The Original autopsy report would have been scrutinized by the
>>> Adversary Procedure had there been a Trial. Humes rewrote the Autopsy
>>> Report Sunday morning AFTER learning that Oswald had been killed by Jack
>>> Ruby. Knowing that there would be NO Trial/Adversary Procedure."
>

> Therefore, if Humes was worried about the original report being
> "scrutinized at trial" (and thusly that was his reason for burning the
> stuff), and he only burned them AFTER he knew there would never be an
> Oswald trial, then WHY did he bother burning anything at that time. The
> original report was, by that time, free from "Oswald Trial Scrutiny".
>

> You also seem to be implying that Humes lied about gobs of other stuff
> to the WC (and subsequent investigative panels) re. the President's
> wounds, etc., and yet you think he'd be compelled to TELL THE TRUTH

> with respect to the note-burning incedent (which nobody else knew about
> but him).


>
> A most curious pro-CT stance which advocates the following motto --

> "Sometimes He's Truthful And Sometimes He's A Lying Bastard".

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:17:19 PM2/13/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "The Original autopsy report would have been scrutinized by the Adversary
> Procedure had there been a Trial. Humes rewrote the Report Sunday
> morning AFTER learning that Oswald had been killed...knowing that there
> would be NO Trial."
>
>
> Therefore, if Humes was worried about the original report being
> "scrutinized at trial" (and thusly that was his reason for burning the
> stuff), and he only burned them AFTER he knew there would never be an
> Oswald trial, then WHY did he bother burning anything at that time? The
> original report was, by that time, free from "Oswald Trial Scrutiny".
>

Exactly. The first autopsy report indicated conspiracy. Thus WWIII.

> You also seem to be implying that Humes lied about gobs of other stuff
> to the WC (and subsequent investigative panels) re. the President's
> wounds, etc., and yet you think he'd be compelled to TELL THE TRUTH
> with respect to the note-burning incident (which nobody else knew about
> but him)???
>
> A most curious pro-CT stance which advocates the following motto --
> "Sometimes He's Truthful And Sometimes He's A Lying Bastard".
>
> Your logic is backward, making little to no sense.
>

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:24:53 PM2/13/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "Dr. Hume's *admission* that he burned some of the most vital evidence in the assassination of the President *does not* exonerate him from a cover-up, be it benign or perfidous."
>
>
> Therefore, all CTers will choose to believe the "conspiratorial" line
> of thought re. the Humes' note-burning (quite obviously). Even though
> the innocent explanation always given by Humes should hold the same
> weight as the CT version. (But it never will, because CTers are
> paranoids and MUST believe the "shady" option even if they have to put
> the "shady" intent in the theory themselves...and they have, of
> course.)

I have never seen you argue that we should give the same weight to
exculpatory evidence about Oswald.

>
> So, to do a little table-turning re."things people say" --- Oswald's
> saying "I'm just a patsy" does not make him a patsy automatically and
> does not erase the mile-high stack of physical evidence supporting his
> lone guilt in two murders on 11/22.
>
> I cannot wait to see Vince Bugliosi rip to shreds the weak-ass CT
> argument of Oswald being a mere unwitting "Patsy" (with many CTers
> ACTUALLY taking the word of the accused double-murderer, at face
> value).
>

I can't wait to see the look on your face when it is announced that
Bugliosi's book has been canceled.

> Vince will demolish the notion that Oswald was (or even could have
> been, or WOULD have been) an innocent "Patsy", set up by a group of
> always-unknown plotters, using XX number of guns to pelt the target
> with obvious non-Oswald evidence.
>
> VB will have no trouble destroying that CT myth. Heck, I can even do
> that...and I'm not even close to being in Vincent's league on this
> subject.
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:35:12 PM2/13/06
to
David VP wrote:
> I don't need Tony to pull me out of anything. I just would like to hear
> ONE CTer state that they actually think the "Multi-Gun, Single-Patsy,
> More-Than-Three-Shots-Fired" assassination plan was a hell of a

> pre-arranged plot that just couldn't help but succeed.
>

Strawman argument. I've already told you that the grassy knoll shooter
did not intend to shoot. And evidently it did succeed, as evidenced by
your feigned naivete here.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:40:15 PM2/13/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "Yes, you need to have an insurance shot in case something goes wrong in the TSBD, as actually happened."
>
>
> In this case, then, you can't frame a lone patsy in the Depository too.
> No way. No how. (Unless you're the goofiest "Patsy plotters" known to
> man.)

Yes, you can, as they obviously did. When you control the evidence AND
the press, you can make uncomfortable facts like a grassy knoll shooter
disappear. The public MUST believe anything that the government tells
them. You are a perfect example of that. You probably still think that
there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

>
> You can either have multiple shooters, firing away a mile a minute at
> the 1 & Only Target -- or: you can (maybe) have a chance at framing the
> 1 & Only Patsy by using just ONE single shooter in the TSBD.*
>

The intent was to have only one shooter.

> * = And even this one-shooter, one-Patsy plot automatically fails if
> Oswald's own gun isn't being used (but yet IS the rifle "planted" to
> frame Oswald with).
>
> CTers want the cake, all the icing, and the baking pan too -- and they
> simply cannot have all of the above and have a CHANCE of success.
>

Results. Whether it was perfectly executed or not, it worked.

> But, in a CT Dream World, I guess it would be possible.
>
> Sweet Patsy dreams.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 12:45:10 PM2/13/06
to
David VP wrote:

Yes, it was a very good plan. It would have worked flawlessly except
that Oswald's rifle malfunctioned.

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 6:55:23 PM2/13/06
to
David VP wrote:
> >> "If you are willing to believe LHO got lucky twice, is it anymore unrealistic to consider the CT line, given that the conspirators had unlimited access to evidence, witness-intimidation and control of the crime scene?"
>
>
> You jest (surely).
=========
I surely do not jest.

Will

>
> Yes...that "CT" scenario is FAR more "unrealistic", and everybody knows
> (or should know) why.

Actually, *which* scenario?


>
> You actually think that that CT scenario is as realistic (or more so)
> than a simple Oswald-Did-It-Alone conclusion?

Yes, with emphasis, *yes*
Because the LHO-alone conclusion deletes so many other legitimate
parameters such as motive.
Remember, this isn't a liquor-store robbery.

With the CT scenario
> featuring a band of conspirators (who MUST have been in cahoots with
> the after-the-shooting Govt. cover-uppers as well, correct?)

NO, NO, NO. crypts, dead-drops and all that spy stuff. The assasins
probably never knew who ordered the hit.
Quote Willi Cicci, in GodFatherII senate hearings:
Did you ever get an order directly from Michael Corleone?...
...The family had alot of buffers.

arranging
> to shoot just one almost-stationary target in the OPEN, in front of
> hundreds of WITNESSES, while using SEVERAL GUNS, while at the same time
> trying to frame just ONE PATSY -- and then the plotters managed to
> coerce many doctors and other witnesses to just go with the LN flow,
> even though these people knew it was a lie?

Yes, and if you knew it was a lie, and you knew that they knew that you
knew and you knew firsthand that they just execucuted the executive,
how courageous would you be?
i.e. The Parkland personnel must have been petrified. I'll bet those
Docs had more valium than Roche and plently of "if I die in suspicious
circumstances" letters to their attorneys.


>
> And LHO, in reality, got "lucky" with just one shot ... the last one.
> That's only 33% accurate shooting. Nothing miraculous here. Far from
> it, in fact. Oswald missed 2 times of 3. What's so amazing about it

Whats amazing is that you don't properly setup the problem. I can do
90% on a 1ft square target at 20 meters, fast draw. But thats with a
well-maintained HK P7.
No special performance, given that the pistol is hearlded as the most
fast, accurate choice for this example; my performance, *in context* is
actually crappy.
For arguments sake, lets say I plan a murder of a VIP. And I am so
inept I can't drive a car. And my weapon is a crap $20 surplus carbine
with a cheap scope, which couldn't have been well-sighted if I brought
it to the "SN" disassembled (as it would have to have been, to fit into
my paper bag).
People get lucky, but what I am saying is that your scenario requires
as many, or more, presuppositions as most CTs.


> (other than in a CTer's head)?
>
>
> >> "Hell, if anything got seriously out of control, they could just arrange a gas-line leak at Parkland and blow everyone up."
>
>
> Sure. Great plan. That'll never trigger the "It Was A Conspiracy"
> portion of anyone's thought process, will it?

Of course it will, but that didn't stop Ruby from shooting the most
valuable piece of evidence on national TV!
At least with the explosion, its an "accident" and no one around while
the cameras film.
Rubys story was retaliation? He could say he was pissed that Parkland
couldn't save JFK.


>
> Better still -- Why didn't the plotters just "arrange" for the
> limousine to blow up (or enter Rod Serling's "Zone") BEFORE it got to
> Parkland, thereby destroying any and all evidence inside the car
> immediately?

1)JFK was already clearly dead.
2)It would suggest conspiracy *too much* as LHO had no access to the
limo.
3)An unexploded bomb would be a liability to the plotters. RDX dosen't
just happen upon a presidential car. Gas flows through big buildings
24/7.

Heydrich's assasins used a bomb, though, after their STEN (or BREN)
jammed. But they cared less about conspiracy. If anything, they would
want the NAZIs to think the Butcher of Prague had 10000 conspirators
plotting against him.

Context, politics, scale, money, motives, leitmotifs (Iran[Ajax],
Guatemala, Chile, RFK, MLK, Che, El Salvador, Nicaraugua, Columbia,
Bolivia, Iraq, Iraq).

>
> ~smirk~

~incredulity at your naievete~

aeffects

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 7:36:46 PM2/13/06
to
I do believe ADulles shat upon thee.... quiote nicely, too!
....

David VP

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 9:13:59 PM2/13/06
to
>> "People get lucky, but what I am saying is that your scenario requires as many, or more, presuppositions as most CTs."


It requires NO "presuppositions" in point of fact.

Why?

Because the physical evidence left behind by the murder weapon TELLS US
that Oswald's rifle (crappy as it may have been) was the ONLY weapon
that fired any bullets that hit anyone in JFK's car on 11/22.

Similar to the useless CT arguments re. the Tippit murder (that
argument being: Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th St. in time to
shoot Tippit) .... a similar type of CT argument proves to be totally
useless and moot with respect to the JFK murder weapon as well (with
that invalid CT argument being: Oswald's rifle could not possibly have
been the gun used to kill JFK because it was a rusty, defective,
mis-aligned POS that only cost $21.45).

Neither of the above arguments is worth a hill of beans ... because of
OTHER HARD EVIDENCE that trumps both CT arguments 100%.

There is still, to this day, ZERO hunks of physical ballistics evidence
that indicates any weapon other than Oswald's M-C rifle hit anyone on
Nov. 22nd.

Which, therefore, still indicates to this day that if a multi-gun
conspiracy existed in Dealey Plaza (as virtually all CTers believe),
there was a wide-sweeping, comprehensive, grab-every-non-LHO-bullet
cover-up job performed by XX number of conspirators after the fact --
including the EXTRA, unexpected task of getting rid of XX number of
bullets that hit a person (JBC) other than the intended target.

And these plotters did it all just perfectly, per most CT accounts,
even though Connally and Kennedy could very well have had XX number of
missiles stuck inside them when they arrived at Parkland.*

* = And they DID have multiple NON-OSWALD bullets inside them too, per
CT accounts of events --- e.g., JFK's neck bullet, caused by some
oddball low-powered weapon....plus JFK's back-wound bullet, again
caused by a low-powered weapon evidently, since it only goes into him a
couple of inches; these wounds make NO sense from the assassins' POV,
because why on Earth would any pro assassins shoot TWO dum-dum type of
non-fatal bullets at the target; that's pure stupidity....plus the XX
number of bullets that CTers say pelted Gov. Connally, which were all
never seen by any non-plotters either.

The "hide-the-bullets-before-somebody-gets-wise" plot only gets sillier
and sillier the more any logical person thinks about it.

But the LHO/LN/3-Shot scenario fits perfectly, to a tee, right down the
line -- from the TSBD evidence (rifle/shells), to the fragments inside
the limo, to the witness testimony, to the SBT alignment, to CE399, to
the autopsy report, and to the fact that NO OTHER BULLETS were found
anyplace that could be connected with the victims' wounds.

And to think that this amount of LHO-hanging stuff could have possibly
ALL been "faked" and/or "arranged" by evil plotters after the fact in
such a short time period is to believe in magic (literally).

To repeat a quote I've mentioned before from Larry Sturdivan's
well-done book "The JFK Myths" (and it's a quote every CTer should jot
down and stick to their refrigerator for future reference, because it
makes so much logical sense) ----

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole, with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is in
complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." --- "The JFK
Myths"; Page 246

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 10:10:59 PM2/13/06
to
David VP wrote:
> >> "People get lucky, but what I am saying is that your scenario requires as many, or more, presuppositions as most CTs."
>
>
> It requires NO "presuppositions" in point of fact.
>

In point of fact, you must, to believe LHO-lone-gunman, assume:

CE139 was really LHO's weapon. (see
http://www.geocities.com/whiskey99a/carcano.html)
That windows and manholes were not sealed, and watched; that security
was woefully understaffed, by chance.
That JFK's open car poked through Dallas on a lethal route, because no
one in Dallas would threaten JFK.
That no evidence tampering occured.
That no witnesses were coerced or threatened.
That no witnesses were silenced.
That Ruby was just a second "lone-nut"
That no one other than Oswald had motive, means, opportunity, and
access to "the SN. "
That Oswald was witnessed in the act.
and much more...

Will

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 12:15:34 AM2/14/06
to
Bud wrote:
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Bud wrote:
> > > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > David VP wrote:
> > > > > Oh for heaven's sake! If you want to pick-and-choose certain unrelated
> > > > > things and decide to "link" them together with make-believe "conspiracy
> > > > > rope", sure, anyone could ask "What Are The Odds?" and probably raise a
> > > > > few eyebrows.
> > > > >
> > > > > The opposition can easily do the same thing (even more so actually,
> > > > > given the wealth of "Oswald-Did-It" evidence to work with in this
> > > > > case):
> > > > >
> > > > > E.G.:
> > > > >
> > > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > > >
> > > > > Of the JFK murder actually having been a conspiracy and YET also having
> > > > > every piece of physical evidence in the whole case come back to the
> > > > > feet of the one man who happens to own the rifle up on the 6th Floor
> > > > > (and who was seen firing a shot at JFK's car)?
> > > > >
> > > > Nobody saw Oswald fire from the TSBD. Only Brennan
> > >
> > > That was a quick reversal.
> > >
> > He saw the gun actually being fired?
>
There is photographic evidence of Brennan NOT looking up at the TSBD
sixth floor window during the shooting.

> That is what the man said.
>
> > > > after being
> > > > kidnapped for 3 weeks by the FBI decided to after not identifying him
> > > > the day of the assassination.
> > >
> > > Yah, it was the bamboo under the fingernails that made this deeply
> > > religious man bear false witness under oath. Kooky theory, lucky you
> > > have so much to back up this
> > > innuendo.
> > >
> > You should ask his boss, Sandy Speaker.
>
> Why do you say this was his boss?
>

Because his boss was interviewed. They, the whole crew knocked off for
lunch and they were there as witnesses too. Jim Marr's interviewed
Speaker who stated that he was Brennan's foreman. Why would he state that
he was gone for three weeks? Why would he state that Brennan was never
the same man after he came back, and that he would never talk about the
assassination?

> > Don't you think he knows when
> > an employee has been absent and for what reason?
>
> According to Brennan, he went job to job straight out of the union
> hall.
>

Maybe they all did as subcontractors.

> > Maybe he had
> > something to protect when he came back like him and his family.
>
> Or maybe he told just what he saw, and any coercion is just the
> invention of crackpots who can`t accept reality.
>

He couldn't identify Oswald the day of the shooting. What makes you think
3 weeks of Marina type coersion is going to improve his already proven
poor eyesight?

> > God
> > would have understood.


>
> Then why did he include "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
> your neighbor" in the Ten Commandments?
>

As an ideal. Why didn't David get the death penalty for having Uriah
done in in battle so he could steal his wife?

> > > > There were many witnesses who observed
> > > > two men on the sixth floor.
> > >
> > > When the shots were fired?
> > >
> > No, and no Oz.
>
> They saw people in the TSBD. There were people in the TSBD.
>

Yeah, but two on the sixth floor near the time of the shooting is a
little much don't you think?

> > > > The weapon found only serves as your
> > > > crutch.
> > >
> > > Chuck it out, like any and all incriminating evidence against Oz.
> > > That way you pretend what happened is some kind of mystery.
> > >
> > Why we ain't achuckin'. Is the weapon the same as in the back yard
> > photos?
>
> Yah.
>
> > Was the weapon fired that day?
>
> <snicker> Still stuck on the easy ones?
>
> > Was it of the same type and
> > length as was supposedly ordered out of the Klein's Sporting Goods
> > catalogue?
>
> It was the same type and model as the one fired from the TSBD that
> day.
>

I believe that the gun is located in the Archives and nobody is allowed to
look at it. Klein's put a tracking number on their rifles and that is
public knowledge. Researchers have asked the people in charge there to
look for it, and they have and there is no tracking number.

> > > > You don't care about any questions concerning it.
> > >
> > > Kooks have created "questions" about this damning evidence only
> > > because they wish to ignore any indication of Oz`s guilt.
> > >
> > Oz could have been a willing patsy. Some like going down in a flame of
> > glory. Of course he could have been an unwilling patsy too. Is this
> > too much for your kooky brain, Bud?
>
> Anything that pops into you head is acceptable but reality. Oz as a
> lone gunman.
>

What pops in my mind is a lot of evidence that you are willing to look
into.

No, but you have that person as being Oz. You don't give any room for a
person killing Tippit, and heading conspicuously toward the theater to
draw attention there. There was no reason they should have been looking
for Oswald at that point for JFk or Tippit.

> > > > > And:
> > > > >
> > > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > > >
> > > > > Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
> > > > > gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
> > > > > Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
> > > > > news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
> > > > > report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
> > > > > the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
> > > > > Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
> > > > > have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
> > > > > 1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)
> > > >
> > > > You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it
> > > > has a good theory.
> > >
> > > You mean actual tangible evidence? Nice to have in a murder case.
> > >
> > Made the whole case for you, eh?
>
> You think Brennan was just lucky to indicate a window with shells
> under it? It`s all connected. There is no other reasonable
> explaination. Kooks won`t even venture one, they think picking away at
> what the WC found is good enough.
>

It's just a piece of potential evidence, not earth-shattering or
especially compelling. Isn't it stupid for a person to drop shells and
not hide them as they supposedly did with the gun?

> > What you going to do with the missed
> > bullet hitting the sidewalk?
>
> Nothing, You think you can`t figure out what happened unless every
> question you can think of is answered? You think a conviction can`t be
> obtained without accounting for the trajectory of all bullets,
> fragments, shrapnel, skull, ect?
>

Live witnesses reported that during the whole attack. One was
motorcyclist Chaney. The whole limo's passengers turned toward the right
when it happened. It is even reported in the SBT. It's evidence!

> > What you going to do with the slug, Agent
> > Barrett picked out of the grass?
>
> What slug? Got a picture of it?
>

It was picked out of the grass and put into evidence. Don't tell me why
it turned up missing later.

> > Aren't you even going to fire 'Oz's'
> > gun and see if it matches what the CE399 bullet looked like after he
> > hit the President twice?
>
> That isn`t the method they used.
>

Well, no testing got the little amount lost from CE399, unless you shoot
it in some water. Besides that bullet would not leave lots of fragments
that were reported by Humes in the autopsy. Of course you can have a
shooter using different bullets.

> > How come Hume found 50 little pieces in
> > JFK's brain at the autopsy? Come on bullet expert.
>
> Is this the game where I have to answer all questions to your
> satisfaction or you get to believe stupid shit. By all means, believe
> stupid shit CJ.
>

No, it's a game of evidence. If there is a snowstorm of fragments in the
brain, then you must tell us what cause it. Get some evidence from an
expert in ballistics or be forever a kook.

> > > > Unfortunately you must and ignore the cheek wound
> > > > of Mr. Tague,
> > >
> > > Don`t need to ignore it, or account for it.
> > >
> > I see, the SHT has come to fore.
>
> In what way does Tague`s wounding rule out Oz as lone assassin?
>

It doesn't but it backs it further into the most unlikely of corners. You
need a fragment of a bullet to get it. You have Tague saying that it came
before the last shot. You figure it out from there.

> > > > the first missed shot that struck pavement, ignore the
> > > > probabilities of the SBT,
> > >
> > > Missed the recreation on the Discovery Channel, did you?
> > >
> > I heard they got the trajectory from the sixth floor to the limo
> > assbackwards.
>
> "you heard"? Play loud music, drown out those voices, Curt. If they
> tell you to kill anyone, I urge you to ignore them.
>

Measure the sixth floor, how high it's up. Measure how close the limo
was for the shot. Simple mathmatics.

> > Wasn't it more like a 45 to 60 degree shot, that would
> > have had a 'smart' bullet not even going in JBC's seat area?
>
> Thirty degrees is more like, lining up the wounds back to the TSBD.
>

Well try 45 or 60 degrees. Even if it was 30, and where it hit in the
back, 6 inches below the neckline, it would not go near the throat.

> > Did not 3
> > people testify that a bullet dropped out of the sheets from the back
> > area when they lifted him from the coffin at Bethesda?
>
> Yah, and another dropped out during the autopsy, according to the
> x-ray tech. JFK was riddled like Bonnie and Clyde`s car. So, that was
> the plan, shoot a bunch of bullets, and then court disaster by
> collecting all the bullets. Lets see, *they* swooped in and got the
> bullet from Agent Barret, the coffin bullet, the autopsy bullet and
> the stretcher bullet. Wherever a bullet falls, *they* are there to
> effortlessly appear and neutralize this damning evidence. A thinking
> person might wonder why they would trust their luck to be everywhere to
> collect bullets when the easy shot at 313 was the only one needed. And,
> of course, kooks are left holding their dicks, with none of this
> evidence to produce. So, either their was no conspiracy, or one of
> superhuman precision, well above the capabilities of mere kooks to
> uncover.
>

Don't worry Bud, even if there were just three, Oz couldn't have fired
them and hit his target. Just didn't happen. You want you loser to be
better than Buffalo Bill Cody, and you just can't.

> > > > ignore the ear, nose, and eye witnesses of at
> > > > least one person firing from the Grassy Knoll with the remnants of
> > > > smoke emission and it's smell.
> > >
> > > This can never be laid to rest because someone said they smelled
> > > smoke? There was no gunman on the gnoll, which accounts for there being
> > > no movement in this direction in 40-plus years. There is just nowhere
> > > to go.
> > >
> > Are you counting on the smoke from the sixth floor of the TSBD wafting
> > to your wind swept delight? Nowhere to go?
>
> Thanks for the example. Are you planning on going somewhere with the
> 6th floor smoke any time soon? Won`t it be an issue frozen in time when
> the 100th anniversary rolls around?
>

Sixth floor smoke? They were inside and didn't smell any. They could
have put their nose to the rifle and said, "oh what a bad smell", but
they didn't did they?

> > There wasn't anybody up
> > there for 70 seconds after the final shots. It's a parking lot. None
> > of the cars were ever checked.
>
> Quick, check them now. And the trunks. Leave no stone unturned,
> kooks are unsatisfied.
>

Don't go the GK then? Don't go to any other building where they could
have fired from? If you see three bullets lying around, case closed
boys, Bud's said.

> > Fire and put it in the car. Fire and
> > put it in the tool box. Fire and put it in the storm drain. Fire at
> > put it in your coat. Fire and walk away. Fire and sit in the storm
> > drain. Fire, and walk to a railroad car. Fire and mingle with the so
> > called secret police that were there, (that were not on duty). Fire
> > and give it to the Secret Police.
>
> That a kook can imagine things endlessly is not in dispute.
>

Asking what could have been is the beginning of good police work.
Closing the case after one day is Bud's idea of an investigation.

> > > > Then, again you must ignore all the
> > > > medical evidence describing a blowout in the back of JFK's head,
> > >
> > > Autopsy?
> > >
> > Which notes you prefer, the burnt one's or the fresh one's?
> >
> > > > and
> > > > the frontal tiny hole in the throat by Parkland doctors which would be
> > > > impossible for a shot entering from the back from the sixth floor and
> > > > it's trajectory. I think your odds are in the google range.
> > >
> > > So, it entered the throat, and exited where? The back? How does that
> > > line up back to the knoll? Couldn`t just be that the shots came from
> > > where people reported a gunman, saw a rifle, and shells were found, eh?
> > > Naw, too easy.
> >
> > I believe there was one report of a bullet in JFK's lung.
>
> Point to it in the x-rays.
>

What x-rays? There were x-rays taken before the autopsy and after. Two
Parkland doctors have stated such when the were just plain observing.
One of the FBI officers at the autopsy stated that a missile and not a
fragment was removed on the 22nd of Nov, 1963 before they had to get their
'act' together. The first set of x-rays performed by Custer was reported
missing by him.

> > It could
> > have stayed in the body.
>
> Or the report was faulty.
>

Or it could have stayed in the body.


> > It could have possibly been a lower back
> > wound. People reporting a gunman? Nobody saw Oz.
>
> One did. Brennan.
>

and Mr. Magoo is watching us now.

> > Nobody really saw
> > firing from the TSBD.
>
> At least one did. Brennan.
>

Cite photographic evidence please.

> > People did hear gunfire from both directions,
>
> The vast majority of people only indicated one direction for all the
> shots they heard.
> That is a strong indicator that all the shots came from one location.
>

Ask the boys on the Triple Underpass or the crew from Brennan's work
project, the kind of witnesses they didn't like.

> > especially reliable were the people standing between both places and
> > hearing from both directions.
>
> What scientific method did you use to establish this reliability?
>
> > It's really too easy to ignore what you
> > don't like to hear.
>
> <snicker> Why did Oz tell Fritz he didn`t own a rifle? Oh, thats
> right, you ignore that because it isn`t what you want to hear.
>

They told Fritz to stop the investigation. That's what you don't want
to hear.

> > The bullets in you sixth floor are only your
> > 'catharsis'.
>
> Yah, evidence that shots were fired from the location witnesses said
> shots were fired from. See how that works?
>

Of course, evidence to a LNT'er is like kryptonite to Superman.

> > CJ
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > CJ


ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 9:45:50 AM2/14/06
to
Bud wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > David VP wrote:
> > >>> "You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it as a good theory. ... You must and ignore the cheek wound of Mr. Tague."
> > >
> > >
> > > And just exactly why are the 3 TSBD shells NOT good evidence? Why are
> > > they considered "unreliable"? (Answer -- Because some CTer says so,
> > > that's why. 'Nuff said.)
> > >
> > > And no LNer "ignores" the Tague wounding. Why you're saying this is
> > > anybody's guess, because it's dead wrong. The first (missed) shot
> > > probably caused the Tague wound.
> > >
> >
> > Why can't you WC defenders agree on anything. Lattimer, Studivan many
> > other WC defenders claim that Tague was injured by a fragment from the
> > head shot.
>
> People don`t agree because it can`t be positively established. No
> big deal, you don`t need every detail positively established to figure
> out the basics. That Oz took his rifle to work, and shot some people
> with it from there.

>
> > >>> "I think your odds are in the google range."
> > >
> > > And the odds that CTers will ignore (or mysteriously skew for no real
> > > good reason) all of the raw physical evidence in the case are ....
> > > quite high. In fact, it is a certainty.
> > >
> > > Because the CTers have no choice but to "ignore" all of the following
> > > items till the cows march home ---
> > >
> > > 1.) The Autopsy Report, which not only backs up the "LN" scenario, but
> > > also provides the very important first step towards the adoption of the
> > > SBT (which is often ignored as well)....because it wasn't Specter who
> > > wrote this in the Autopsy Report: "The missile contused the strap
> > > muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, AND MADE
> > > ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF THE NECK." (Emphasis mine.)
> > >
> >
> > Which autopsy report do you mean? Do you mean the FIRST autopsy report?
> > You know, the one which indicated conspiracy? The one which had an ice
> > bullet hitting JFK's back and penetrating only an inch?
>
> What kind of autopsy spreculates "ice bullets"? And the wound was
> probed an inch, that is not to say that was the extent of the wound.
>
> > > 2.) The WC testimony of every autopsy doctor who testified to NO
> > > FRONTAL SHOT HITTING KENNEDY.
> > >
> > > 3.) The authenicated autopsy photos & X-rays.
> > >
> > > 4.) Oswald's rifle being positively linked to every bullet and fragment
> > > and shell in the whole case.
> > >
> > > 5.) The eyewitnesses who apparently ALL LIED when IDing LHO as both
> > > JFK's and Tippit's killer (and, IMO, letting Oswald off for this 2nd
> > > 11/22 murder is sickening and only tells me that ANYTHING else such a
> > > CTer says cannot be believed, even remotely so, because their
> > > pro-conspiracy bias is blatantly obvious via their silly claim that
> > > Oswald was innocent of killing Tippit too).
> > >
> > > 6.) Oswald's own fingerprints being DEEP INSIDE the SN on 11/22. This
> > > is undeniable solid evidence Oswald was in that Nest on 11/22. (Esp.
> > > when coupled with the shells and eyewitness accounts and his rifle
> > > being nearby.)
> > >
> >
> > Oswald worked there so of course his fingerprints would be found there.
>
Bud wrote:
> Yah? He just happened to be filling orders from the boxes right in
> the SN? And the known prints found in that vicintity were exclusively
> his, not any of the other workers in the TSBD?
>
========
So finding at the warehouse in which he carried boxes, his palm print
on a piece of tape which was removed, then reattached, means he was at
SN during the killing?
This is on par with the looniest CT logic. Pick and choose evidence to
support LN. And if anyone suggests LHO might not be fully culpable,
then that person is a hater of JFK and a bleeeding-heart for "poor
little, sweet Oz."

Were all the boxes sampled for ratio of LHO/others prints? Why attach
so much weight to one box? Were there other prints on that box? In what
orientation? Was the stacking of boxes consistent with the rest of the
SN, the 6th floor, the whole place. Whats the story on just how LHO got
into place prior to the shooting?

And in the Tippet scene, LHO was armed and suspicious. Whether or not
he was a sincere Marxist, he had the reputation. JFK had just been
killed. I wonder how many other Texans were armed and suspicious in
those hours after the assasination.

Will
=====

> > In this latest murder case in Hopkinton, the husband's fingerprints were
> > found in the house. Do you think that Martha would be stupid enough to
> > claim that this fact proves that the husband was the murderer?
>
> Marsh produces an orange, and compares it to an apple.

In a large
> workplace, those prints put Oz in the out-of-the-way place the shots
> were fired from. Unless you think that the boxes with Oz`s prints were
> moved there. Then you have the astounding coincidence of boxes
> containing Oz`s prints being moved to the vicintity the shots were
> fired and Oz`s rifle, used in the assassination, being found on that
> floor.
>

=====
"out-of-the-way" by what standard? You take something qualitative and
trump it into statistical when there are no damn statistics about the
box and fingerprint distributions. Even if there were, that analysis
would lead to speculation, I believe.

And, it seems some of what we CTers have been saying has finally sunk
in.
Of course shit was moved if there was a goddamned conspiracy.
Will
====

> > > 7.) The paper bag (with Oswald's prints on it in the exact places Buell
> > > Frazier said Oswald's were located on the bag he carried into work on
> > > 11/22). This is a biggie to simply "ignore", IMO. Some amazing
> > > "coincidences" are going to have to be proven to have that bag NOT
> > > being the one Oswald took into work that Friday.
> > >
> > > So, CTers must, in effect, "ignore" or skew the reliabilty of EVERY
> > > LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in both the JFK and Tippit murder
> > > cases. They have no choice but to skew/ignore it -- because it ALL
> > > spells "Oswald's A Cop-Killing, President-Murdering Bastard".
> > >
> >
> > The problem is that WC defenders must refuse to look at the evidence
> > which conspiracy believers cite because it all spells conspiracy.
>
> Like?
>
> > > Everyone should read "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan. It cuts
> > > through the pro-CT tripe, to the crux of the whole case (i.e., the
> > > physical evidence...which ALL could not have been fabricated to frame
> > > Oswald if the whole FBI and the entire DPD had been involved in the
> > > frame-up)......
> >
> > You apparently did not read my criticisms of the JFK Myths, where I
> > showed where Sturdivan simply lied about facts.
>
> I didn`t bother reading it either.


>
> > >
> > > "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
> > > been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
> > > team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated

> > > whole .... with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
> > > in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- "The JFK
> > > Myths" (Pg. 246)
> > >


=========
Yah, just take a hit of acid and play with a kaliedoscope; you'll have
the universe sorted out no superhuman skills req'd.

Seriously, the WC decision on whether evidence is "fake" or "real" is
largely subjective. Where are the "fake" pieces and errors, bound to
accrue in an operation of the magnitude in which upwards of 10^6 pages
are produced? "Falsifiability" does not seem to be a standard in WC.

"If the glove dosen't fit, just stretch it," seems to characterize the
WC and adherents.

btw: WC couldn't be a more apt acronym.
WILL

David VP

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 7:46:24 PM2/14/06
to
>> "And in the Tippet [sic] scene, LHO was armed and suspicious. .... I wonder how many other Texans were armed and suspicious in those hours after the assassination."


Possibly quite a few....with the big glaringly-obvious difference being
--- Only one man in the state of Texas (or on planet Earth) had the
Tippit murder weapon ON HIS PERSON (while trying to kill somebody else
with it) when he was arrested just blocks from where the officer was
killed. And only one person in Texas was seen murdering the policeman
and seen dumping shells from his gun while fleeing.

And guess who that one person might have been?

Each post that attempts to cast doubt on Oswald's obvious guilt in the
Tippit murder is one more reason to vomit....and is also one more very
good reason for disregarding EVERYTHING ELSE a paranoid (or flat-out
stupid) CTer who wants Oswald innocent of the Tippit murder has to say
about anything JFK related.

aeffects

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 7:55:09 PM2/14/06
to
Is that a fact? So many questions and only VonPeanut with answers...

Sounds like Myer's has a glee club arisi'n...

Message has been deleted

David VP

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 8:06:21 PM2/14/06
to
There are no "questions" at all about who killed Officer J.D. Tippit.
None. The only people who have ANY doubts about that particular murder
are the lifelong members of the CT Paranoid Squad, who NEED (for some
silly reason) to have Squeaky-Clean Lee Harvey innocent of ALL
wrong-doing on 11/22.

Barney Fife could solve the Tippit case in less than a day, given the
stuff on the table saying who did it.

Bud

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 8:32:51 PM2/14/06
to

curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Bud wrote:
> > > > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > > David VP wrote:
> > > > > > Oh for heaven's sake! If you want to pick-and-choose certain unrelated
> > > > > > things and decide to "link" them together with make-believe "conspiracy
> > > > > > rope", sure, anyone could ask "What Are The Odds?" and probably raise a
> > > > > > few eyebrows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The opposition can easily do the same thing (even more so actually,
> > > > > > given the wealth of "Oswald-Did-It" evidence to work with in this
> > > > > > case):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > E.G.:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of the JFK murder actually having been a conspiracy and YET also having
> > > > > > every piece of physical evidence in the whole case come back to the
> > > > > > feet of the one man who happens to own the rifle up on the 6th Floor
> > > > > > (and who was seen firing a shot at JFK's car)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Nobody saw Oswald fire from the TSBD. Only Brennan
> > > >
> > > > That was a quick reversal.
> > > >
> > > He saw the gun actually being fired?
> >
> There is photographic evidence of Brennan NOT looking up at the TSBD
> sixth floor window during the shooting.

Well, if you had a photo that was established to have been taken
exactly when the shot that Brennan claimed to have seen fired, and it
showed Brennan looking elsewhere but towards the TSBD, then Brennan
would be impeached, wouldn`t he? But that isn`t what you have, is it?

> > That is what the man said.
> >
> > > > > after being
> > > > > kidnapped for 3 weeks by the FBI decided to after not identifying him
> > > > > the day of the assassination.
> > > >
> > > > Yah, it was the bamboo under the fingernails that made this deeply
> > > > religious man bear false witness under oath. Kooky theory, lucky you
> > > > have so much to back up this
> > > > innuendo.
> > > >
> > > You should ask his boss, Sandy Speaker.
> >
> > Why do you say this was his boss?
> >
>
> Because his boss was interviewed.

Why do you say this was his boss?

> They, the whole crew knocked off for
> lunch and they were there as witnesses too.

Not in Dealy Plaze, were they?

> Jim Marr's interviewed
> Speaker who stated that he was Brennan's foreman.

Wasn`t Brennan`s mailman available?

> Why would he state that
> he was gone for three weeks?

How many years after the fact did he say this?

> Why would he state that Brennan was never
> the same man after he came back,

Yah, said the FBI made his hair turn white. <snicker>

> and that he would never talk about the
> assassination?

If Brennan never spoke to Speakes about the assassination, then it
stands to reason that Speakes doesn`t have anything to contribute as
far as Brennan and the assassination.

> > > Don't you think he knows when
> > > an employee has been absent and for what reason?
> >
> > According to Brennan, he went job to job straight out of the union
> > hall.
> >
>
> Maybe they all did as subcontractors.

If Speaks was his foreman, then Speakes may have been part of a crew
sent by the union hall. There are two main ways union labor works here
in Philly. Either you hire a union company with union members, or you
call the hall and explain your project, and they`ll tell you what the
requirements are by a formula, like 5 mechanics might require a foreman
and so many apprentices, journeymen, ect. If Speakes was running a crew
from the hall, he wasn`t Brennan`s boss, he couldn`t fire him and he
didn`t pay him, he just was overseer of the work.

> > > Maybe he had
> > > something to protect when he came back like him and his family.
> >
> > Or maybe he told just what he saw, and any coercion is just the
> > invention of crackpots who can`t accept reality.
> >
>
> He couldn't identify Oswald the day of the shooting.

"didn`t", not "couldn`t"

> What makes you think
> 3 weeks of Marina type coersion

You mean the coersion kooks invent in order to ignore what the
witnesses have to say?

> is going to improve his already proven
> poor eyesight?

He proved his eyesight was fine when he identified the black guys
who were on the fifth floor when they exited the building.

> > > God
> > > would have understood.
> >
> > Then why did he include "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
> > your neighbor" in the Ten Commandments?
> >
>
> As an ideal. Why didn't David get the death penalty for having Uriah
> done in in battle so he could steal his wife?

I`m not sure how that part could influence Brennan`s testifying. Nor
do I know what means the FBI could employ to get a deeply religious man
to bear false witness.

> > > > > There were many witnesses who observed
> > > > > two men on the sixth floor.
> > > >
> > > > When the shots were fired?
> > > >
> > > No, and no Oz.
> >
> > They saw people in the TSBD. There were people in the TSBD.
> >
> Yeah, but two on the sixth floor near the time of the shooting is a
> little much don't you think?

Why, there were two men known to be on that floor around this time.
Rowland (?) saw a slender white or light skinned hispanic with a rifle
(Oz), and a black man. Williams was on that floor shortly before the
assassination.

> > > > > The weapon found only serves as your
> > > > > crutch.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck it out, like any and all incriminating evidence against Oz.
> > > > That way you pretend what happened is some kind of mystery.
> > > >
> > > Why we ain't achuckin'. Is the weapon the same as in the back yard
> > > photos?
> >
> > Yah.
> >
> > > Was the weapon fired that day?
> >
> > <snicker> Still stuck on the easy ones?
> >
> > > Was it of the same type and
> > > length as was supposedly ordered out of the Klein's Sporting Goods
> > > catalogue?
> >
> > It was the same type and model as the one fired from the TSBD that
> > day.
> >
>
> I believe that the gun is located in the Archives and nobody is allowed to
> look at it. Klein's put a tracking number on their rifles and that is
> public knowledge. Researchers have asked the people in charge there to
> look for it, and they have and there is no tracking number.

So you can`t establish that the rifle found isn`t the one Klein
sent, right?

> > > > > You don't care about any questions concerning it.
> > > >
> > > > Kooks have created "questions" about this damning evidence only
> > > > because they wish to ignore any indication of Oz`s guilt.
> > > >
> > > Oz could have been a willing patsy. Some like going down in a flame of
> > > glory. Of course he could have been an unwilling patsy too. Is this
> > > too much for your kooky brain, Bud?
> >
> > Anything that pops into you head is acceptable but reality. Oz as a
> > lone gunman.
> >
>
> What pops in my mind is a lot of evidence that you are willing to look
> into.

Kooks have been looking into this for over forty years with nothing
to show for it.

Of course it`s Oz. Don`t be stupid.

> You don't give any room for a
> person killing Tippit, and heading conspicuously toward the theater to
> draw attention there. There was no reason they should have been looking
> for Oswald at that point for JFk or Tippit.

Other than the fact that he killed both of these people, no. People
saw Oz acting suspicious, and notified the police. The police then did
something kooks have proven unable to, they made a connection between
this suspicious person engaging in suspicious behavior in the vicinty
that a murder took place in. And it paid off, as the caught the killer
red handed with the murder weapon. In fact, he tried to kill the
arresting officers. Sit around for another 40 years trying to figure
out how everything that implicates Oz for these crimes is a mirage, and
everything not in evidence is substantial.

> > > > > > And:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
> > > > > > gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
> > > > > > Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
> > > > > > news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
> > > > > > report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
> > > > > > the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
> > > > > > Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
> > > > > > have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
> > > > > > 1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)
> > > > >
> > > > > You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it
> > > > > has a good theory.
> > > >
> > > > You mean actual tangible evidence? Nice to have in a murder case.
> > > >
> > > Made the whole case for you, eh?
> >
> > You think Brennan was just lucky to indicate a window with shells
> > under it? It`s all connected. There is no other reasonable
> > explaination. Kooks won`t even venture one, they think picking away at
> > what the WC found is good enough.
> >
>
> It's just a piece of potential evidence, not earth-shattering or
> especially compelling.

Of course shells found under the window numerous people pointed to as
the source of the shots isn`t compelling.

> Isn't it stupid for a person to drop shells and
> not hide them as they supposedly did with the gun?

I find it hard to criticize the job Oz did, as he achieved his
objective, and got clear of the building unapprehended. Had he stopped
to pick of the shells, he likely would have been nabbed by Baker coming
down the steps, a much more suspicious occurance than being in the
lunchroom.

> > > What you going to do with the missed
> > > bullet hitting the sidewalk?
> >
> > Nothing, You think you can`t figure out what happened unless every
> > question you can think of is answered? You think a conviction can`t be
> > obtained without accounting for the trajectory of all bullets,
> > fragments, shrapnel, skull, ect?
> >
>
> Live witnesses reported that during the whole attack. One was
> motorcyclist Chaney. The whole limo's passengers turned toward the right
> when it happened. It is even reported in the SBT. It's evidence!

Did anyone any limo passenger say they turned to the right because
they felt shots came from the grassy knoll?

> > > What you going to do with the slug, Agent
> > > Barrett picked out of the grass?
> >
> > What slug? Got a picture of it?
> >
>
> It was picked out of the grass and put into evidence. Don't tell me why
> it turned up missing later.

What kind of slug did Agent Barret say it was?

> > > Aren't you even going to fire 'Oz's'
> > > gun and see if it matches what the CE399 bullet looked like after he
> > > hit the President twice?
> >
> > That isn`t the method they used.
> >
>
> Well, no testing got the little amount lost from CE399, unless you shoot
> it in some water. Besides that bullet would not leave lots of fragments
> that were reported by Humes in the autopsy. Of course you can have a
> shooter using different bullets.
>
> > > How come Hume found 50 little pieces in
> > > JFK's brain at the autopsy? Come on bullet expert.
> >
> > Is this the game where I have to answer all questions to your
> > satisfaction or you get to believe stupid shit. By all means, believe
> > stupid shit CJ.
> >
>
> No, it's a game of evidence. If there is a snowstorm of fragments in the
> brain, then you must tell us what cause it. Get some evidence from an
> expert in ballistics or be forever a kook.

First show an x-ray that shows a snowstorm of fragments.

> > > > > Unfortunately you must and ignore the cheek wound
> > > > > of Mr. Tague,
> > > >
> > > > Don`t need to ignore it, or account for it.
> > > >
> > > I see, the SHT has come to fore.
> >
> > In what way does Tague`s wounding rule out Oz as lone assassin?
> >
>
> It doesn't but it backs it further into the most unlikely of corners. You
> need a fragment of a bullet to get it.

Not true.

> You have Tague saying that it came
> before the last shot.

Which means it may or may not have. What is there, 3 seconds between
the second and third shots. A lot going on in that little bit of time.

> You figure it out from there.

No need. Tague was wounded by a fragment of a bullet, or something
that was hit by a bullet causing it to fly and hit Tague.

> > > > > the first missed shot that struck pavement, ignore the
> > > > > probabilities of the SBT,
> > > >
> > > > Missed the recreation on the Discovery Channel, did you?
> > > >
> > > I heard they got the trajectory from the sixth floor to the limo
> > > assbackwards.
> >
> > "you heard"? Play loud music, drown out those voices, Curt. If they
> > tell you to kill anyone, I urge you to ignore them.
> >
> Measure the sixth floor, how high it's up. Measure how close the limo
> was for the shot. Simple mathmatics.

Yah. Last time I saw it done, Walt was butchering the math.

> > > Wasn't it more like a 45 to 60 degree shot, that would
> > > have had a 'smart' bullet not even going in JBC's seat area?
> >
> > Thirty degrees is more like, lining up the wounds back to the TSBD.
> >
> Well try 45 or 60 degrees. Even if it was 30, and where it hit in the
> back, 6 inches below the neckline, it would not go near the throat.

Could and did.

> > > Did not 3
> > > people testify that a bullet dropped out of the sheets from the back
> > > area when they lifted him from the coffin at Bethesda?
> >
> > Yah, and another dropped out during the autopsy, according to the
> > x-ray tech. JFK was riddled like Bonnie and Clyde`s car. So, that was
> > the plan, shoot a bunch of bullets, and then court disaster by
> > collecting all the bullets. Lets see, *they* swooped in and got the
> > bullet from Agent Barret, the coffin bullet, the autopsy bullet and
> > the stretcher bullet. Wherever a bullet falls, *they* are there to
> > effortlessly appear and neutralize this damning evidence. A thinking
> > person might wonder why they would trust their luck to be everywhere to
> > collect bullets when the easy shot at 313 was the only one needed. And,
> > of course, kooks are left holding their dicks, with none of this
> > evidence to produce. So, either their was no conspiracy, or one of
> > superhuman precision, well above the capabilities of mere kooks to
> > uncover.
> >
>
> Don't worry Bud, even if there were just three, Oz couldn't have fired
> them and hit his target. Just didn't happen. You want you loser to be
> better than Buffalo Bill Cody, and you just can't.

An easy shot a kid could make. Why do they give soldiers rifles if
this shot can`t be made? We`d still be using bows and arrows if this
myth were true.

> > > > > ignore the ear, nose, and eye witnesses of at
> > > > > least one person firing from the Grassy Knoll with the remnants of
> > > > > smoke emission and it's smell.
> > > >
> > > > This can never be laid to rest because someone said they smelled
> > > > smoke? There was no gunman on the gnoll, which accounts for there being
> > > > no movement in this direction in 40-plus years. There is just nowhere
> > > > to go.
> > > >
> > > Are you counting on the smoke from the sixth floor of the TSBD wafting
> > > to your wind swept delight? Nowhere to go?
> >
> > Thanks for the example. Are you planning on going somewhere with the
> > 6th floor smoke any time soon? Won`t it be an issue frozen in time when
> > the 100th anniversary rolls around?
> >
> Sixth floor smoke? They were inside and didn't smell any. They could
> have put their nose to the rifle and said, "oh what a bad smell", but
> they didn't did they?

Is this what you see happen in the movies?

> > > There wasn't anybody up
> > > there for 70 seconds after the final shots. It's a parking lot. None
> > > of the cars were ever checked.
> >
> > Quick, check them now. And the trunks. Leave no stone unturned,
> > kooks are unsatisfied.
> >
> Don't go the GK then?

And find?

> Don't go to any other building where they could
> have fired from?

Yah, they should have searched all the buildings but the one the
shots came from.

> If you see three bullets lying around, case closed
> boys, Bud's said.

Damn Dallas Police just didn`t apply enough kook imagination, I
guess. They should have stood around trying to figure how they can have
people saying shots were fired from this location, and shell casings
were found at this location, and a rifle is found at this location, yet
try to figure some way this could add up to no person shooting from
here and no evidence found here.

> > > Fire and put it in the car. Fire and
> > > put it in the tool box. Fire and put it in the storm drain. Fire at
> > > put it in your coat. Fire and walk away. Fire and sit in the storm
> > > drain. Fire, and walk to a railroad car. Fire and mingle with the so
> > > called secret police that were there, (that were not on duty). Fire
> > > and give it to the Secret Police.
> >
> > That a kook can imagine things endlessly is not in dispute.
> >
> Asking what could have been is the beginning of good police work.
> Closing the case after one day is Bud's idea of an investigation.

Any investigator who couldn`t figure this thing out in one day is
in the wrong business.

> > > > > Then, again you must ignore all the
> > > > > medical evidence describing a blowout in the back of JFK's head,
> > > >
> > > > Autopsy?
> > > >
> > > Which notes you prefer, the burnt one's or the fresh one's?
> > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > the frontal tiny hole in the throat by Parkland doctors which would be
> > > > > impossible for a shot entering from the back from the sixth floor and
> > > > > it's trajectory. I think your odds are in the google range.
> > > >
> > > > So, it entered the throat, and exited where? The back? How does that
> > > > line up back to the knoll? Couldn`t just be that the shots came from
> > > > where people reported a gunman, saw a rifle, and shells were found, eh?
> > > > Naw, too easy.
> > >
> > > I believe there was one report of a bullet in JFK's lung.
> >
> > Point to it in the x-rays.
> >
>
> What x-rays?

The x-rays that show the bullet in Kennedy`s lung. If there was one
there, the chest x-rays would show it, no?

> There were x-rays taken before the autopsy and after. Two
> Parkland doctors have stated such when the were just plain observing.
> One of the FBI officers at the autopsy stated that a missile and not a
> fragment was removed on the 22nd of Nov, 1963 before they had to get their
> 'act' together. The first set of x-rays performed by Custer was reported
> missing by him.
>
> > > It could
> > > have stayed in the body.
> >
> > Or the report was faulty.
> >
> Or it could have stayed in the body.

Point to it in an x-ray.

> > > It could have possibly been a lower back
> > > wound. People reporting a gunman? Nobody saw Oz.
> >
> > One did. Brennan.
> >
> and Mr. Magoo is watching us now.

You said nobody saw Oz. One person said they did.

> > > Nobody really saw
> > > firing from the TSBD.
> >
> > At least one did. Brennan.
> >
>
> Cite photographic evidence please.

You want a picture of Brennan saying he saw Oz shooting from the
TSBD?

> > > People did hear gunfire from both directions,
> >
> > The vast majority of people only indicated one direction for all the
> > shots they heard.
> > That is a strong indicator that all the shots came from one location.
> >
>
> Ask the boys on the Triple Underpass or the crew from Brennan's work
> project, the kind of witnesses they didn't like.

The vast majority of people in Dealy Plaza at the time of the
assassination indicated only one direction that they felt shots came
from. That is a strong indicator that shots only came from one
direction.

> > > especially reliable were the people standing between both places and
> > > hearing from both directions.
> >
> > What scientific method did you use to establish this reliability?
> >
> > > It's really too easy to ignore what you
> > > don't like to hear.
> >
> > <snicker> Why did Oz tell Fritz he didn`t own a rifle? Oh, thats
> > right, you ignore that because it isn`t what you want to hear.
> >
>
> They told Fritz to stop the investigation. That's what you don't want
> to hear.

Fritz had amassed enough information to figure out what happened.

> > > The bullets in you sixth floor are only your
> > > 'catharsis'.
> >
> > Yah, evidence that shots were fired from the location witnesses said
> > shots were fired from. See how that works?
> >
>
> Of course, evidence to a LNT'er is like kryptonite to Superman.

<snicker> Kooks like the evidence they don`t have, missing bullets
and x-rays they dream of. They aren`t interested in the actual ones.

>
> > > CJ
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > CJ


ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 9:32:51 PM2/14/06
to


Okay, David.

Your post has piqued my interest. People saw LHO empty shells from a
revolver. Who? I'm not being combative at the moment. This is a
question for which I have wanted an answer for some time. Any
elucidation is welcome.
And lets just say you are right.
Did LHO kill Tippet because Tippett was supposed to do Ruby's job?
Did LHO kill Tippet because he thought Tippet was supposed to do Ruby's
job?
See, I think LHO was lured into feigning Marxist beliefs to ostensibly
gain credence with Castro people. Some spook filled his young mind with
007 crap. He thought he was on a heroic mission until JFK was hit. Then
he figured he was probably "the patsy." Survival became his motive.
Maybe Tippet just pulled his gun and LHO new it was kill or be killed.
No surrender option. But the whole department wasn't dirty, else they
would have killed him at the theatre.

Will

David VP

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 10:14:04 PM2/14/06
to
>> "People saw LHO empty shells from a revolver. Who?"


I'm sure you know the answer to your own question already (or should
know)...but I'll play. .....

Barbara J. Davis saw Oswald "unloading a gun" as he cut across her
yard. ....
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm

Virginia Davis saw Oswald "unloading his gun", too. ....
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

As for Oswald's motive for shooting Tippit -- IMO it's as obvious as a
CTers' paranoia .... Oswald feared being apprehended for the murder he
had just committed in Dealey Plaza 45 minutes earlier.

But, in the final analysis, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference
WHAT Oswald's motive was -- because he DID KILL TIPPIT, period.

Motive notwithstanding, Lee Harvey Oswald killed Officer J.D. Tippit.
And no CTer can undo this murder that Oswald committed, whether
everybody's watches were perfectly "synchronized" or not. (And why
anyone would think every witness on 10th St. had all their timepieces
set to perfect "Coordinated Universal Time" is just silly on its face.
Ask five people on the street sometime: "What time is it?" You'll
probably get at least three or four different answers re. the EXACT
time.)

tomnln

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 11:07:33 PM2/14/06
to
Virginia Davis's phone number was found in Ruby's note book.

Virginia's phone # in her signed affidavit is found at Volume XIX page 65.
Same phone number in Ruby's note book found in Volume XIX page 429


"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1139973244....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

David VP

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 11:25:11 PM2/14/06
to
>> "Virginia Davis's phone number was found in Ruby's note book."


Were the phone numbers of Scoggins, Markham, Tatum, Callaway, Reynolds,
Patterson, Lewis, et al, also in Ruby's book?

Because if the answer is "no", you'd better think up another conspiracy
theory that exonerates Oswald on Tenth Street.

tomnln

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 11:30:52 PM2/14/06
to
Hey Winky;

Don't you think it should have been an Avenue of Investigation?

While we're at it, How do you explain CIA employee James Wilcott's Testimony
that
Oswald was paid (by him) by the CIA?

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1139977511.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

David VP

unread,
Feb 14, 2006, 11:57:07 PM2/14/06
to
"Virginia Davis's phone number was found in Ruby's note book."


And don't forget this plot-exposing hunk of info ---- Abraham Zapruder
once knew and worked with George DeMohrenschildt's wife. And since the
DeMohrenschildts befriended Lee and Marina Oswald in 1962, can there be
ANY doubt about what this "connection" indicates?? .....

It obviously indicates "Conspiracy" of the first order! Zapruder
convinced Jeanne LeGon to marry George D. in 1959; Zapruder then
arranged for the Oswalds to get friendly with G&J; G&J and Mr. Z. then
concocted the "Let's Frame Oswald" scheme in Nov. '63. George D. is
"Badge Man", Jeanne was firing her rifle from the Dal-Tex, and Zapruder
filmed the assassination. Zapruder then "faked" his own film (to
eliminate all indications of George's and Jeanne's shots).

It's obvious! Case solved!

(P.S. -- I also heard through the CT grapevine that Linnie Mae Randle's
mailman was secretly having clandestine love affairs with BOTH Jean
Hill and Beverly "Babushka" Oliver! I'm sure I don't have to spell out
the evil, conspiratorial issues that that little triangle dredges up.
It's brutal.)

tomnln

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 9:17:42 AM2/15/06
to
I gave you volume & page winky.

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1139979427....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

aeffects

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 1:32:40 PM2/15/06
to

David VP wrote:
> >> "People saw LHO empty shells from a revolver. Who?"
>
>
> I'm sure you know the answer to your own question already (or should
> know)...but I'll play. .....
>
> Barbara J. Davis saw Oswald "unloading a gun" as he cut across her
> yard. ....
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
>
> Virginia Davis saw Oswald "unloading his gun", too. ....
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
>
> As for Oswald's motive for shooting Tippit -- IMO it's as obvious as a
> CTers' paranoia ....

I do declah..... I've not lost a single moments sleep over CT or Lone
Neuter issues -- having viewed your ravings on multiple internet
venues, I suspect you and others with LNeuter leanings miss sleep,
quite often.... Is that paranoia?

Maybe the good 'Doc' Chadless can enlighten us...?

I think the Neuter posting quota has risen the past month --

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 5:10:23 PM2/15/06
to
What are the odds Oswald acted alone? If you figure in all the RR
workers, eyewitnessess in Dealey Plaza, Parkland and Bethesda Naval
Hospital staff, all the witnessess found by researchers, all the people
who have come forward wittingly or unwittingly to the HSCA or ARRB...I'd
say less than zero.

Sam

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 8:55:22 PM2/15/06
to
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17910-43F...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...

> What are the odds Oswald acted alone?

there are no odds, he didn't

David VP

unread,
Feb 15, 2006, 9:01:00 PM2/15/06
to
>> "LNeuters..."


Is this the latest "hip" thing for CTers to do ... call the
Lone-Assassin crowd "Lone Neuters" now?

My...how clever....

I like the term "Conspiranoids" for CTers....don't you?

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 1:28:31 AM2/16/06
to

It wouldn't do you any good. You would just say that the photo is not of
the exact second that I am interested in. There is a photo during the
shooting sequence, now it's up to you to spend some money and buy a book
or look into google. Try, Brennan photo during shooting of JFK. Good
luck.

> > > That is what the man said.
> > >
> > > > > > after being
> > > > > > kidnapped for 3 weeks by the FBI decided to after not identifying him
> > > > > > the day of the assassination.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yah, it was the bamboo under the fingernails that made this deeply
> > > > > religious man bear false witness under oath. Kooky theory, lucky you
> > > > > have so much to back up this
> > > > > innuendo.
> > > > >
> > > > You should ask his boss, Sandy Speaker.
> > >
> > > Why do you say this was his boss?
> > >
> >
> > Because his boss was interviewed.
>
> Why do you say this was his boss?
>

Do you think that Mr. Speaker would just say that for his 15 minutes of
fame? I believe they were working on a big project on Pacific St. and
they were pipefitters.

> > They, the whole crew knocked off for
> > lunch and they were there as witnesses too.
>
> Not in Dealy Plaze, were they?
>

Oh yeah, Dealey. Right in the thick of it on Elm Street. Right
between the GK and the TSBD.

> > Jim Marr's interviewed
> > Speaker who stated that he was Brennan's foreman.
>
> Wasn`t Brennan`s mailman available?
>

Why do you need a mailman? Do you think he has X-ray glasses and can see
his route customers through walls? Do you think that nobody was there to
pick up his mail?

> > Why would he state that
> > he was gone for three weeks?
>
> How many years after the fact did he say this?
>

Who cares? That could be remembered for a 100 years. Anybody that was
there would tend to remember everything that happened that day. Are you
hoping your witnesses have a form of Alzheimers?

> > Why would he state that Brennan was never
> > the same man after he came back,
>
> Yah, said the FBI made his hair turn white. <snicker>
>

Well snicker all you want there Bud, but the fact is the FBI didn't want
there testimony but they were harassed with threat of harm, and lived to
tell about it.

> > and that he would never talk about the
> > assassination?
>
> If Brennan never spoke to Speakes about the assassination, then it
> stands to reason that Speakes doesn`t have anything to contribute as
> far as Brennan and the assassination.
>

The better maybe is that it doesn't matter what Brennan wouldn't
discuss. It matters why he wouldn't. For a man willing to step into
the limelight on assassination day by offering himself, doesn't bode
well logically for turning into a wallflower afterwards, does it?

> > > > Don't you think he knows when
> > > > an employee has been absent and for what reason?
> > >
> > > According to Brennan, he went job to job straight out of the union
> > > hall.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe they all did as subcontractors.
>
> If Speaks was his foreman, then Speakes may have been part of a crew
> sent by the union hall. There are two main ways union labor works here
> in Philly. Either you hire a union company with union members, or you
> call the hall and explain your project, and they`ll tell you what the
> requirements are by a formula, like 5 mechanics might require a foreman
> and so many apprentices, journeymen, ect. If Speakes was running a crew
> from the hall, he wasn`t Brennan`s boss, he couldn`t fire him and he
> didn`t pay him, he just was overseer of the work.
>

Do want the crew to send you paystubs?

> > > > Maybe he had
> > > > something to protect when he came back like him and his family.
> > >
> > > Or maybe he told just what he saw, and any coercion is just the
> > > invention of crackpots who can`t accept reality.
> > >
> >
> > He couldn't identify Oswald the day of the shooting.
>
> "didn`t", not "couldn`t"
>

how about tried but was unable. Better?

> > What makes you think
> > 3 weeks of Marina type coersion
>
> You mean the coersion kooks invent in order to ignore what the
> witnesses have to say?
>

Did Brennan say, "hey I looked up and saw Oz?"

> > is going to improve his already proven
> > poor eyesight?
>
> He proved his eyesight was fine when he identified the black guys
> who were on the fifth floor when they exited the building.
>

Oh my, I think you could be 20-200 and tell of a black man on the fifth
floor. How about concise face features from Oz? Wait a minute, isn't the
floor only a foot lower than the window sill? Tell me how the shooter
would have given such an accomodating looksee?

> > > > God
> > > > would have understood.
> > >
> > > Then why did he include "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
> > > your neighbor" in the Ten Commandments?
> > >
> >
> > As an ideal. Why didn't David get the death penalty for having Uriah
> > done in in battle so he could steal his wife?
>
> I`m not sure how that part could influence Brennan`s testifying. Nor
> do I know what means the FBI could employ to get a deeply religious man
> to bear false witness.
>

Your depending a man with poor eyesight and a window that's 60 feet in
the air. Maybe you are waiting for another Jimmy Swaggert?

> > > > > > There were many witnesses who observed
> > > > > > two men on the sixth floor.
> > > > >
> > > > > When the shots were fired?
> > > > >
> > > > No, and no Oz.
> > >
> > > They saw people in the TSBD. There were people in the TSBD.
> > >
> > Yeah, but two on the sixth floor near the time of the shooting is a
> > little much don't you think?
>
> Why, there were two men known to be on that floor around this time.
> Rowland (?) saw a slender white or light skinned hispanic with a rifle
> (Oz), and a black man. Williams was on that floor shortly before the
> assassination.
>

Why don't you include all the others that don't quite have that
description?

> > > > > > The weapon found only serves as your
> > > > > > crutch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck it out, like any and all incriminating evidence against Oz.
> > > > > That way you pretend what happened is some kind of mystery.
> > > > >
> > > > Why we ain't achuckin'. Is the weapon the same as in the back yard
> > > > photos?
> > >
> > > Yah.
> > >
> > > > Was the weapon fired that day?
> > >
> > > <snicker> Still stuck on the easy ones?
> > >
> > > > Was it of the same type and
> > > > length as was supposedly ordered out of the Klein's Sporting Goods
> > > > catalogue?
> > >
> > > It was the same type and model as the one fired from the TSBD that
> > > day.
> > >
> >
> > I believe that the gun is located in the Archives and nobody is allowed to
> > look at it. Klein's put a tracking number on their rifles and that is
> > public knowledge. Researchers have asked the people in charge there to
> > look for it, and they have and there is no tracking number.
>
> So you can`t establish that the rifle found isn`t the one Klein
> sent, right?
>

Look at Jerry McClure's sight. He's a rifle man. You aren't doing
much to establish that it was his rifle he ordered from Klein's or is
the same one in the BYP's.

> > > > > > You don't care about any questions concerning it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kooks have created "questions" about this damning evidence only
> > > > > because they wish to ignore any indication of Oz`s guilt.
> > > > >
> > > > Oz could have been a willing patsy. Some like going down in a flame of
> > > > glory. Of course he could have been an unwilling patsy too. Is this
> > > > too much for your kooky brain, Bud?
> > >
> > > Anything that pops into you head is acceptable but reality. Oz as a
> > > lone gunman.
> > >
> >
> > What pops in my mind is a lot of evidence that you are willing to look
> > into.
>
> Kooks have been looking into this for over forty years with nothing
> to show for it.
>

Lots of Means, Motives, and Opportunities with LHO not especially a big
picture of the puzzle. Proof of at least a second gunman is a fact,
too.

Do tell? Oz was in the theater already. That's your setup guy. Maybe
they even looked alike.

> > You don't give any room for a
> > person killing Tippit, and heading conspicuously toward the theater to
> > draw attention there. There was no reason they should have been looking
> > for Oswald at that point for JFk or Tippit.
>
> Other than the fact that he killed both of these people, no. People
> saw Oz acting suspicious, and notified the police. The police then did
> something kooks have proven unable to, they made a connection between
> this suspicious person engaging in suspicious behavior in the vicinty
> that a murder took place in. And it paid off, as the caught the killer
> red handed with the murder weapon. In fact, he tried to kill the
> arresting officers. Sit around for another 40 years trying to figure
> out how everything that implicates Oz for these crimes is a mirage, and
> everything not in evidence is substantial.
>

The President has been shot, and the whole police force goes to a
theater? They knew because they knew beforehand. Dallas and the
people who ran the city wanted JFK dead, and the police were there just
to do there bidding, except for a few honest people like Roger Craig.

> > > > > > > And:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
> > > > > > > gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
> > > > > > > Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
> > > > > > > news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
> > > > > > > report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
> > > > > > > the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
> > > > > > > Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
> > > > > > > have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
> > > > > > > 1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it
> > > > > > has a good theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean actual tangible evidence? Nice to have in a murder case.
> > > > >
> > > > Made the whole case for you, eh?
> > >
> > > You think Brennan was just lucky to indicate a window with shells
> > > under it? It`s all connected. There is no other reasonable
> > > explaination. Kooks won`t even venture one, they think picking away at
> > > what the WC found is good enough.
> > >
> >
> > It's just a piece of potential evidence, not earth-shattering or
> > especially compelling.
>
> Of course shells found under the window numerous people pointed to as
> the source of the shots isn`t compelling.
>

Numerous people didn't point to that partcular window. Many more
pointed toward the GK. The window was right above where a horde of
people were standing. What's compelling is that nobody turned around
after one shot and saw anything.

> > Isn't it stupid for a person to drop shells and
> > not hide them as they supposedly did with the gun?
>
> I find it hard to criticize the job Oz did, as he achieved his
> objective, and got clear of the building unapprehended. Had he stopped
> to pick of the shells, he likely would have been nabbed by Baker coming
> down the steps, a much more suspicious occurance than being in the
> lunchroom.
>

Right Dano! Cool as a cucumber downstairs, and he has time to wipe off
prints and hide the weapon. And he probably knew Baker was coming up
the stairs right? And he somehow got by Styles and Adams on the
stairwell, right? Do you think he had time to wipe off the
fingerprints on all the boxes he created for a nest? They didn't find
prints on all did they?

> > > > What you going to do with the missed
> > > > bullet hitting the sidewalk?
> > >
> > > Nothing, You think you can`t figure out what happened unless every
> > > question you can think of is answered? You think a conviction can`t be
> > > obtained without accounting for the trajectory of all bullets,
> > > fragments, shrapnel, skull, ect?
> > >
> >
> > Live witnesses reported that during the whole attack. One was
> > motorcyclist Chaney. The whole limo's passengers turned toward the right
> > when it happened. It is even reported in the SBT. It's evidence!
>
> Did anyone any limo passenger say they turned to the right because
> they felt shots came from the grassy knoll?
>

They were already passed the GK by the time the shot had hit. I think
they might have been sidetracked by the hit on JFK myself. And yes
other's in the motorcade did express that very opinion.

> > > > What you going to do with the slug, Agent
> > > > Barrett picked out of the grass?
> > >
> > > What slug? Got a picture of it?
> > >
> >
> > It was picked out of the grass and put into evidence. Don't tell me why
> > it turned up missing later.
>
> What kind of slug did Agent Barret say it was?
>

A 45. But don't worry he was under H.L. Hunt's umbrella, like Bardwell
Odum.

> > > > Aren't you even going to fire 'Oz's'
> > > > gun and see if it matches what the CE399 bullet looked like after he
> > > > hit the President twice?
> > >
> > > That isn`t the method they used.
> > >
> >
> > Well, no testing got the little amount lost from CE399, unless you shoot
> > it in some water. Besides that bullet would not leave lots of fragments
> > that were reported by Humes in the autopsy. Of course you can have a
> > shooter using different bullets.
> >
> > > > How come Hume found 50 little pieces in
> > > > JFK's brain at the autopsy? Come on bullet expert.
> > >
> > > Is this the game where I have to answer all questions to your
> > > satisfaction or you get to believe stupid shit. By all means, believe
> > > stupid shit CJ.
> > >
> >
> > No, it's a game of evidence. If there is a snowstorm of fragments in the
> > brain, then you must tell us what cause it. Get some evidence from an
> > expert in ballistics or be forever a kook.
>
> First show an x-ray that shows a snowstorm of fragments.
>

I will take first hand testimony, thank you.

> > > > > > Unfortunately you must and ignore the cheek wound
> > > > > > of Mr. Tague,
> > > > >
> > > > > Don`t need to ignore it, or account for it.
> > > > >
> > > > I see, the SHT has come to fore.
> > >
> > > In what way does Tague`s wounding rule out Oz as lone assassin?
> > >
> >
> > It doesn't but it backs it further into the most unlikely of corners. You
> > need a fragment of a bullet to get it.
>
> Not true.
>

Well, if it's a whole bullet, then there is no SBT. Take your pick.

> > You have Tague saying that it came
> > before the last shot.
>
> Which means it may or may not have. What is there, 3 seconds between
> the second and third shots. A lot going on in that little bit of time.
>

Just watch the Zapruder film and see how quickly it passes. Think of
the MC, and the poor position to get off the shots. It will all come
to you.

> > You figure it out from there.
>
> No need. Tague was wounded by a fragment of a bullet, or something
> that was hit by a bullet causing it to fly and hit Tague.
>

Do you want to go for a piece of JFK's skull?

> > > > > > the first missed shot that struck pavement, ignore the
> > > > > > probabilities of the SBT,
> > > > >
> > > > > Missed the recreation on the Discovery Channel, did you?
> > > > >
> > > > I heard they got the trajectory from the sixth floor to the limo
> > > > assbackwards.
> > >
> > > "you heard"? Play loud music, drown out those voices, Curt. If they
> > > tell you to kill anyone, I urge you to ignore them.
> > >
> > Measure the sixth floor, how high it's up. Measure how close the limo
> > was for the shot. Simple mathmatics.
>
> Yah. Last time I saw it done, Walt was butchering the math.
>

Walt would teach you well. He would tell you all about rifles. You
would make a fool out of yourself.

> > > > Wasn't it more like a 45 to 60 degree shot, that would
> > > > have had a 'smart' bullet not even going in JBC's seat area?
> > >
> > > Thirty degrees is more like, lining up the wounds back to the TSBD.
> > >
> > Well try 45 or 60 degrees. Even if it was 30, and where it hit in the
> > back, 6 inches below the neckline, it would not go near the throat.
>
> Could and did.
>

The bullet trajectory wouldn't even get to Connally's seat. A major
deflection would have to take place.

> > > > Did not 3
> > > > people testify that a bullet dropped out of the sheets from the back
> > > > area when they lifted him from the coffin at Bethesda?
> > >
> > > Yah, and another dropped out during the autopsy, according to the
> > > x-ray tech. JFK was riddled like Bonnie and Clyde`s car. So, that was
> > > the plan, shoot a bunch of bullets, and then court disaster by
> > > collecting all the bullets. Lets see, *they* swooped in and got the
> > > bullet from Agent Barret, the coffin bullet, the autopsy bullet and
> > > the stretcher bullet. Wherever a bullet falls, *they* are there to
> > > effortlessly appear and neutralize this damning evidence. A thinking
> > > person might wonder why they would trust their luck to be everywhere to
> > > collect bullets when the easy shot at 313 was the only one needed. And,
> > > of course, kooks are left holding their dicks, with none of this
> > > evidence to produce. So, either their was no conspiracy, or one of
> > > superhuman precision, well above the capabilities of mere kooks to
> > > uncover.
> > >
> >
> > Don't worry Bud, even if there were just three, Oz couldn't have fired
> > them and hit his target. Just didn't happen. You want you loser to be
> > better than Buffalo Bill Cody, and you just can't.
>
> An easy shot a kid could make. Why do they give soldiers rifles if
> this shot can`t be made? We`d still be using bows and arrows if this
> myth were true.
>

But no expert could.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 3:22:44 AM2/16/06
to
Interesting Curt- that Shelley, Truly, and Brennan would never discuss
their experiences if it was just a lone commie nut with a cheap mail
order rifle...

Bud

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 7:37:39 PM2/16/06
to

This should be fun, lets try and track Lazy`s crackpot thinking.
These guys wouldn`t talk about this ordeal, so that means it couldn`t
be that Oz was a lone gumman, as only a conspiracy can account for
their silience. Couldn`t be that the whole thing was just a bad
experience to them, eh? And, of course he knows that had it actually
been the work of Oz the Asssassin only, they would be endlessly
blabbing to all who would listen, because he knows these men and their
personalities so well. No wonder these kooks are so unsatisfied with
the WC, how could it ever please people who think like this?

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 8:04:25 PM2/16/06
to

Laz,

I just read the other night where Truly's wife was interviewed, and she
said her husband lived in fear all the way up to his death.

CJ

David VP

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 10:41:05 PM2/16/06
to
>> "No wonder these kooks are so unsatisfied with the WC, how could it ever please people who think like this?"


You're 101% correct here. The "CT mindset" is an alien one to me. It's
"out there" in a Twilight Zone-like world all its own.

Another great example of this really weird and skewed CT mindset, of
course, is that CTers believe (on nothing more than outright blind
faith, with ZERO hunks of evidence at all to prove that it occurred)
that a band of President-murdering conspirators actually arranged a
plot -- ahead of time (with ample time, no doubt, to THINK about the
idiocy and implausibilities of their proposed actions) -- that called
for the framing of one patsy named Oswald, while at the same time
deliberately shooting JFK from every angle imaginable.

And then, after pelting the lone target with up to a dozen rounds of
hot lead from XX number of directions, these boobs who pre-planned it
that way somehow expected everything to neatly fall into a nice "Oswald
Did All Of This" pile at LHO's feet (either via their own miraculous
brand of "evidence altering" procedures ... OR, in lovely "Hail-Mary, I
Sure Hope Everything Works Out Okay" fashion, these moronic
Patsy-Framers just hoped and prayed that the U.S. Government would ALSO
be wanting to frame the very same "Patsy" that the pre-11/22 patsy
arrangers were wanting to frame...and then the large number of
Government cover-uppers would obediently perform all of the necessary
altering of evidence themselves to eliminate the tons and tons of
evidence that undoubtedly will be revealing the conspiracy, since these
brain-dead assassins decided to use three or four gunmen, instead of
the required maximum of one).

Many CTers ACTUALLY believe that a "Patsy Plot" was pre-planned in the
above manner. How could they NOT believe something along the lines I've
laid out above and still believe that JFK received any gunshot wounds
from the FRONT?

Can there BE any "reasoning" with people who believe something that
wouldn't even have been considered by any assassins in the first
place....much less having a plot like that actually implemented and
carried out on November 22nd, 1963 AD?

The biggest and boldest reason to know that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
being set up as a lone patsy is --- TO KNOW THAT NOBODY WITH A BRAIN
WOULD HAVE FRAMED HIM THE WAY CTers THINK HE WAS FRAMED....BY USING
GOBS OF SHOOTERS.

Once conspiracy theorists learn this, and accept it, then the Multi-Gun
Patsy Plot that CTers have fallen in love with over the decades
crumbles into a pile of dust.

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 11:02:17 PM2/16/06
to

David,

I agree the "Lone-Neuter" moniker is uncouth and promotes enmity.
"Conspiranoid" fits me perfectly, though. Thanks; no offense taken.

Will

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 11:20:18 PM2/16/06
to


David,

Hot off the press...

The Reichstag was burned by an "evil Jew." Hitler had nothing to do
with it.
It boggles the mind to think that the SS or SD would attack their *own*
parliament, after all, they were patriots.
And how could they get away with such an outrageous conspiracy? No way.
Oh, almost forgot, Ernst Roehm was killed by a Lone Nut.
Government agents work together for the common good of *die Volk*

Will

Bud

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 11:56:43 PM2/16/06
to

It`s some fault of mine you can`t produce a picture taken of Brennan
when the third shot was taken by Oz, showing Brennan looking elsewhere?

> > > > That is what the man said.
> > > >
> > > > > > > after being
> > > > > > > kidnapped for 3 weeks by the FBI decided to after not identifying him
> > > > > > > the day of the assassination.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yah, it was the bamboo under the fingernails that made this deeply
> > > > > > religious man bear false witness under oath. Kooky theory, lucky you
> > > > > > have so much to back up this
> > > > > > innuendo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You should ask his boss, Sandy Speaker.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you say this was his boss?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because his boss was interviewed.
> >
> > Why do you say this was his boss?
> >
>
> Do you think that Mr. Speaker would just say that for his 15 minutes of
> fame? I believe they were working on a big project on Pacific St. and
> they were pipefitters.

Both said they were working on the Republic Bank Building. Speaker said
he was supervising the plumbing work. Brennan was a steamfitter, not a
plumber.

> > > They, the whole crew knocked off for
> > > lunch and they were there as witnesses too.
> >
> > Not in Dealy Plaze, were they?
> >
>
> Oh yeah, Dealey. Right in the thick of it on Elm Street. Right
> between the GK and the TSBD.

Then why did Speaker say "I hadn`t gotten there when [the motorcade]
passed."?

> > > Jim Marr's interviewed
> > > Speaker who stated that he was Brennan's foreman.
> >
> > Wasn`t Brennan`s mailman available?
> >
>
> Why do you need a mailman? Do you think he has X-ray glasses and can see
> his route customers through walls? Do you think that nobody was there to
> pick up his mail?

No, I just thought interviewing people who knew Brennan decades after
this event was a weak offering to try to trump what Brennan himself said.
I thought you`d be dusting off his mailman or dentist next.

> > > Why would he state that
> > > he was gone for three weeks?
> >
> > How many years after the fact did he say this?
> >
>
> Who cares? That could be remembered for a 100 years.

,Accurately recount how long a co-worker was out of work 24 years
after the fact? It may be that Brennan did take some time off shortly
after the assassination, maybe he didn`t feel safe leaving his family to
go to work. Speakers was unable to specify who he felt had Brennan in
"custody", only that they were federal. Maybe he was wrong altogether, and
Brennan took a week off for fear of his family`s safety. You`ve given no
reason to believe that Brennan confided anything to Speaker. In fact,
Speaker says he wouldn`t talk about it.

> Anybody that was
> there would tend to remember everything that happened that day. Are you
> hoping your witnesses have a form of Alzheimers?

It`s reverse Alzhemeimers. People who remember things to conspiracy
writers decades later, things they haven`t told anyone previously.

> > > Why would he state that Brennan was never
> > > the same man after he came back,
> >
> > Yah, said the FBI made his hair turn white. <snicker>
> >
>
> Well snicker all you want there Bud, but the fact is the FBI didn't want
> there testimony but they were harassed with threat of harm, and lived to
> tell about it.

What is your evidence that Brennan was threatened? Did Brennan tell
Speaker he was? And the <snicker> was to emphasis the silly notion that
something like this can cause a person`s hair to change color (in three
weeks, no less).

> > > and that he would never talk about the
> > > assassination?
> >
> > If Brennan never spoke to Speakes about the assassination, then it
> > stands to reason that Speakes doesn`t have anything to contribute as
> > far as Brennan and the assassination.
> >
>
> The better maybe is that it doesn't matter what Brennan wouldn't
> discuss. It matters why he wouldn't.

What was the reason he gave Speaker for never discussing the
assasination? Speakers says "They made him say what they wanted him to
say". Is this something Brennan told him (you know, the guy who wouldn`t
talk about the assassination), or is it something Speaker just "knew"?

> For a man willing to step into
> the limelight on assassination day by offering himself, doesn't bode
> well logically for turning into a wallflower afterwards, does it?

Brennan was reluctant throughout this whole affair.

> > > > > Don't you think he knows when
> > > > > an employee has been absent and for what reason?
> > > >
> > > > According to Brennan, he went job to job straight out of the union
> > > > hall.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maybe they all did as subcontractors.
> >
> > If Speaks was his foreman, then Speakes may have been part of a crew
> > sent by the union hall. There are two main ways union labor works here
> > in Philly. Either you hire a union company with union members, or you
> > call the hall and explain your project, and they`ll tell you what the
> > requirements are by a formula, like 5 mechanics might require a foreman
> > and so many apprentices, journeymen, ect. If Speakes was running a crew
> > from the hall, he wasn`t Brennan`s boss, he couldn`t fire him and he
> > didn`t pay him, he just was overseer of the work.
> >
>
> Do want the crew to send you paystubs?

I don`t see how that would establish anything Speaker said.

> > > > > Maybe he had
> > > > > something to protect when he came back like him and his family.
> > > >
> > > > Or maybe he told just what he saw, and any coercion is just the
> > > > invention of crackpots who can`t accept reality.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He couldn't identify Oswald the day of the shooting.
> >
> > "didn`t", not "couldn`t"
> >
>
> how about tried but was unable. Better?

No, much worse. Brennan said under oath he did recognise Oz as the man
he saw shooting from the TSBD, but refused to identify him for reasons of
his own.

> > > What makes you think
> > > 3 weeks of Marina type coersion
> >
> > You mean the coersion kooks invent in order to ignore what the
> > witnesses have to say?
> >
>
> Did Brennan say, "hey I looked up and saw Oz?"

Basically. His attention was drwan by the sound of the shots, and he
looked up in time to see Oz aiming the last (3rd) shot.

> > > is going to improve his already proven
> > > poor eyesight?
> >
> > He proved his eyesight was fine when he identified the black guys
> > who were on the fifth floor when they exited the building.
> >
>
> Oh my, I think you could be 20-200 and tell of a black man on the fifth
> floor.

It wasn`t seeing black people in the building that establishes his
eyesight as adequate. It was correctly pointing them out as the left the
building that does.

> How about concise face features from Oz? Wait a minute, isn't the
> floor only a foot lower than the window sill? Tell me how the shooter
> would have given such an accomodating looksee?

Are you saying people can`t see other people looking into windows?
Interesting that you take the people who were farther away who saw
multiple people through the windows of the 6th floor without scrutiny or
complaint.

> > > > > God
> > > > > would have understood.
> > > >
> > > > Then why did he include "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
> > > > your neighbor" in the Ten Commandments?
> > > >
> > >
> > > As an ideal. Why didn't David get the death penalty for having Uriah
> > > done in in battle so he could steal his wife?
> >
> > I`m not sure how that part could influence Brennan`s testifying. Nor
> > do I know what means the FBI could employ to get a deeply religious man
> > to bear false witness.
> >
> Your depending a man with poor eyesight

He was farsighted. That doesn`t effect your ability to see at
distances.

> and a window that's 60 feet in
> the air. Maybe you are waiting for another Jimmy Swaggert?

How far away were the people that saw 2 people on the sixth floor.
Brennan was right across the street. His ability to see people in the
building is established by his ability to correctly point to people in the
windows directly below the window Oz was shooting from.

> > > > > > > There were many witnesses who observed
> > > > > > > two men on the sixth floor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When the shots were fired?
> > > > > >
> > > > > No, and no Oz.
> > > >
> > > > They saw people in the TSBD. There were people in the TSBD.
> > > >
> > > Yeah, but two on the sixth floor near the time of the shooting is a
> > > little much don't you think?
> >
> > Why, there were two men known to be on that floor around this time.
> > Rowland (?) saw a slender white or light skinned hispanic with a rifle
> > (Oz), and a black man. Williams was on that floor shortly before the
> > assassination.
> >
> Why don't you include all the others that don't quite have that
> description?

Name them, and their distances away from the TSBD. Also, gives the
widely ranging descriptions given of the people they saw.

> > > > > > > The weapon found only serves as your
> > > > > > > crutch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chuck it out, like any and all incriminating evidence against Oz.
> > > > > > That way you pretend what happened is some kind of mystery.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Why we ain't achuckin'. Is the weapon the same as in the back yard
> > > > > photos?
> > > >
> > > > Yah.
> > > >
> > > > > Was the weapon fired that day?
> > > >
> > > > <snicker> Still stuck on the easy ones?
> > > >
> > > > > Was it of the same type and
> > > > > length as was supposedly ordered out of the Klein's Sporting Goods
> > > > > catalogue?
> > > >
> > > > It was the same type and model as the one fired from the TSBD that
> > > > day.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I believe that the gun is located in the Archives and nobody is allowed to
> > > look at it. Klein's put a tracking number on their rifles and that is
> > > public knowledge. Researchers have asked the people in charge there to
> > > look for it, and they have and there is no tracking number.
> >
> > So you can`t establish that the rifle found isn`t the one Klein
> > sent, right?
> >
> Look at Jerry McClure's sight. He's a rifle man. You aren't doing
> much to establish that it was his rifle he ordered from Klein's or is
> the same one in the BYP's.

It has been well established for over forty years. It is no
consequence if kooks do not accept it.

> > > > > > > You don't care about any questions concerning it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kooks have created "questions" about this damning evidence only
> > > > > > because they wish to ignore any indication of Oz`s guilt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Oz could have been a willing patsy. Some like going down in a flame of
> > > > > glory. Of course he could have been an unwilling patsy too. Is this
> > > > > too much for your kooky brain, Bud?
> > > >
> > > > Anything that pops into you head is acceptable but reality. Oz as a
> > > > lone gunman.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What pops in my mind is a lot of evidence that you are willing to look
> > > into.
> >
> > Kooks have been looking into this for over forty years with nothing
> > to show for it.
> >
> Lots of Means, Motives, and Opportunities with LHO not especially a big
> picture of the puzzle.

Why would he be? Only his prints in the SN, on the rifle, on the bag he
brought the rifle in, only pictures of him holding it, only him lying
about owning a rifle, a rifle his wife confirmed he owned. On and on. And
those fools in the WC couldn`t see that Oz was beyond consideration.

> Proof of at least a second gunman is a fact,
> too.

Sure, sure. This is second gunman is the same phantom today as he
was over 40 years ago, as he will be 40 years from now.

Inreresting that you don`t think he could walk to the Tippit murder
scene in time, yet you think he can walk further to the Texas Theater
even faster.

> That's your setup guy. Maybe
> they even looked alike.

Maybe he asked Oz to hod the weapon that he used to kill Tippit. And
maybe Oz didn`t mention this to the Dallas Police, because he knew they
weren`t the kind of assholes to believe stupis shit like this.

> > > You don't give any room for a
> > > person killing Tippit, and heading conspicuously toward the theater to
> > > draw attention there. There was no reason they should have been looking
> > > for Oswald at that point for JFk or Tippit.
> >
> > Other than the fact that he killed both of these people, no. People
> > saw Oz acting suspicious, and notified the police. The police then did
> > something kooks have proven unable to, they made a connection between
> > this suspicious person engaging in suspicious behavior in the vicinty
> > that a murder took place in. And it paid off, as the caught the killer
> > red handed with the murder weapon. In fact, he tried to kill the
> > arresting officers. Sit around for another 40 years trying to figure
> > out how everything that implicates Oz for these crimes is a mirage, and
> > everything not in evidence is substantial.
> >
> The President has been shot, and the whole police force goes to a
> theater?

No. A police officer was shot, and citizens called in reports of a
man acting suspicious in the same area.

> They knew because they knew beforehand. Dallas and the
> people who ran the city wanted JFK dead, and the police were there just
> to do there bidding,

There you have it folks, kook assertions at their finest. Who needs
the reasonable explainations of the Wc when you can just blurt crackpot
shit out?

> except for a few honest people like Roger Craig.

<snicker>

> > > > > > > > And:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What Are The Odds......
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of there actually having been somewhere between 5 and 10 audible
> > > > > > > > gunshots (depending upon which crazy theory you wish to use) fired in
> > > > > > > > Dealey Plaza and YET have 100% (or very nearly 100%) of the
> > > > > > > > news-gathering people who were in a direct, and IMMEDIATE, position to
> > > > > > > > report the shooting to the world (via newswire, TV, etc.) hear EXACTLY
> > > > > > > > the number of shots that match the number of bullet shells found in the
> > > > > > > > Depository, and the EXACT number of shots that the plotters need to
> > > > > > > > have heard to hang their "Patsy"? (1 in 285,000? .... Or, more likely,
> > > > > > > > 1 chance in 678-Billion or so.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You choose to pick the shells found in the Depository and count on it
> > > > > > > has a good theory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean actual tangible evidence? Nice to have in a murder case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Made the whole case for you, eh?
> > > >
> > > > You think Brennan was just lucky to indicate a window with shells
> > > > under it? It`s all connected. There is no other reasonable
> > > > explaination. Kooks won`t even venture one, they think picking away at
> > > > what the WC found is good enough.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's just a piece of potential evidence, not earth-shattering or
> > > especially compelling.
> >
> > Of course shells found under the window numerous people pointed to as
> > the source of the shots isn`t compelling.
> >
> Numerous people didn't point to that partcular window.

Yah, they did.

> Many more
> pointed toward the GK.

How many people standing on the knoll said they saw a man with a
rifle shooting from there down into the street?

> The window was right above where a horde of
> people were standing. What's compelling is that nobody turned around
> after one shot and saw anything.

Are you making the case that Kennedy wasn`t shot because not enough
people saw the shooter?

> > > Isn't it stupid for a person to drop shells and
> > > not hide them as they supposedly did with the gun?
> >
> > I find it hard to criticize the job Oz did, as he achieved his
> > objective, and got clear of the building unapprehended. Had he stopped
> > to pick of the shells, he likely would have been nabbed by Baker coming
> > down the steps, a much more suspicious occurance than being in the
> > lunchroom.
> >
> Right Dano! Cool as a cucumber downstairs,

Yah, abnormally so.

> and he has time to wipe off
> prints and hide the weapon.

His prints were on the weapon.

> And he probably knew Baker was coming up
> the stairs right?

I didn`t say that. I couldn`t criticize Oz`s methods of not picking
of the casing, as he suceeded in his objectives, killing JFK, and
probably to his own amazement,, getting clear of the building.

> And he somehow got by Styles and Adams on the
> stairwell, right?

Likely he crossed over the second floor to the front stairway. Mrs
Reid saw him cutting through the offices there.

> Do you think he had time to wipe off the
> fingerprints on all the boxes he created for a nest? They didn't find
> prints on all did they?

Is it your kook reasoning to disregard the prints on some because
they weren`t found on all?

> > > > > What you going to do with the missed
> > > > > bullet hitting the sidewalk?
> > > >
> > > > Nothing, You think you can`t figure out what happened unless every
> > > > question you can think of is answered? You think a conviction can`t be
> > > > obtained without accounting for the trajectory of all bullets,
> > > > fragments, shrapnel, skull, ect?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Live witnesses reported that during the whole attack. One was
> > > motorcyclist Chaney. The whole limo's passengers turned toward the right
> > > when it happened. It is even reported in the SBT. It's evidence!
> >
> > Did anyone any limo passenger say they turned to the right because
> > they felt shots came from the grassy knoll?
> >
> They were already passed the GK by the time the shot had hit. I think
> they might have been sidetracked by the hit on JFK myself.

Oh, i thought you were offering the "heads turning to the right"
evidence as some kind of indication the shots came from the knoll.

> And yes
> other's in the motorcade did express that very opinion.

I said "limo", not "motorcade".

> > > > > What you going to do with the slug, Agent
> > > > > Barrett picked out of the grass?
> > > >
> > > > What slug? Got a picture of it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was picked out of the grass and put into evidence. Don't tell me why
> > > it turned up missing later.
> >
> > What kind of slug did Agent Barret say it was?
> >
> A 45.

Thats pistol ammo, right? This meticulously planned conspiracy is
using innaccurate handguns as a component?

> But don't worry he was under H.L. Hunt's umbrella, like Bardwell
> Odum.

Whatever that means.

> > > > > Aren't you even going to fire 'Oz's'
> > > > > gun and see if it matches what the CE399 bullet looked like after he
> > > > > hit the President twice?
> > > >
> > > > That isn`t the method they used.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, no testing got the little amount lost from CE399, unless you shoot
> > > it in some water. Besides that bullet would not leave lots of fragments
> > > that were reported by Humes in the autopsy. Of course you can have a
> > > shooter using different bullets.
> > >
> > > > > How come Hume found 50 little pieces in
> > > > > JFK's brain at the autopsy? Come on bullet expert.
> > > >
> > > > Is this the game where I have to answer all questions to your
> > > > satisfaction or you get to believe stupid shit. By all means, believe
> > > > stupid shit CJ.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, it's a game of evidence. If there is a snowstorm of fragments in the
> > > brain, then you must tell us what cause it. Get some evidence from an
> > > expert in ballistics or be forever a kook.
> >
> > First show an x-ray that shows a snowstorm of fragments.
> >
> I will take first hand testimony, thank you.

Then you take Brennan over Speaker, right? And you have testimony of
Humes pointing out this snowstorm of fragments in the x-ray, right?

> > > > > > > Unfortunately you must and ignore the cheek wound
> > > > > > > of Mr. Tague,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don`t need to ignore it, or account for it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I see, the SHT has come to fore.
> > > >
> > > > In what way does Tague`s wounding rule out Oz as lone assassin?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It doesn't but it backs it further into the most unlikely of corners. You
> > > need a fragment of a bullet to get it.
> >
> > Not true.
> >
> Well, if it's a whole bullet, then there is no SBT. Take your pick.

As if that is the whole menu.

> > > You have Tague saying that it came
> > > before the last shot.
> >
> > Which means it may or may not have. What is there, 3 seconds between
> > the second and third shots. A lot going on in that little bit of time.
> >
> Just watch the Zapruder film and see how quickly it passes. Think of
> the MC, and the poor position to get off the shots. It will all come
> to you.

Just read Tague`s testimony, it will come to you...

LIEBELER: Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that
mark?

TAGUE: I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn`t
say definately which one.

> > > You figure it out from there.
> >
> > No need. Tague was wounded by a fragment of a bullet, or something
> > that was hit by a bullet causing it to fly and hit Tague.
> >
> Do you want to go for a piece of JFK's skull?

That was an object struck by Oz`s bullets.

> > > > > > > the first missed shot that struck pavement, ignore the
> > > > > > > probabilities of the SBT,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Missed the recreation on the Discovery Channel, did you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > I heard they got the trajectory from the sixth floor to the limo
> > > > > assbackwards.
> > > >
> > > > "you heard"? Play loud music, drown out those voices, Curt. If they
> > > > tell you to kill anyone, I urge you to ignore them.
> > > >
> > > Measure the sixth floor, how high it's up. Measure how close the limo
> > > was for the shot. Simple mathmatics.
> >
> > Yah. Last time I saw it done, Walt was butchering the math.
> >
> Walt would teach you well. He would tell you all about rifles. You
> would make a fool out of yourself.

You missed the post where Walt explained the mathmatics of the shots
from the TSBD, eh? Someone was made a fool, I`ll tell you that. I think
the post was called "Simple math proves Oswald wasn`t shooter", or some
such. He came up with the same erroneous "45 degrees" you were trying.

> > > > > Wasn't it more like a 45 to 60 degree shot, that would
> > > > > have had a 'smart' bullet not even going in JBC's seat area?
> > > >
> > > > Thirty degrees is more like, lining up the wounds back to the TSBD.
> > > >
> > > Well try 45 or 60 degrees. Even if it was 30, and where it hit in the
> > > back, 6 inches below the neckline, it would not go near the throat.
> >
> > Could and did.
> >
> The bullet trajectory wouldn't even get to Connally's seat. A major
> deflection would have to take place.

Here is is, with illustrations to help even the most helpless kook.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm


<snip>


Bud

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 5:42:27 AM2/17/06
to

The guy charging ahead of Baker up the steps of the TSBD looking to
find the shooter?

>
> CJ

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 9:42:15 AM2/17/06
to

The SS and SD were not patriots. They were subversives who viewed the
parliament as an enemy of the German people.

> And how could they get away with such an outrageous conspiracy? No way.
> Oh, almost forgot, Ernst Roehm was killed by a Lone Nut.
> Government agents work together for the common good of *die Volk*
>
> Will
>

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

ADulles_HeroRtrtr?

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 11:58:57 AM2/17/06
to

Tony,

Certainly, you are correct, arguments against Versailles
notwithstanding; the entire post is meant as caustic allegory.

curtj...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 4:12:55 PM2/17/06
to
Yep.

> >
> > CJ

Bud

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 4:14:19 PM2/17/06
to
David VP wrote:
> >> "No wonder these kooks are so unsatisfied with the WC, how could it ever please people who think like this?"
>
>
> You're 101% correct here. The "CT mindset" is an alien one to me. It's
> "out there" in a Twilight Zone-like world all its own.
>
> Another great example of this really weird and skewed CT mindset, of
> course, is that CTers believe (on nothing more than outright blind
> faith, with ZERO hunks of evidence at all to prove that it occurred)
> that a band of President-murdering conspirators actually arranged a
> plot -- ahead of time (with ample time, no doubt, to THINK about the
> idiocy and implausibilities of their proposed actions) -- that called
> for the framing of one patsy named Oswald, while at the same time
> deliberately shooting JFK from every angle imaginable.

Excellent points, and an excellent way to view the conspiracy angle.
For starters, the kooks frivilously assign anything troublesome or
unknown as evidence of conspiracy. What they don`t seem to realize
(well, they don`t seem to realize quite a bit) is that every added
thing you attribute to the conspiracy makes the concept of conspiracy
more far-fetched. It collapses under the weight of the stuff the kooks
pile onto it. But that isn`t what I want to comment on, that point
itself could be elaborated
into several thousand words. The germ of an idea which you have awoken,
David, has been gnawing at me for quite some time, I`m glad you have
been focusing recently on the "prior planning" aspect of any
conspiracy, as it is as important as it is neglected. I`ll speak
generally about conspiracy as I know it, mostly because the kooks are
loathe to go into details and specifics about how they think such a
thing could be arranged and carried out (much easier to attack the WC
than put a reasonable alternative on the table). In any case, in any
kook-considered scenario, they always have the luxury of hindsight,
they know where Oz was at fairly precise times. They can weave a tale
about Oz being at the Texas Theater at a certain time for instance,
whereas the conspirators would have to anticipate this, or influence
it, a much harder task. I`m sure you are familiar with the ease the
kooks say "They lured Oz to the TT", but the truth is there are
hundreds of variables between the 15 minutes prior to the
assassination and Oz`s arrest in the TSBD. In fact, every person Dealy
was a variable that couldn`t be completely accounted for (especially
those with cameras). If I was told that some shooter was going to shoot
from a building, and I was filled in with all the particulars, and you
were to ask me what would happen next, I couldn`t begin to tell you.
Would one person see the shooter, or 3 dozen? Would the building be
rushed or neglected? Easy to build scenarios after the fact, but
difficult to anticipate events beforehand. Take the Tippit shooting.
What if a bystander took Tippit`s pistol and shot this double the kooks
imagine? Or tackled him while he reloaded? Who knows what these average
citizens would react to this event? I remember when a unbalanced person
was running amuck through a mall shooting people, and someone just
stepped forward and disarmed her (Sylvia Seagrist, I think was the
name). What if Brewer associates the sirens to the suspicious fellow
who entered his store, and steps outside and flags down a cop? Anyway,
this is one huge problem for conspirators, anticipation of events is
impossible, only possible to plug things in in hindsight. The other
thing that occurs to me is that most, if not all of the indications of
conspiracy kooks point to occur the day of the assassination and after.
Yet, conspiracy as written by the kooks is a complex operation
requiring all kinds of preparation. PO boxes to be secured, rifles to
be sent, constant survailance of the Paine`s house and Oz`s
boardinghouse, to learn the movements of Oz and the other, Oz`s
possessions need to be infiltrated, likely a few times, the need to
know the TSBD inside-out, scouting shooting locations, and just
hundreds of other tasks big and small. Yet, what do the kooks have to
show as indicating the laying of groundwork for this endeavour? I asked
Ben what pre-assassination evidence the kooks had, and he offered
Milteer. Now, two things about him. One, if a blowhard like Milteer who
would blab to anyone who would listen could get inside information, how
secure could the operation be? Secondly, it`s obvious that Milteer was
talking out of his ass, making up shit as he talked. Anyway,thats all I
have on my mind at the moment, thanks for the thought prevoking
response, David.

> And then, after pelting the lone target with up to a dozen rounds of
> hot lead from XX number of directions, these boobs who pre-planned it
> that way somehow expected everything to neatly fall into a nice "Oswald
> Did All Of This" pile at LHO's feet (either via their own miraculous
> brand of "evidence altering" procedures ... OR, in lovely "Hail-Mary, I
> Sure Hope Everything Works Out Okay" fashion, these moronic
> Patsy-Framers just hoped and prayed that the U.S. Government would ALSO
> be wanting to frame the very same "Patsy" that the pre-11/22 patsy
> arrangers were wanting to frame...and then the large number of
> Government cover-uppers would obediently perform all of the necessary
> altering of evidence themselves to eliminate the tons and tons of
> evidence that undoubtedly will be revealing the conspiracy, since these
> brain-dead assassins decided to use three or four gunmen, instead of
> the required maximum of one).
>
> Many CTers ACTUALLY believe that a "Patsy Plot" was pre-planned in the
> above manner. How could they NOT believe something along the lines I've
> laid out above and still believe that JFK received any gunshot wounds
> from the FRONT?
>
> Can there BE any "reasoning" with people who believe something that
> wouldn't even have been considered by any assassins in the first
> place....much less having a plot like that actually implemented and
> carried out on November 22nd, 1963 AD?

No, no reasoning. I`ve abandoned reasoning with the kooks long ago,
opting instead to torment and ridicule them. You don`t get better
results than reasoning with them, but more satisfaction.

> The biggest and boldest reason to know that Lee Harvey Oswald was not
> being set up as a lone patsy is --- TO KNOW THAT NOBODY WITH A BRAIN
> WOULD HAVE FRAMED HIM THE WAY CTers THINK HE WAS FRAMED....BY USING
> GOBS OF SHOOTERS.

Yah, they seem to be partial to complexity in all aspects. What does
a bunch of bullets do that the Z-film 313 shot doesn`t do?

> Once conspiracy theorists learn this, and accept it, then the Multi-Gun
> Patsy Plot that CTers have fallen in love with over the decades
> crumbles into a pile of dust.

Never happen. They like the concept too much.

aeffects

unread,
Feb 17, 2006, 4:33:51 PM2/17/06
to

VonPeanut thought provoking? Wow, Dudster -- you're sinking, QUICKLY!
Only thing thought provoking here is pondering the question: do they
pay you guys by the amount of words you publish or the tonnage of same?

All the thought and no substance, none at all! roflmfao!

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages