A CRITICAL QUESTION: COULD OSWALD POSSIBLY BE INNOCENT GIVEN THESE MANY GUILTY-LOOKING FACTS?
David Von Pein
11/22/63?
OR WAS THAT RIFLE IN OSWALD'S OWN HANDS WHEN JOHN KENNEDY WAS BEING
SHOT AND KILLED IN DALLAS, TEXAS?
========================================================
A conspiracy theorist asked the following question:
>>> "If someone steals my rifle and then kills someone, my fingerprints are on it, but does that prove that *I* was the killer?" <<<
To which I replied:
If a rifle YOU own is used in a crime, the odds are certainly in favor
of YOU, the owner of said weapon, being the killer. You're certainly
the #1 prime suspect, that's for sure. Why wouldn't you be?
Mere ownership of a rifle doesn't prove you killed a person with said
weapon, true. But nobody can possibly deny that the sheer ODDS are in
favor of you (the weapon's rightful owner) being the actual killer.
And you'll need to do a lot more work to establish the FACT that your
rifle was stolen. An accused killer saying to the cops (or to a jury)
that he thinks his rifle was stolen by some unknown person or persons
isn't gonna cut it. And I think the "Stolen Rifle" defense is even a
tougher road to hoe in the JFK murder case than most conspiracy
theorists seem to want to admit.
The known storage location of Lee Harvey Oswald's one and only rifle
in the weeks leading up to President Kennedy's assassination on
11/22/63 was Ruth Paine's garage in Irving. There were no signs of any
"theft" or "break in" at the Paine house at any time in the weeks
prior to Nov. 22.
Now, I suppose it's true that some clever thief could have slipped in
and out of Mrs. Paine's garage, totally undetected, and made off with
the rifle. But there is absolutely no hard evidence at all to indicate
that such a theft took place at the Paine house in late 1963.
The totality of circumstantial "rifle" evidence in the JFK case
certainly does not indicate a "theft" carried out by conspirators
wishing to frame Oswald -- but, instead, this evidence tells a
reasonable person that Lee Oswald, himself, took that rifle from a
rolled-up blanket in the Paine garage either on the night of Nov. 21
or the early morning of Nov. 22.
Oswald's OWN LIES that he told later about the "package" and his
rifle-ownership status are telling a reasonable person that Oswald
desired to distance himself from any "long, bulky package" and ANY
"rifle" that he owned whenever he was questioned about those items by
the authorities.
And why would Oswald NEED to "distance" himself from EITHER of those
items if he merely was hauling innocent "curtain rods" to work on the
morning of Nov. 22nd (as he twice told fellow Book Depository worker
Wesley Frazier)?
The answer is, of course, quite an obvious one.
Heck, Oswald himself didn't even bother to use the "Somebody Stole My
Rifle" alibi....which actually would have been a far better alibi for
him to try to use instead of denying ownership of a weapon that he has
got to KNOW will be traced to him very quickly. For Pete's sake, he
knows he had the gun shipped to a P.O. Box where he received mail.
But, instead, Oswald denied having owned ANY rifle, ever...and he
denied telling Frazier anything about curtain rods...and claimed the
only "package" he carried to work on Nov. 22 was his "lunch".
On top of these lies, we know that Oswald killed policeman J.D. Tippit
without a sliver of a doubt, which is devastating evidence that tells
a reasonable person that LHO also killed JFK less than one hour
earlier -- due to the fact that JFK just happened to be killed while
driving by the place where Tippit's killer worked, and which was also
a building that contained scads of "Oswald Was Here At 12:30 Shooting
At The President" type of evidence (not even counting the eyewitnesses
who placed an Oswald-like shooter on the sixth floor of the TSBD).
For example:
1.) Oswald's gun was found on the 6th Floor.
2.) Bullet shells from LHO's gun were found in the Sniper's Nest.
3.) Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints were found on multiple boxes
DEEP WITHIN the Sniper's Nest.
4.) An empty paper bag with Oswald's prints on it was found near the
sniper's window....including a right palmprint of LHO's on the closed
end of the bag which perfectly aligns with the testimony given by Wes
Frazier about how Oswald carried a bag that day. If that bag was a
"plant" and was "manufactured" after the fact by the police, then
those cops deserve an award for such outstanding work, given that
perfect job of "planting" that RIGHT PALMPRINT OF LEE OSWALD'S ON THE
CLOSED END OF THE BAG.
Plus -- Oswald leaves the Book Depository just minutes after all the
commotion has just begun around his workplace. And LHO lies about why
he left. He and Bill Shelley never talked after the shooting. This was
just one of dozens of post-12:30 lies that LHO told the police.
Another being his "I had lunch with Junior" alibi attempt.
Plus -- There is Oswald's not being the least bit surprised or
startled or scared when confronted in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom at
gunpoint by policeman Marrion Baker (per Baker's and Roy Truly's
testimony re. Oswald's behavior).
And there's a logical "He's Guilty" reason for this non-reaction of
Oswald's too (IMO) -- i.e., he no doubt EXPECTED the building to be
filled with cops very shortly after he fired three highly-audible
rifle shots from an open window that he knew would be heard by a lot
of people in Dealey Plaza.
How could Oswald NOT have expected the police to race into that very
building within minutes of the shooting? Of course he expected that to
happen. Hence, his rush to get off of the "Floor Of Death" (Floor #6)
and at least down to a lower floor where the shooting did not occur.
Unfortunately for him, he had to peel off at the 2nd Floor when he no
doubt heard the heavy bootsteps of Baker (plus Truly too) coming up
the stairs.
But fortunately for Oswald, he worked there, and was cleared by Truly
as just another employee of the TSBD. If Lee had not been employed
there, J.D. Tippit would probably still be alive, because Oswald would
have likely been detained by Officer Baker due to his "unknown" status
in the eyes of Superintendent Roy Truly.
After the Baker encounter, Oswald can no doubt breathe a tad
easier....because he's just passed a major hurdle in slipping through
any early post-shooting dragnet. So, he pauses at the Coke machine for
just a moment or two and purchases a soft drink.*
* = Whether it was a "Coca-Cola" (in the trademark "hourglass"-shaped
bottle) or Oswald's favorite soft drink, Dr. Pepper, is something that
I do not believe has ever been officially established.
But, regardless of flavor, LHO buys a soft drink and walks through the
Depository's second-floor offices, where Mrs. Robert A. Reid sees
Oswald and even speaks to him, telling him "The President has been
shot, but maybe they didn't hit him".
Oswald then exhibits another perfectly-reasonable reaction from his
own point-of-view, seeing as how he already KNOWS the information
being told to him by Mrs. Reid -- that reaction being (like with
Officer Baker) another "non-reaction" for the most part, as he brushes
by Reid without saying anything that Reid could understand (she said
he "mumbled something to me"), and without displaying the slightest
bit of shock, surprise, or concern. According to Mrs. Reid, Oswald was
"very calm".**
** = A grain of salt needs to be taken here re. Reid's testimony. This
salt is needed because we know that Reid herself was somewhat upset
about the President being shot and she would have had no particular
reason at all to pay very much attention to Lee Oswald as he passed by
her, a trip which took no more than a few fleeting seconds, quite
obviously.
Mrs. Reid said to the Warren Commission that a major reason why she
recalls seeing LHO that day is due to the fact that it was somewhat
unusual to see any of the "warehouse boys" in the office area except
when they needed change for the soda machine. But since Reid could see
that Oswald already had a "full" bottle of a soft drink, she knew he
probably wasn't in the office to get change.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/reid.htm
Oswald then departs the TSBD at approx. 12:33 PM and goes home in a
very unusual way (for him)....via bus AND taxicab. Being the miser
that he was, the 95-cent cab ride ($1.00 including the tip for driver
William Whaley) was definitely out of character for the frugal Mr.
Oswald.
So, a logical question needs to be asked here as well -- Why doesn't
Oswald just take the bus home (like usual), instead of asking for a
bus transfer from driver Cecil McWatters and then walking to the
Greyhound taxi stand to get into a cab? Why is Oswald in such a hurry
to get to his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue on this
particular November day....only minutes after a U.S. President has
been shot from right in front of the building that Oswald just
vacated?
Another question that needs to be asked is -- Why does Oswald leave
work at midday in the first place if he was totally innocent of any
wrong-doing that day?
That last question is a valid one, since we KNOW that Oswald lied when
he gave his own explanation for leaving work when he did on Nov. 22.
That lie being: He said that he assumed there would be "no more work"
done that day due to the fact the President had been shot.
Via at least one official Dallas Police account of Oswald's story, LHO
said he had confirmed with his boss, Bill Shelley, that he (LHO) could
leave the building and knock off for the rest of the day. That was
positively a lie, and here's why (via the Warren Commission witness
transcripts).....
MR. BALL -- "Did you, at any time after the President was shot, tell
Oswald to go home?"
MR. SHELLEY -- "No, sir."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
~~~~~~~
So, when all of the above things are assembled together, a pretty
clear picture begins to form. There's so much evidence to show that
Lee Oswald is a double-murderer, it's staggering. There is so much, in
fact, that the idea that ALL of this stuff (including impossible-to-
control circumstantial evidence) could possibly have been manipulated
so perfectly and so swiftly (by the DPD, the FBI, or whoever) is a
foolhardy conspiratorial belief.
There's just too much stuff here....stuff that couldn't have been
perfectly "controlled" by anyone attempting to frame Oswald for two
murders. And the biggest reason to know that this is true is by taking
a look at Oswald's own incriminating, guilty-like actions after 12:30
on November 22. Does an innocent "patsy" act like Oswald acted in the
hours following JFK's murder (a murder that LHO said he had nothing to
do with)?
Or, to quote an excellent passage uttered by Larry Sturdivan in his
book "The JFK Myths".....
"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." -- Page 246
of "The JFK Myths"
~~~~~~~
Vincent Bugliosi also provides a good capsule account of assassination
events, via the following remarks, spoken in 1986:
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!
And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far
as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
armpit...he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald
was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
At this point if we had nothing else...nothing else...how much do you
need?...if we had NOTHING else...this would be enough to prove
Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt." -- V. Bugliosi
~~~~~~~
Given the facts previously discussed (and several more not touched
upon), I'd say, yes, it's a pretty safe bet that the owner of that
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th Floor, a Mr. Lee Harvey
Oswald (alias "A.J. Hidell"; alias "D.F. Drittal"), was indeed the
person who actually used it to shoot and kill John F. Kennedy on
November 22, 1963.
~~~~~~~
Addendum.....
Re. Wesley Frazier's observations specifically, there are these oft-
overlooked words spoken by Frazier himself during the 1986 television
Docu-Trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald":
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Oswald} was carrying the bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his body."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
body....on the right side?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
think you've said that in the past."
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
~~~~~~~
Re-Constructing The Steps Of A Presidential Assassin:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aaeb4a1389e69938
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4dd73f8e676a5db8
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4466b08f8be7c36
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
aeffects
>
> read more »
clear as mud, David -- clear as MUD.....
Walt
> WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S RIFLE STOLEN BY EVIL CONSPIRATORS PRIOR TO
> 11/22/63?
>
> OR WAS THAT RIFLE IN OSWALD'S OWN HANDS WHEN JOHN KENNEDY WAS BEING
> SHOT AND KILLED IN DALLAS, TEXAS?
>
> ========================================================
MANY GUILTY-LOOKING FACTS?
Facts??? I don't think you know the FACTS.... You're too naive and
gullible to learn the FACTS.
> A conspiracy theorist asked the following question:
>
> >>> "If someone steals my rifle and then kills someone, my fingerprints are on it, but does that prove that *I* was the killer?" <<<
>
> To which I replied:
>
> If a rifle YOU own is used in a crime, the odds are certainly in favor
> of YOU, the owner of said weapon, being the killer. You're certainly
> the #1 prime suspect, that's for sure. Why wouldn't you be?
>
> Mere ownership of a rifle doesn't prove you killed a person with said
> weapon, true. But nobody can possibly deny that the sheer ODDS are in
> favor of you (the weapon's rightful owner) being the actual killer.
Pure gibberish..... Guns are stolen by criminals and used in the
commission of crimes.
>
> And you'll need to do a lot more work to establish the FACT that your
> rifle was stolen. An accused killer saying to the cops (or to a jury)
> that he thinks his rifle was stolen by some unknown person or persons
> isn't gonna cut it. And I think the "Stolen Rifle" defense is even a
> tougher road to hoe in the JFK murder case than most conspiracy
> theorists seem to want to admit.
Oswald never said his rifle was stolen....He said he didn't own a
rifle.
And there is no solid proof that he did in fact own a rifle.
> The known storage location of Lee Harvey Oswald's one and only rifle
> in the weeks leading up to President Kennedy's assassination on
> 11/22/63 was Ruth Paine's garage in Irving. There were no signs of any
> "theft" or "break in" at the Paine house at any time in the weeks
> prior to Nov. 22.
Mike Paine was the owner of the garage...He didn't need to break in to
get his own rifle.
>
> Now, I suppose it's true that some clever thief could have slipped in
> and out of Mrs. Paine's garage, totally undetected, and made off with
> the rifle. But there is absolutely no hard evidence at all to indicate
> that such a theft took place at the Paine house in late 1963.
A person taking his own rifle from his garage isn't stealing it....
>
> The totality of circumstantial "rifle" evidence in the JFK case
> certainly does not indicate a "theft" carried out by conspirators
> wishing to frame Oswald -- but, instead, this evidence tells a
> reasonable person that Lee Oswald, himself, took that rifle from a
> rolled-up blanket in the Paine garage either on the night of Nov. 21
> or the early morning of Nov. 22.
Yer smokin wacky weed again aren't you Pea brain?
>
> Oswald's OWN LIES that he told later about the "package" and his
> rifle-ownership status are telling a reasonable person that Oswald
> desired to distance himself from any "long, bulky package" and ANY
> "rifle" that he owned whenever he was questioned about those items by
> the authorities.
Oswald's "lies" were supported by the only two people who actually saw
Lee cary a package that morning.
The paper sack he carried was NOT big enough to conceal a Mannlicher
Carcano.
>
> And why would Oswald NEED to "distance" himself from EITHER of those
> items if he merely was hauling innocent "curtain rods" to work on the
> morning of Nov. 22nd (as he twice told fellow Book Depository worker
> Wesley Frazier)?
Pssssst....Von Pea Brain, did it ever occur to you that Oswald
wasn't"distancing" himself from either item, he was merely telling the
truth.
>
> The answer is, of course, quite an obvious one.
>
> Heck, Oswald himself didn't even bother to use the "Somebody Stole My
> Rifle" alibi....which actually would have been a far better alibi
Yes that's right.....And since he didn't say ...."well, yes I do own a
rifle, and it's out in Paines garage" Which would have made it look
like he believed the rifle was still Paines garage. But he flat
denied that owned a rifle......which was such a poor alibi that It has
to be the truth.
for
> him to try to use instead of denying ownership of a weapon that he has
> got to KNOW will be traced to him very quickly. For Pete's sake, he
> knows he had the gun shipped to a P.O. Box where he received mail.
>
> But, instead, Oswald denied having owned ANY rifle, ever...and he
> denied telling Frazier anything about curtain rods...and claimed the
> only "package" he carried to work on Nov. 22 was his "lunch".
Oswald said he carried his lunch in the bag....That doesn't exclude
that he also could have had curtain rods in the bag too.
>
> On top of these lies, we know that Oswald killed policeman J.D. Tippit
> without a sliver of a doubt,
I DOUBT ....that Oswald could have traveled the 9/10 of a mile in two
or three minutes....
which is devastating evidence that tells
> a reasonable person that LHO also killed JFK less than one hour
> earlier -- due to the fact that JFK just happened to be killed while
> driving by the place where Tippit's killer worked, and which was also
> a building that contained scads of "Oswald Was Here At 12:30 Shooting
> At The President" type of evidence (not even counting the eyewitnesses
> who placed an Oswald-like shooter on the sixth floor of the TSBD).
>
> For example:
>
> 1.) Oswald's gun was found on the 6th Floor. You haven't proved that it was Oswald's
>
> 2.) Bullet shells from LHO's gun were found in the Sniper's Nest. When were they fired??
>
> 3.) Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints were found on multiple boxes
> DEEP WITHIN the Sniper's Nest..... Big Deal....Lee worked in the TSBD handling Boxes of books.
>
> 4.) An empty paper bag with Oswald's prints on it was found near the
> sniper's window....including a right palmprint of LHO's on the closed
> end of the bag which perfectly aligns with the testimony given by Wes
> Frazier about how Oswald carried a bag that day.
One minor point.....Frazier said that THAT bag was way bigger than the
bag Oswald carried.
If that bag was a
> "plant" and was "manufactured" after the fact by the police, then
> those cops deserve an award for such outstanding work, given that
> perfect job of "planting" that RIGHT PALMPRINT OF LEE OSWALD'S ON THE
> CLOSED END OF THE BAG.
>
> Plus -- Oswald leaves the Book Depository just minutes after all the
> commotion has just begun around his workplace. And LHO lies about why
> he left. He and Bill Shelley never talked after the shooting. This was
> just one of dozens of post-12:30 lies that LHO told the police.
> Another being his "I had lunch with Junior" alibi attempt.
Another minor point .....Oswald never said that....Fritz lied.
>
> Plus -- There is Oswald's not being the least bit surprised or
> startled or scared when confronted in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom at
> gunpoint by policeman Marrion Baker (per Baker's and Roy Truly's
> testimony re. Oswald's behavior).
You asshole liar.... we just covered this a few days ago and you know
damned well that Truly said Oswald was startled and acted normal.
>
> And there's a logical "He's Guilty" reason for this non-reaction of
> Oswald's too (IMO) -- i.e., he no doubt EXPECTED the building to be
> filled with cops very shortly after he fired three highly-audible
> rifle shots from an open window that he knew would be heard by a lot
> of people in Dealey Plaza.
>
> How could Oswald NOT have expected the police to race into that very
> building within minutes of the shooting? Of course he expected that to
> happen. Hence, his rush to get off of the "Floor Of Death" (Floor #6)
> and at least down to a lower floor where the shooting did not occur.
> Unfortunately for him, he had to peel off at the 2nd Floor when he no
> doubt heard the heavy bootsteps of Baker (plus Truly too) coming up
> the stairs.
One small point.... He was never on the sixth floor ar the time of the
shooting, Some 32/33 year old, 175 pound man, who was dressed in light
colored clothes WAS there with a hunting rifle.
>
> But fortunately for Oswald, he worked there, and was cleared by Truly
> as just another employee of the TSBD. If Lee had not been employed
> there, J.D. Tippit would probably still be alive, because Oswald would
> have likely been detained by Officer Baker due to his "unknown" status
> in the eyes of Superintendent Roy Truly.
When was the last time you saw yer shrink?? This is about the
nuttiest bunch of crap I read in a long time.
>
> After the Baker encounter, Oswald can no doubt breathe a tad
> easier....because he's just passed a major hurdle in slipping through
> any early post-shooting dragnet. So, he pauses at the Coke machine for
> just a moment or two and purchases a soft drink.*
>
> * = Whether it was a "Coca-Cola" (in the trademark "hourglass"-shaped
> bottle) or Oswald's favorite soft drink, Dr. Pepper, is something that
> I do not believe has ever been officially established.
Who the hell cares?? You're too damned dumb to do that kind of
reasearch anyway.
>
> But, regardless of flavor, LHO buys a soft drink and walks through the
> Depository's second-floor offices, where Mrs. Robert A. Reid sees
> Oswald and even speaks to him, telling him "The President has been
> shot, but maybe they didn't hit him".
>
> Oswald then exhibits another perfectly-reasonable reaction from his
> own point-of-view, seeing as how he already KNOWS the information
> being told to him by Mrs. Reid -- that reaction being (like with
> Officer Baker) another "non-reaction" for the most part, as he brushes
> by Reid without saying anything that Reid could understand (she said
> he "mumbled something to me"), and without displaying the slightest
> bit of shock, surprise, or concern. According to Mrs. Reid, Oswald was
> "very calm".**
Psssst....Von Pea Brain... Perhaps Lee couldn't believe his ears and
wanted to see for himself...
> ** = A grain of salt needs to be taken here re. Reid's testimony. This
> salt is needed because we know that Reid herself was somewhat upset
> about the President being shot and she would have had no particular
> reason at all to pay very much attention to Lee Oswald as he passed by
> her, a trip which took no more than a few fleeting seconds, quite
> obviously.
By her own words we know that she DID NOT know that JFK had been
shot...Why do you lie like this??
>
> Mrs. Reid said to the Warren Commission that a major reason why she
> recalls seeing LHO that day is due to the fact that it was somewhat
> unusual to see any of the "warehouse boys" in the office area except
> when they needed change for the soda machine. But since Reid could see
> that Oswald already had a "full" bottle of a soft drink, she knew he
> probably wasn't in the office to get change.
Reid specified that lee was carrying a "COKE".....she didn't say "soft
drink"
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/reid.htm
>
> Oswald then departs the TSBD at approx. 12:33 PM and goes home in a
> very unusual way (for him)....via bus AND taxicab. Being the miser
> that he was, the 95-cent cab ride ($1.00 including the tip for driver
> William Whaley) was definitely out of character for the frugal Mr.
> Oswald.
Without a doubt Oswald was in a hurry to get to the Texas theater,
When he got outside and heard the rumors that JFK had been shot he
wanted to make contact with Hosty, whom he had warned about the plot
to shoot JFK.
>
> So, a logical question needs to be asked here as well -- Why doesn't
> Oswald just take the bus home (like usual), instead of asking for a
> bus transfer from driver Cecil McWatters and then walking to the
> Greyhound taxi stand to get into a cab? Why is Oswald in such a hurry
> to get to his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue on this
> particular November day....only minutes after a U.S. President has
> been shot from right in front of the building that Oswald just
> vacated?
>
> Another question that needs to be asked is -- Why does Oswald leave
> work at midday in the first place if he was totally innocent of any
> wrong-doing that day?
As a FBI informant .....He had more pressing things to do after he
heard that JFK had been shot.
>
> That last question is a valid one, since we KNOW that Oswald lied when
> he gave his own explanation for leaving work when he did on Nov. 22.
> That lie being: He said that he assumed there would be "no more work"
> done that day due to the fact the President had been shot.
Would you have expected him to say " Well I'm a FBI informant, and
when I heard that JFK had been shot I knew I had to get to our
prearranged meeting place as soon as possible. I guess you've
forgotten that Shankilin told Fritz not to start interrogating Oswald
until Hosty could get there, because "Hosty has been working with
these people, and knows all about them"
>
> Via at least one official Dallas Police account of Oswald's story, LHO
> said he had confirmed with his boss, Bill Shelley, that he (LHO) could
> leave the building and knock off for the rest of the day. That was
> positively a lie, and here's why (via the Warren Commission witness
> transcripts).....
>
> MR. BALL -- "Did you, at any time after the President was shot, tell
> Oswald to go home?"
>
> MR. SHELLEY -- "No, sir."
Are you saying that Shelly lied because he never had the authority to
allow Lee to take the afternoon off??
Walt
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> So, when all of the above things are assembled together, a pretty
> clear picture begins to form. There's so much evidence to show that
> Lee Oswald is a double-murderer, it's staggering. ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
Let's look at that hunk of Walt brilliance one more time, in all
CAPS....just for idiotic emphasis.....
"BUT HE FLAT DENIED THAT {HE} OWNED A RIFLE....WHICH WAS SUCH A POOR
ALIBI THAT IT HAS TO BE THE TRUTH."
Somebody ought to frame the above Walt quote and use it in a classroom
somewhere to demonstrate just how incredibly goofy and stupid-sounding
some CTers can get when they're backed against a wall of "Oswald Shot
JFK" truth.
So, Walt now apparently BELIEVES Lee Oswald's "I don't own a rifle"
tale. And Walt must also now BELIEVE the police in this singular
regard too. Because that comment only comes second-hand from the
cops....the same cops who Walt wouldn't trust in a million years.
So, Walt now evidently believes the accused killer when he said he
didn't own a rifle, even though it was proven that Oswald himself
ordered the rifle via mail-order, and had the weapon shipped to a P.O.
box in Dallas that LHO used to receive mail.
And Walt believes Oswald's tale even though Marina Oswald testified
that she saw Oswald with a rifle.....
Mr. RANKIN -- "Do you recall the first time that you observed the
rifle?"
Mrs. OSWALD -- "That was on Neely Street. I think that was in
February. ... Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of
time...and that is where the rifle was. ... Of course I asked him,
"What do you need a rifle for? What do we need that for?" He said that
it would come in handy some time for hunting. And this was not too
surprising because in Russia, too, we had a rifle."
Care to revise your idiocy (again), Walt?
>>> "Oswald said he carried his lunch in the bag....That doesn't exclude that he also could have had curtain rods in the bag too." <<<
So Lee decides to lie about the curtain rods (when he denied to the
police that he ever told Frazier about such "rods"), but he'll tell
the whole truth about his lunch?? (Or is this a time when you'll
choose to think the police were LYING about something Oswald said?)
Wesley Frazier, of course, verified that Oz's "lunch" tale was a
lie.....
Mr. BALL -- "Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that
looked like a lunch package that morning?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't
take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked
him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that
day."
>>> "I doubt that Oswald could have traveled the 9/10 of a mile in two or three minutes." <<<
You got one right. Oswald couldn't have travelled nearly a mile (on
foot) in 2 or 3 minutes. But you're still clinging to your make-
believe times here....times that are not fixed in stone (even though
you think they are). Just like your silly talk about Brennan's "fixed
in stone" description of a "white-clad, 35-year-old, 175-pound"
gunman, which is stuff that's obviously not rooted in concrete either,
but you'll keep spouting it as if those stats are ironclad FACTS.
In short, you're a fucked-up kook who cannot assess evidence properly.
BTW, you like to stretch the distance from 1026 Beckley to the Tippit
murder site too, I see. But CE1119A gives the best indicator of the
precise distance, and it was 0.85 of a mile.
>>> "Mike Paine was the owner of the garage. He didn't need to break in to get his own rifle." <<<
Huh??? What the fuck does this have to do with the price of bread in
Montana?
Or are you saying that Michael Paine was one of the primary "Let's
Frame Oswald" plotters prior to 11/22?
>>> "Fritz lied." <<<
But he told the truth about other things, right? Such as when he said
that Oswald told him that he (Oz) didn't own a rifle. Right?
>>> "He {Oz} was never on the sixth floor ar the time of the shooting, Some 32/33 year old, 175 pound man, who was dressed in light colored clothes WAS there with a hunting rifle."
Oh, I see the "35-year-old" sniper is now down to a "32-33-year-old"
one. You're going in the right direction anyway. Why the switch from
your written-in-stone "35-year-old", Mr. Kook?
And you've added in the "hunting rifle" to your proverbial string of
made-up facts, I see. That came about just recently I see.
What's next? A killer with a tattoo maybe? Or sunglasses? Or TWO
rifles maybe?
You've got the imagination...just start adding things ad-hoc.
>>> "This is about the nuttiest bunch of crap I read in a long time." <<<
That's funny, I was just about to say the same thing to you.
>>> "Perhaps Lee couldn't believe his ears {when Mrs. Reid told him about JFK being shot} and wanted to see for himself." <<<
So he goes outside, talks to NOBODY to gain any insight into the
situation, and then decides to IMMEDIATELY LEAVE the general area to
go watch Van Heflin in Oak Cliff....right kook?
You're getting funnier with each passing hunk of insanity you post.
I'm lovin' it.
>>> "Reid specified that lee was carrying a "COKE".....she didn't say "soft drink"." <<<
Yeah, it's always good to work in a meaningless "semantics" type of
argument when you're being pummelled into submission. It scores you at
least a half a point anyway.
>>> "Oswald was in a hurry to get to the theater. When he got outside and heard the rumors that JFK had been shot, he wanted to make contact with Hosty, whom he had warned about the plot to shoot JFK." <<<
Yep. That's good, Walt.
Ad-hoc, just like I said.
>>> "Are you saying that Shelly [sic] lied because he never had the authority to allow Lee to take the afternoon off??" <<<
What the hell? You've run out of gas. Better get some CT fuel fast.
Fetzer's always got plenty. Or Ben-Kook. You can probably borrow a
gallon or two from them.
But make sure it's that "ad-hoc" type of fuel. After all, you
certainly wouldn't want the true facts (and a little common sense) to
seep into your idiotic ramblings....would you?
Walt
> >>> "But he {Saint Oswald} flat denied that {he} owned a rifle....which was such a poor alibi that it has to be the truth." <<<
>
> Let's look at that hunk of Walt brilliance one more time, in all
> CAPS....just for idiotic emphasis.....
>
> "BUT HE FLAT DENIED THAT {HE} OWNED A RIFLE....WHICH WAS SUCH A POOR
> ALIBI THAT IT HAS TO BE THE TRUTH."
Von pea Brain wrote:
Heck, Oswald himself didn't even bother to use the "Somebody Stole My
Rifle" alibi....which actually would have been a far better alibi for
him to try to use instead of denying ownership of a weapon
aeffects
[or even around] the 6th floor window, can't really tie down
*ownership* of the MC rifle (without much speculation)..., what's new
in Bugliosi's tome? Re-hash of the same old *speculation*?
Walt
> >>> "But he {Saint Oswald} flat denied that {he} owned a rifle....which was such a poor alibi that it has to be the truth." <<<
>
> Let's look at that hunk of Walt brilliance one more time, in all
> CAPS....just for idiotic emphasis.....
>
> "BUT HE FLAT DENIED THAT {HE} OWNED A RIFLE....WHICH WAS SUCH A POOR
> ALIBI THAT IT HAS TO BE THE TRUTH."
>
> Somebody ought to frame the above Walt quote and use it in a classroom
> somewhere to demonstrate just how incredibly goofy and stupid-sounding
> some CTers can get when they're backed against a wall of "Oswald Shot
> JFK" truth.
>
> So, Walt now apparently BELIEVES Lee Oswald's "I don't own a rifle"
> tale. And Walt must also now BELIEVE the police in this singular
> regard too. Because that comment only comes second-hand from the
> cops....the same cops who Walt wouldn't trust in a million years.
>
> So, Walt now evidently believes the accused killer when he said he
> didn't own a rifle, even though it was proven that Oswald himself
> ordered the rifle via mail-order, and had the weapon shipped to a P.O.
> box in Dallas that LHO used to receive mail.
Pea Brain you really should get yer head outta yer ass and LEARN the
FACTS.
A.J.Hidell ordered the Mannlicher Carcano that Klein's shipped to
Dallas.
>
> And Walt believes Oswald's tale even though Marina Oswald testified
> that she saw Oswald with a rifle.....
Yes she did....But WHO actually owned that rifle??
There are lots of deceivers out there in the world who have their
picture taken while
standing beside a shiny sports car, and then lie to people and say
it's their car.
So don't you think it's possible that Lee could have had De
Morhenschildt's or Mike Paine's
rifle in his hands when Marina snapped CE 133A ? ( The ONE and ONLY
authentic
Back Yard photo)
>
> Mr. RANKIN -- "Do you recall the first time that you observed the
> rifle?"
>
> Mrs. OSWALD -- "That was on Neely Street. I think that was in
> February. ... Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of
> time...and that is where the rifle was. ... Of course I asked him,
> "What do you need a rifle for? What do we need that for?" He said that
> it would come in handy some time for hunting. And this was not too
> surprising because in Russia, too, we had a rifle."
>
> Care to revise your idiocy (again), Walt?
>
> >>> "Oswald said he carried his lunch in the bag....That doesn't exclude that he also could have had curtain rods in the bag too." <<<
>
> So Lee decides to lie about the curtain rods (when he denied to the
> police that he ever told Frazier about such "rods"), but he'll tell
> the whole truth about his lunch?? (Or is this a time when you'll
> choose to think the police were LYING about something Oswald said?)
Oh there's no doubt that the cops lied their eyes out.....
> Wesley Frazier, of course, verified that Oz's "lunch" tale was a
> lie.....
>
> Mr. BALL -- "Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that
> looked like a lunch package that morning?"
>
> Mr. FRAZIER -- "You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't
> take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked
> him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that
> day."
That doesn't mean that Oswald could not have had food items in the
bag....
Perhap's Oswald was carrying a breaktime snack and he intended to buy
his LUNCH!
>
> >>> "I doubt that Oswald could have traveled the 9/10 of a mile in two or three minutes." <<<
>
> You got one right. Oswald couldn't have travelled nearly a mile (on
> foot) in 2 or 3 minutes. But you're still clinging to your make-
> believe times here....times that are not fixed in stone (even though
> you think they are). Just like your silly talk about Brennan's "fixed
> in stone" description of a "white-clad, 35-year-old, 175-pound"
> gunman, which is stuff that's obviously not rooted in concrete either,
> but you'll keep spouting it as if those stats are ironclad FACTS.
>
> In short, you're a fucked-up kook who cannot assess evidence properly.
Ad hominem attacks are a poor excuse for an intelligent rebuttal, but
if that's all you've
got going for you..... What else can you do?
>
> BTW, you like to stretch the distance from 1026 Beckley to the Tippit
> murder site too, I see. But CE1119A gives the best indicator of the
> precise distance, and it was 0.85 of a mile.
Well if you want to get technical asshole....the distance Oswald would
have had to have
covered was closer to a mile. Because he would have had to have
passed the point
where Tippit was shot while running west, and then reversed his
courseso that he was going EAST when Markham and Scroggins saw him
walking east. Of course the man they saw was NOT LHO, but I just
wanted
to shove a llittle of yer pettiness up yer ass.
>
> >>> "Mike Paine was the owner of the garage. He didn't need to break in to get his own rifle." <<<
>
> Huh??? What the fuck does this have to do with the price of bread in
> Montana?
>
> Or are you saying that Michael Paine was one of the primary "Let's
> Frame Oswald" plotters prior to 11/22?
>
> >>> "Fritz lied." <<<
Hey dumbass...read what the officers that were there at the time said
about Oswald's
reference to Shorty Norman and Junior Jarman. Oswald did NOT say he
ate lunch
with them....He said he saw them pass by the lunch room.
>
> But he told the truth about other things, right? Such as when he said
> that Oswald told him that he (Oz) didn't own a rifle. Right?
Hey dumbass....Does a liar always lie??
>
> >>> "He {Oz} was never on the sixth floor ar the time of the shooting, Some 32/33 year old, 175 pound man, who was dressed in light colored clothes WAS there with a hunting rifle."
>
> Oh, I see the "35-year-old" sniper is now down to a "32-33-year-old"
> one. You're going in the right direction anyway. Why the switch from
> your written-in-stone "35-year-old", Mr. Kook?
Up yours.... I never said the gunman was 35....I used the 30 to 35 as
defining Early thirties.
>
> And you've added in the "hunting rifle" to your proverbial string of
> made-up facts, I see. That came about just recently I see.
Oh, it's been on my mind for a long time but I'll admit that Only
Arnold Rowland used the term
"high powered"---"deer rifle" ---and "hunting rifle" to DESCRIBE the
gun in the white clothing clad gunmans hands.
Brennan simple called it... "some kind of high powered rifle", and he
DESCRIBED seeing the long metal barrel of a hunting rifle.
And when he described the rifle to inspector Sawyer he merely called
it a "Winchester"
or a 30 30 because that's what Sawyer radioed to headquarters.
>
> What's next? A killer with a tattoo maybe? Or sunglasses? Or TWO
> rifles maybe?
I donno.... we'll see what evidence turns up...
>
> You've got the imagination...just start adding things ad-hoc.
>
> >>> "This is about the nuttiest bunch of crap I read in a long time." <<<
>
> That's funny, I was just about to say the same thing to you.
>
> >>> "Perhaps Lee couldn't believe his ears {when Mrs. Reid told him about JFK being shot} and wanted to see for himself." <<<
>
> So he goes outside, talks to NOBODY to gain any insight into the
> situation, and then decides to IMMEDIATELY LEAVE the general area to
> go watch Van Heflin in Oak Cliff....right kook?
>
> You're getting funnier with each passing hunk of insanity you post.
> I'm lovin' it.
>
> >>> "Reid specified that lee was carrying a "COKE".....she didn't say "soft drink"." <<<
>
> Yeah, it's always good to work in a meaningless "semantics" type of
> argument when you're being pummelled into submission. It scores you at
> least a half a point anyway.
pummelled into submission?? ha.ha,ha,ROTFLMAO....ha, ha ,ha
Yer the one who routinely gets his ass kicked here in this N.G.
>
> >>> "Oswald was in a hurry to get to the theater. When he got outside and heard the rumors that JFK had been shot, he wanted to make contact with Hosty, whom he had warned about the plot to shoot JFK." <<<
>
> Yep. That's good, Walt.
> Ad-hoc, just like I said.
>
> >>> "Are you saying that Shelly [sic] lied because he never had the authority to allow Lee to take the afternoon off??" <<<
>
> What the hell? You've run out of gas. Better get some CT fuel fast.
> Fetzer's always got plenty. Or Ben-Kook. You can probably borrow a
> gallon or two from them.
>
> But make sure it's that "ad-hoc" type of fuel. After all, you
> certainly wouldn't want the true facts (and a little common sense) to
> seep into your idiotic ramblings....would you?
Stick around I've got more facts that'll have you squirmin like a
maggot in the sunshine.
Walt
David Von Pein
Still sticking to your CT fantasies, I see. What a shame.
Fact is: Oswald was most certainly at that SN window firing his own MC
rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. Anyone attempting to argue against that
basic true fact is only kidding themselves.
V.B. TIME:
"Within minutes of the assassination, a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle -- serial number C dash 2766 -- was found on the sixth
floor of the Book Depository Building. Oswald ordered the rifle under
the name 'A. Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
"...We KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious.
As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under
his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how
Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more."
-- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
David Von Pein
Oh, you mean the "facts" that you kooks choose to believe (the "CT-
style facts")?
No thanks. I'd rather use some common sense instead. Which is
something you never use.
>>> "A.J. Hidell ordered the Mannlicher Carcano that Klein's shipped to Dallas." <<<
And "Alek James Hidell" was really who again?? And whose handwriting
did "Mr. Hidell" have?
You're not really going to now travel down some kind of crackpot "A.J.
HIDELL WAS A REAL PERSON, AND WASN'T JUST AN OSWALD ALIAS" nonsensical
path....are you?
I hope you do go down that path actually...it'll be consistent with
your screwy "Anybody But Oswald" thinking anyway.
But if you do travel down such a path, maybe you'll have reasonable
explanations for "Hidell's" handwriting matching Oswald's
perfectly...and an explanation for Hidell's I.D. cards being in
Oswald's possession...and an explanation for why Mr. Hidell was using
Lee Harvey Oswald's Dallas post-office box to receive various packages
filled with firearms.
Give it a shot. I love fantasy.
>>> "But WHO actually owned that rifle??" <<<
"A.J. Hidell" (or "D.F. Drittal")...who else??! ~wink~
BTW, was "Drittal" a real person too, Mr. Kook?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352b.htm
>>> "So don't you think it's possible that Lee could have had DeMorhenschildt's [sic] or Mike Paine's rifle in his hands when Marina snapped CE133A?" <<<
Or maybe--just maybe--Oswald had C2766 in his hands in that March 31,
1963, photo....taken just days after Oswald received Rifle C2766 in
the mail from Klein's. (Just a coincidence I guess, right?)
Plus, there is testimony from photo experts that indicates that the
rifle Oswald is holding in the various backyard photos (all genuine
pictures, of course) is almost certainly "Rifle C2766", the same rifle
that killed President Kennedy eight months later.
Why do you kooks go to such great lengths to look like kooks regarding
EVERY single aspect of the JFK case? Just...why??
>>> "The ONE and ONLY authentic Back Yard photo." <<<
Good God. Not this shit again.
Please tell the world WHY any plotters needed extra FAKE photos of the
exact same thing that a REAL photo already depicts? I've yet to hear
the brilliant plotter logic behind that particular move. But I'm sure
Walt has a good explanation. Right, kook?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
>>> "Of course the man they saw {kill Tippit} was NOT LHO, but I just wanted to shove a little of yer pettiness up yer ass." <<<
Of course, you are dead-wrong (as per the norm)....but I love it when
you talk nasty like that, you brute!
And the constant use of "yer" for "your" is really cute too. It makes
you look so cool and hip.
>>> "Does a liar always lie??" <<<
Are we talking about YOU here? I forget. If so, I'm leaning toward a
"yes" response here.
>>> "Up yours...I never said the gunman was 35." <<<
You're really (extra) nuts if you believe this, Mr. Liar.
You have said "35-year-old gunman" many, many times in your stupid
Brennan-related posts. Below are just three examples proving you a
liar in this regard (examples that I found within seconds of searching
Walt's posts for the term "35 year old"; there are dozens more):
>>> "I dunno...we'll see what evidence turns up." <<<
Oh, I'm pretty sure your "CT-skewed evidence" is endless. So I think I
can count on various new Walt-invented theories in the future...right?
My advice is for Walt to collaborate with Don "DANNY ARCE KILLED
KENNEDY" Willis. You two guys should eventually be able to put Ruth
Paine, Linnie Randle, Wes Frazier, Jack Ruby, J.D. Tippit, and Mary
Moorman on the 6th Floor with various weapons on November 22nd. (With
Beaver Cleaver and Dobie Gillis waiting in the wings as the back-up
shooters.)
Just remember one of the main "Kook Rules" -- i.e., No theory is too
outlandish to be believed by some people!
Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison proved the above rule to be true, now
didn't they?
>>> "Stick around, I've got more facts that'll have you squirmin' like a maggot in the sunshine." <<<
I just love it when a conspiracy fruitcake thinks he's actually scored
some points in a debate like this one. It's akin to the Chicago Cubs
being elated and breaking open the champagne just after they lost a
game, 22-0.
Go figure them kooks.
aeffects
> >>> "So David...for 40+ years, you haven't provided a LHO positive ID at [or even around] the 6th floor window, can't really tie down *ownership* of the MC rifle (without much speculation)..." <<<
>
> Still sticking to your CT fantasies, I see. What a shame.
>
> Fact is: Oswald was most certainly at that SN window firing his own MC
> rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. Anyone attempting to argue against that
> basic true fact is only kidding themselves.
>
> V.B. TIME:
>
> "Within minutes of the assassination, a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-
> Carcano rifle -- serial number C dash 2766 -- was found on the sixth
> floor of the Book Depository Building. Oswald ordered the rifle under
> the name 'A. Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
>
> "...We KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
> doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!
>
> "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
> that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious.
obvious? The other rifles in the building a day or so earlier, too?
> As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under
> his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how
> Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
LMAO..... ~~...reach'in for the stars...~~
> "At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
> you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
> Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more."
1600+ pages to tell us something so obvious? Whose the *kook*, now?
> -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
Walt
> >>> "So David...for 40+ years, you haven't provided a LHO positive ID at [or even around] the 6th floor window, can't really tie down *ownership* of the MC rifle (without much speculation)..." <<<
>
> Still sticking to your CT fantasies, I see. What a shame.
>
> Fact is: Oswald was most certainly at that SN window firing his own MC
> rifle at JFK on 11/22/63. Anyone attempting to argue against that
> basic true fact is only kidding themselves.
>
> V.B. TIME:
>
> "Within minutes of the assassination, a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-
> Carcano rifle -- serial number C dash 2766 -- was found on the sixth
> floor of the Book Depository Building. Oswald ordered the rifle under
> the name 'A. Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
You KNOW nothing.... You THINK you know.
>
> "...We KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
> doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!
Utter nonsense..... That mannlicher carcano was never even fired that
day.
>
> "And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
> that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious.
> As far as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under
> his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how
> Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
Damn... Do I have to post Frazier's testimony again to show you to be
a liar?
Frazier said the "exact replica" bag that had been fabricated by the
FBI was much bigger than the bag he saw Oswald carry that morning.
>
> "At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
> you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
> Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more."
Hoover hadn't talked to Johnson on November 29 and told Johnson that
they knew three shots had been fired one striking John Connally and
the other two striking JFK and they had recovered all three bullets
and HIS FBI experts had matched those bullets to Oswald's rifle.
Now if you could somehow erase this information from the record so you
could say that Hoover's FBI was squeaky clean, you "might" have a leg
to stand on. But for those of us who know the lies of the authorities
you'll play hell trying peddle yer fantastic tales.
Walt
> -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
David Von Pein
David Von Pein
Then explain how two large bullet fragments from that very rifle
turned up in the President's limousine on 11/22/63.
More "planted" evidence I suppose, huh?
Obviously, via Walt's nutty words I just quoted above, Walter The Mega-
Kook thinks that CE399 was planted AND the two front-seat limo
fragments were also planted.
Which begs the question -- WHY THE NEED TO PLANT THE FRAGMENTS *AND*
CE399?
Wouldn't just one or the other suffice? Oswald's gun is tied to the
murder very nicely via the front-seat fragments...so why in the world
would any plotters risk planting a whole bullet on a stretcher at
Parkland when Oz-incriminating evidence is going to be planted in a
far better location--the LIMO ITSELF?
Plus: Why would any plotters try to frame Oswald with a gun that they
never bothered to use AT ALL during the assassination attempt?
Didn't "they" fear that at least ONE non-C2766 bullet might turn up
SOMEPLACE, to be seen by a non-plotter? (Or was the entire state of
Texas "in" on the Oswald frame-up that day, which meant the plotters
needn't worry about any such piddly details?)
Allow me to repeat Walt's latest hunk of knee-jerk, unsupportable,
conspiracy-tinged kookshit....just to show the inimitable MINDSET OF A
MORON.....
"That Mannlicher-Carcano was never even fired that day." -- Walt The K.
eca...@tx.rr.com
sense application alone David..
Here's common sense/logic application
of the known evidence *pattern* for those
who may not be able to identify same:
DVP ON:-------------
"1.) Oswald's gun was found on the 6th Floor.
2.) Bullet shells from LHO's gun were found in the Sniper's Nest.
3.) Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints were found on multiple boxes
DEEP WITHIN the Sniper's Nest.
4.) An empty paper bag with Oswald's prints on it was found near the
sniper's window....including a right palmprint of LHO's on the closed
end of the bag which perfectly aligns with the testimony given by Wes
Frazier about how Oswald carried a bag that day."
DVP OFF---------------
Yes folks Oswald was guilty.
MR ;~D 1907Apr2207
> read more »...
eca...@tx.rr.com
THE NEED TO PLANT THE FRAGMENTS *AND* CE399?"
More application of objectivity and common
sense to the known evidence *pattern* by
David Von Pein..
Nicely done..
Ed
aeffects
Glad you're living up to Fast Eddie Cage's expectations David VP....
LMAO, that's like someone telling you, you got malaria, enjoy....
Walt
> >>> "That Mannlicher-Carcano was never even fired that day." <<<
>
> Then explain how two large bullet fragments from that very rifle
> turned up in the President's limousine on 11/22/63.
Psssst....Von Pea Brain were these bullet fragments examined by the
same FBI lab man that told Hoover that they had identified all three
bullets that had been recovered from JFK and Connally , as having been
fired from Oswald's rifle?
>
> More "planted" evidence I suppose, huh?
>
> Obviously, via Walt's nutty words I just quoted above, Walter The Mega-
> Kook thinks that CE399 was planted AND the two front-seat limo
> fragments were also planted.
Wow...I've got a promotion..........I'm now a Mega-Kook.
It's not necessary to actually "plant" evidence when the authorities
are in control of the "investigation"
>
> Which begs the question -- WHY THE NEED TO PLANT THE FRAGMENTS *AND*
> CE399?
>
> Wouldn't just one or the other suffice? Oswald's gun is tied to the
> murder very nicely via the front-seat fragments...so why in the world
> would any plotters risk planting a whole bullet on a stretcher at
> Parkland when Oz-incriminating evidence is going to be planted in a
> far better location--the LIMO ITSELF?
I think you'd better check the record....the fragments were never
ballistically traced to the Mannlicher.
>
> Plus: Why would any plotters try to frame Oswald with a gun that they
> never bothered to use AT ALL during the assassination attempt?
Duh....Could it have been because they had photos that shoed him
holding a Carcano??
>
> Didn't "they" fear that at least ONE non-C2766 bullet might turn up
> SOMEPLACE, to be seen by a non-plotter? (Or was the entire state of
> Texas "in" on the Oswald frame-up that day, which meant the plotters
> needn't worry about any such piddly details?)
With Hoover at the controls.... fake evidence was easily substituted
for the actual evidence.
>
> Allow me to repeat Walt's latest hunk of knee-jerk, unsupportable,
> conspiracy-tinged kookshit....just to show the inimitable MINDSET OF A
> MORON.....
>
> "That Mannlicher-Carcano was never even fired that day." -- Walt The K.
What the hell?? ...... First you promote me to Mega-Kook and then
you demote me. I'm devastated.
aeffects
as the release date beckons...David VP hesitates...?
David Von Pein
Then why "plant" ANYTHING at all (including the "stretcher bullet")?
Your case is falling apart due to the weight of its very own
absurdity. You DO realize that, don't you Walt?
>>> "The fragments were never ballistically traced to the Mannlicher." <<<
Good Lord, what a kook you are! How is it even POSSIBLE to mangle the
most BASIC pieces of evidence in this case the way Walt continuously
does? Absolutely incredible.
Walt, the two front-seat bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) were
POSITIVELY BALLISTICALLY LINKED TO OSWALD'S C2766 RIFLE (CE139)...."to
the exclusion of all other weapons":
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "This bullet fragment {originally designated as
"Q-2"} was fired in this rifle, 139."
Note -- "Q-2", just seconds after Robert Frazier uttered the above
sentence, was then officially admitted into evidence by the Warren
Commission and given the Commission designation "CE567". The other
front-seat fragment ("Q-3") was labelled "CE569" by the Commission
during Frazier's testimony as well.
FRAZIER -- "This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this
particular rifle, 139."
EISENBERG -- "Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?"
FRAZIER - "Yes, sir."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
>>> "First you promote me to Mega-Kook and then you demote me. I'm devastated." <<<
Hint for Walt -- "Mega-Kook" = "Moron".
They are synonymous.
Kinda the same way "Vincent Bugliosi" = "Brilliant".
aeffects
brilliant is the term.... 15-20 years to write about-support the WCR
and it volumes AND conclusions?
It took Mark Lane less than a year to read the WCR and the entire
collection of the volumes and build arguments thatliterally destroy
the notion that the WCR was forthcoming...not to mention accurate --
now THAT'S **brilliant**...
you need another hero to worship, David. Give Eddie Cage a go, better
yet Lower_y, that's the ticket eh? Someone worthy of the extensive
research.... LMAO
Walt
"Inimitable" yet.....I'd prefer peerless, but what the hell
"inimitable" ain't bad.
Perhaps I should have said the Mannlicher Carcano was NOT in the hands
of the White clothing clad gunman that Howard Brennan saw fire from
the WEST end window. Here's the testimony of a couple of witnesses
who saw the rifle in the gunman's hands.
Mr. Rowland.
We were discussing, as I stated, the different security precautions, I
mean it was a very important person who was coming and we were aware
of the policemen around everywhere, and especially in positions where
they would be able to watch crowds. We talked momentarily of the
incidents with Mr. Stevenson, and the one before that with Mr.
Johnson, and this being in mind we were more or less security
conscious. We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of
the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging
out the window.
He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a
fairly HIGH-POWERED rifle because of the scope and the relative
proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of
rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought
momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought
came to us that it is a security agent.
We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in
windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we
brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about
it until after the event happened.
this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the
first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched,
the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was
the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and
no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window.
It was this pair of windows here at that time.
Mr. Specter.
How much, if any, or all of that rifle could you see?
Mr. Rowland.
All of it.
Mr. Specter.
You could see from the base of the stock down to the tip of the end of
the rifle? The barrel of the rifle?
Mr. Rowland.
Yes
Mr. Specter.
Can you describe the rifle with any more particularity than you
already have?
Mr. Rowland.
No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size
6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.
Mr. Specter.
When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that?
Mr. Rowland.
That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is
an import.
Mr. Specter.
Do you own any rifles?
Mr. Rowland.
No; my stepfather does.
Mr. Specter.
Have you ever gone hunting deer with such a rifle?
Mr. Rowland.
Yes; I have.
Mr. Specter.
And is that a .30-odd-6 rifle that you have hunted deer with?
Mr. Rowland.
Yes.
Was the rifle which you observed similar to, or perhaps identical
with, .30-odd rifles which you have seen before?
Mr. Rowland.
The best I could tell it was of that size.
Mr. Specter.
Have you seen such .30-odd rifles before at close range which had
telescopic sights?
Mr. Rowland.
Yes; one my stepfather has has a very powerful scope on it.
Mr. Specter.
And did this rifle appear similar to the one your stepfather owned?
Mr. Rowland.
>From my distance, I would say very similar or of similar manufacture.
Mr. Specter.
In what manner was the rifle being held by the man whom you observed?
Mr. Rowland.
The way he was standing it would have been in a position such as port
arms in military terms.
Arnold Rowland obviously was describing a "HIGH POWERED"- "DEER RIFLE"
- "HUNTING RIFLE" with a telescopic sight and a long exposed metal
barrel.
Howard Brennan described the rifle .....
Yes.Mr. Belin.
Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. Brennan.
I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a
HIGH POWERED rifle.
Mr. Brennan.
Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat
sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy
getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his
hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility
from his belt up.
Mr. Belin.
How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. Brennan.
I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
Brennan also said that at the time the man was STANDING and bracing
the rifle against the side of the window, he could see ALL OF THE
BARREL of the rifle which is another indication that the rifle had a
long exposed metal barrel.
Mr. Belin.
Could you tell whether or not any part of the rifle was protruding out
of the window?
Mr. Brennan.
On a straight view like that it looked like it was. But as I have told
investigating officers prior, a person would have to be at an angle to
tell how much was protruding out of the window. It did look at that
time that as much was protruding out of the window as there was in the
window.
So two witnesses independently described the gunman's rifle as a "HIGH
POWERED" or hunting rifle, with a long exposed metal barrel and NOT a
millitary rifle with wood covering the barrel.
I'm sure you'll have an ad hominem attack ready to post in rebuttal to
these testimonies..... I don't think they'll have much effect but what
the hell.....If that's all you've got, you'll have to use that.
Walt
aeffects
> >>> "Duh....Could it have been because they had photos that showed him holding a Carcano??" <<<
>
> Oh, so now you admit that the Backyard Photos (or at one of them)
> shows Oswald holding a "Carcano", eh?
>
> A little bit ago you hinted that Oswald was holding DeMohrenschildt's
> or Mike Paine's rifle. Did those guys each own crappy "Carcanos" too?
>
> Make up your mind, Mr. Kook. Your piecemeal theories are destroying
> themselves.
your making yourself look the fool, David...
David Von Pein
Note how Walt just decides to MAKE UP stuff without any support for it
at all.
In this instance: Walt takes Brennan's account of the rifle "barrel"
and mangles it to death (as per the Walt norm).
Back to reality here .... At NO TIME did Brennan ever say he could see
"all of the barrel" of the rifle. Never did he say anything like that.
And Brennan certainly never even HINTED that the rifle he saw had a
"long exposed metal barrel".
In fact, I just did a word search of all parts of Howard Brennan's WC
testimony, and the word "barrel" never appears even ONCE in his
lengthy transcript. Never once! It's never even spoken by David Belin!
Not once.
Plus: Even if Brennan HAD said he saw "all of the barrel" .... so
what? How would such a declaration automatically equate to a "hunting
rifle with a long exposed metal barrel"? How?
Walt = The Quintessential "Anybody But Oswald" CTer.
David Von Pein
Oh, so now you admit that the Backyard Photos (or at least one of
them) shows Oswald holding a "Carcano", eh?
A little bit ago you hinted that Oswald was holding DeMohrenschildt's
or Mike Paine's rifle. Did those guys each own crappy "Carcanos" too?
Make up your mind, Mr. Kook. Your piecemeal theories are caving in on
one another.
aeffects
you never did tell us what make/model[s] those rifles are, that were
known to be in the TSBD a day or so BEFORE the assassination...
Truly's office, as a matter of fact....did you, David?
David Von Pein
No. Have you?
Perhaps you can tell us what those OTHER rifles have to do with the
fact that Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th Floor 52 minutes after
JFK was shot (the same rifle that links to ballistics evidence in
multiple places outside and inside the TSBD...the SN, the limo, and
Parkland Memorial Hospital).
Now, tell us again how Oswald's gun wasn't JFK's murder weapon. I like
hearing the CTers shift from one foot to the other and stammer like
idiots as they attempt to sell that lemon of a non-C2766 theory.
cdddraftsman
a closer look at what Walt is growing in his garden these
days ........... There may be a secret or two there that
might just bust this case wide open for him ...........tl
> Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
Pea Brain I've asked you before.... Who verified that the bullets
were ballistically linked to that MC? Was this the same Hoover's lab
man that identified all THREE bullets that had been recovered from JFK
and John Connally? You know, The one that Hoover mentioned in his
memo for his files about his meeting with LBJ on November 29.
Hoover said he had assured the president (LBJ) that all three bullets
that had struck JFK ( 2) and JBC (1) had been recovered and matched to
the rifle by his lab man.
Is the lab man that matched CE399 to the TSBD Carcano the same guy
that matched those three bullets to the carcano?
Walt
Walt
> >>> "Brennan also said that at the time the man was STANDING and bracing the rifle against the side of the window, he could see ALL OF THE BARREL of the rifle, which is another indication that the rifle had a long exposed metal barrel." <<<
>
> Note how Walt just decides to MAKE UP stuff without any support for it
> at all.
>
> In this instance: Walt takes Brennan's account of the rifle "barrel"
> and mangles it to death (as per the Walt norm).
>
> Back to reality here .... At NO TIME did Brennan ever say he could see
> "all of the barrel" of the rifle. Never did he say anything like that.
> And Brennan certainly never even HINTED that the rifle he saw had a
> "long exposed metal barrel".
If you can pull yer head outta yer ass long enough to read Brennan's
affidavit, You'll see that brennan said the rifle was a "HIGH POWERED"
rifle (ie a hunting rifle) and he could see "ALL OF THE BARREL OF THE
GUN".
Here's his testimony referring to how much of the rifle was outside of
the window......
How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. Brennan.
I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
Mr. Belin.
Could you tell whether or not any part of the rifle was protruding out
of the window?
Mr. Brennan.
On a straight view like that it looked like it was.But as I have told
investigating officers prior, a person would have to be at an angle to
tell how much was protruding out of the window. It did look at that
time that as much was protruding out of the window as there was in the
window.
"as much was protruding out of the window as there was in the
window."
In his testimony Brennan again referred to the rifle as a "HIGH
POWERED" rifle which is the way many people refer to big game hunting
rifles.
Mr. Brennan.
Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the
left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding
the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last
shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from
the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe
paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his
mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the
right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher
on the Houston side.
Mr. Belin.
Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. Brennan.
I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a
high-powered rifle.
Mr. Belin.
At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man
could you see?
Mr. Brennan.
Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat
sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy
getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his
hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility
from his belt up.
Mr. Belin.
How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. Brennan.
I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
Mr. Belin.
Could you tell whether or not any part of the rifle was protruding out
of the window?
Mr. Brennan.
On a straight view like that it looked like it was.
But as I have told investigating officers prior, a person would have
to be at an angle to tell how much was protruding out of the window.
It did look at that time that as much was protruding out of the window
as there was in the window.
>
> In fact, I just did a word search of all parts of Howard Brennan's WC
> testimony, and the word "barrel" never appears even ONCE in his
> lengthy transcript. Never once! It's never even spoken by David Belin!
> Not once.
That may be true.... But Howard Brennan did say that he could see "ALL
OF THE BARREL" of the "HIGH POWERED RIFLE", that the man in the "LIGHT
COLORED" shirt was firing as he STOOD and braced against the side of
the window.
Walt
Walt
> >>> "It's not necessary to actually "plant" evidence when the authorities are in control of the "investigation"." <<<
>
> Then why "plant" ANYTHING at all (including the "stretcher bullet")?
Duh.... You aren't really this obtuse....I'm sure, but ya gotta quit
smokin that stuff.
The conspirators weren't overly worried about planning the murder down
to the tiniest detail. They knew that the "Law" was on their
side.....They knew in their hearts that JFK was a communist who was
ruining the country but givin the niggers rights that they should not
have......So they were doin the right thing and didn't worry about
makin every tiny piece fit. They had been lynching men, for decades
who they deemed to be a threat to the status quo, and JFK was just
another threat.
Walt
Walt
> >>> "Brennan also said that at the time the man was STANDING and bracing the rifle against the side of the window, he could see ALL OF THE BARREL of the rifle, which is another indication that the rifle had a long exposed metal barrel." <<<
>
> Note how Walt just decides to MAKE UP stuff without any support for it
> at all.
Hey Von pea brain I didn't "MAKE UP" Howard Brennan's affidavit ...
Read it....He clearly says the 165 -175 pound man who was wearing
light colored clothing was firing a HIGH POWERED rifle, and he could
see "ALL OF THE BARREL" of the rifle.
It's obvious that Oswald was much lighter than 165 to 175 pounds, he
was NOT dressed in light colored clothing....and the rifle the gunman
was firing was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> In this instance: Walt takes Brennan's account of the rifle "barrel"
> and mangles it to death (as per the Walt norm).
>
> Back to reality here .... At NO TIME did Brennan ever say he could see
> "all of the barrel" of the rifle. Never did he say anything like that.
> And Brennan certainly never even HINTED that the rifle he saw had a
> "long exposed metal barrel".
Sucker.....Ya Let yer alligator mouth overload yer tadpole ass...
Walt
David Von Pein
And Mr. Truly also said -- "But I cannot recall any change in
expression of any kind on his face."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
I wonder how a person can appear "startled" but at the same time not
display any "change in expression of any kind on his face"?
I suppose it's possible to reach a "startled" conclusion via other
bodily signs, e.g., flinching or sudden body movements of some kind;
but Truly never testified that Oswald "jumped" in a "startled" manner.
So, make of Truly's comments what you will. I'll continue to endorse
the notion that Oswald was fairly calm and unruffled when having
Officer Baker's gun shoved near mis mid-section on November 22....and
that such a reaction (in Oswald's particular case) is more indicative
of a guilty assassin who had just shot the President minutes earlier
than it is an innocent patsy who never fired a shot that day. ....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5c20ac5cb62e601b
Walt
> >> "Duh....Could it have been because they had photos that showed him holding a Carcano??" <<<
>
> Oh, so now you admit that the Backyard Photos (or at least one of
> them) shows Oswald holding a "Carcano", eh?
Hey Von Pea Brain.... I've been saying for years that ONE of the Back
Yard photos is the authentic photo that Marina took of Oswald holding
a Mannlicher Carcano that is NOT the same rifle that was found in the
TSBD.
> A little bit ago you hinted that Oswald was holding DeMohrenschildt's
> or Mike Paine's rifle. Did those guys each own crappy "Carcanos" too?
Yes one of them did own a Mannlicher Carcano, ( probably Mike
Paine)but that Carcano was a little bit different than the rifle that
was found in the TSBD. That MC had the sling loops on the BOTTOM of
the rifle, whereas the TSBD rifle had the sling loops on the left side
of the rifle. Somehow Paine and Oswald got the two rifles switched
and Marina took a photo (CE133A) of Lee holding the rifle with the
BOTTOM sling loops. When the other two backyard photos were created
they used a MC with the sling loops on the side of the rifle.
Walt
David Von Pein
Hoover's initial "three bullets" reference was quite obviously
referring to.....
1.) CE399.
2.) One of the front-seat bullet fragments.
3.) The other front-seat bullet fragment.
All three of the above, of course, were positively linked to Rifle
#C2766.
It was just one of several FBI errors during the early stages of the
investigation. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7835a5f11f2d5dcd
>>> "Who verified that the bullets were ballistically linked to that MC?" <<<
Trick question again? Or are you truly THIS ignorant of the basic
facts surrounding some of the most important evidence and testimony in
the whole case?
Allow me to lead you to a page of the Warren Report you've probably
never seen....
WR; Pp. 84-85:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0054b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0055a.htm
The above-referenced WCR pages tell of FOUR firearms identification
experts who examined the bullet evidence in the JFK case....with two
of those four testifying in front of the WC (Robert Frazier of the FBI
and Joseph Nicol of Illinois, who was brought in as an INDEPENDENT
ballistics expert (outside the U.S. Government).
Both Nicol and Frazier totally agreed with respect to the bullet
evidence -- i.e., the front-seat fragments and CE399 had been fired in
Oswald's rifle "to the exclusion".
The other two experts also reached the exact same conclusion.
Was Nicol a WC shill too, Walt?
Also answer me this -- If the Warren Commission was on a "Let's Get
Oswald" mission from Day 1, why on Earth would they have wanted to ADD
Nicol to the list of "expert" witnesses?
Did they merely want somebody else to "coerce"? Frazier and the other
experts on the Government payroll weren't enough, is that it? They
wanted to add in an expert from Illinois too....not knowing what he
was going to testify to re. the ballistics. (Or do you think the WC
did know in advance what Nicol would say?)
Just how far and deep did the Commission go in order to paint poor Lee
Harvey as the lone killer (per your Kook Logic)? Was there ANY limit
to the number of people the WC could twist around their LN fingers?
David Von Pein
The Kook. (Boy, this sucks.) :(
Yes, in Brennan's AFFIDAVIT he said he could see "all of the barrel"
of the rifle. I humbly apologize for this oversight. When I earlier
said Brennan never said "barrel"...I was indeed correct...but only
with respect to Brennan's WC testimony (which is what I was focusing
on at the time...and what Walt appeared to be focusing on as well).
But, yes, Brennan did say what Walt said he said in his 11/22
affidavit. Walt did a nice job earlier of mixing in Brennan's WC
statements with his affidavit remarks.
But, even with the "all of the barrel" statement in the
affidavit....allow me to repeat something I said previously.....
"Even if Brennan HAD said he saw "all of the barrel" .... so what? How
would such a declaration automatically equate to a "hunting rifle with
a long exposed metal barrel"? How?" -- DVP
Raymond
> On 22 Apr, 03:05, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "But he {Saint Oswald} flat denied that {he} owned a rifle....which was such a poor alibi that it has to be the truth." <<<
>
> > Let's look at that hunk of Walt brilliance one more time, in all
> > CAPS....just for idiotic emphasis.....
>
> > "BUT HE FLAT DENIED THAT {HE} OWNED A RIFLE....WHICH WAS SUCH A POOR
> > ALIBI THAT IT HAS TO BE THE TRUTH."
> Von pea Brain wrote:
>
> Heck, Oswald himself didn't even bother to use the "Somebody Stole My
> Rifle" alibi....which actually would have been a far better alibi for
> him to try to use instead of denying ownership of a weapon
>
>
>
> > somewhere to demonstrate just how incredibly goofy and stupid-sounding
> > some CTers can get when they're backed against a wall of "Oswald Shot
> > JFK" truth.
>
> > So, Walt now apparently BELIEVES Lee Oswald's "I don't own a rifle"
> > tale. And Walt must also now BELIEVE the police in this singular
> > regard too. Because that comment only comes second-hand from the
> > cops....the same cops who Walt wouldn't trust in a million years.
>
> > So, Walt now evidently believes the accused killer when he said he
> > didn't own a rifle, even though it was proven that Oswald himself
> > ordered the rifle via mail-order, and had the weapon shipped to a P.O.
> > box in Dallas that LHO used to receive mail.
>
> > And Walt believes Oswald's tale even though Marina Oswald testified
> > that she saw Oswald with a rifle.....
>
> > Mr. RANKIN -- "Do you recall the first time that you observed the
> > rifle?"
>
> > Mrs. OSWALD -- "That was on Neely Street. I think that was in
> > February. ... Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of
> > time...and that is where the rifle was. ... Of course I asked him,
> > "What do you need a rifle for? What do we need that for?" He said that
> > it would come in handy some time for hunting. And this was not too
> > surprising because in Russia, too, we had a rifle."
>
> > Care to revise your idiocy (again), Walt?
>
> > >>> "Oswald said he carried his lunch in the bag....That doesn't exclude that he also could have had curtain rods in the bag too." <<<
>
> > So Lee decides to lie about the curtain rods (when he denied to the
> > police that he ever told Frazier about such "rods"), but he'll tell
> > the whole truth about his lunch?? (Or is this a time when you'll
> > choose to think the police were LYING about something Oswald said?)
>
> > Wesley Frazier, of course, verified that Oz's "lunch" tale was a
> > lie.....
>
> > Mr. BALL -- "Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that
> > looked like a lunch package that morning?"
>
> > Mr. FRAZIER -- "You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't
> > take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked
> > him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that
> > day."
>
> > >>> "I doubt that Oswald could have traveled the 9/10 of a mile in two or three minutes." <<<
>
> > You got one right. Oswald couldn't have travelled nearly a mile (on
> > foot) in 2 or 3 minutes. But you're still clinging to your make-
> > believe times here....times that are not fixed in stone (even though
> > you think they are). Just like your silly talk about Brennan's "fixed
> > in stone" description of a "white-clad, 35-year-old, 175-pound"
> > gunman, which is stuff that's obviously not rooted in concrete either,
> > but you'll keep spouting it as if those stats are ironclad FACTS.
>
> > In short, you're a fucked-up kook who cannot assess evidence properly.
>
> > BTW, you like to stretch the distance from 1026 Beckley to the Tippit
> > murder site too, I see. But CE1119A gives the best indicator of the
> > precise distance, and it was 0.85 of a mile.
>
> > >>> "Mike Paine was the owner of the garage. He didn't need to break in to get his own rifle." <<<
>
> > Huh??? What the fuck does this have to do with the price of bread in
> > Montana?
>
> > Or are you saying that Michael Paine was one of the primary "Let's
> > Frame Oswald" plotters prior to 11/22?
>
> > >>> "Fritz lied." <<<
>
> > But he told the truth about other things, right? Such as when he said
> > that Oswald told him that he (Oz) didn't own a rifle. Right?
>
> > >>> "He {Oz} was never on the sixth floor ar the time of the shooting, Some 32/33 year old, 175 pound man, who was dressed in light colored clothes WAS there with a hunting rifle."
>
> > Oh, I see the "35-year-old" sniper is now down to a "32-33-year-old"
> > one. You're going in the right direction anyway. Why the switch from
> > your written-in-stone "35-year-old", Mr. Kook?
>
> > And you've added in the "hunting rifle" to your proverbial string of
> > made-up facts, I see. That came about just recently I see.
>
> > What's next? A killer with a tattoo maybe? Or sunglasses? Or TWO
> > rifles maybe?
>
> > You've got the imagination...just start adding things ad-hoc.
>
> > >>> "This is about the nuttiest bunch of crap I read in a long time." <<<
>
> > That's funny, I was just about to say the same thing to you.
>
> > >>> "Perhaps Lee couldn't believe his ears {when Mrs. Reid told him about JFK being shot} and wanted to see for himself." <<<
>
> > So he goes outside, talks to NOBODY to gain any insight into the
> > situation, and then decides to IMMEDIATELY LEAVE the general area to
> > go watch Van Heflin in Oak Cliff....right kook?
>
> > You're getting funnier with each passing hunk of insanity you post.
> > I'm lovin' it.
>
> > >>> "Reid specified that lee was carrying a "COKE".....she didn't say "soft drink"." <<<
>
> > Yeah, it's always good to work in a meaningless "semantics" type of
> > argument when you're being pummelled into submission. It scores you at
> > least a half a point anyway.
>
> > >>> "Oswald was in a hurry to get to the theater. When he got outside and heard the rumors that JFK had been shot, he wanted to make contact with Hosty, whom he had warned about the plot to shoot JFK." <<<
>
> > Yep. That's good, Walt.
> > Ad-hoc, just like I said.
>
> > >>> "Are you saying that Shelly [sic] lied because he never had the authority to allow Lee to take the afternoon off??" <<<
>
> > What the hell? You've run out of gas. Better get some CT fuel fast.
> > Fetzer's always got plenty. Or Ben-Kook. You can probably borrow a
> > gallon or two from them.
>
> > But make sure it's that "ad-hoc" type of fuel. After all, you
> > certainly wouldn't want the true facts (and a little common sense) to
> > seep into your idiotic ramblings....would you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The defenders of the Warren Commission's claim that LHO constructed a
paper container from materials in the TSBD to transport his
Mannlicher
Carcano from the Paine garage in Irving to the sixth floor of the
building
where he worked have got some questions to answer.
If Lee snitched paper and tape from the shipping room, when did he do
this without Troy West seeing him and when and where did he
manufacture
the final container?
A replica bag was made of similar materials from the same area of
Troy
West's shipping room by SA ODUM on Sunday, December 1 when West wasn't
there to watch over his coffee business and his paper rolls.Did ODUM
construct his sack while in the shipping room or did he too take the
paper
and tape home with him, hidden in his trousers and construct his
container
without being seen?
If Lee did have his weapon in the mysterious bag and carried it from
Frazier's car into the TSBD, where did he deposit it until needed to
shoot
at the President?. Since he was allegedly seen entering the back door
of
the building empty handed, how did he make his package disappear?
When last seen by Frazier, he had the alleged rifle under his arm and
by
the time he was seen by Dougherty the pagkage was no longer an issue.
If true, Lee had about four hours to retrieve his murder weapon and
take
it up to the sixth floor without being seen. Considering the above,
we
must conclude that the package was hidden outside the building
without
Frazier seeing Lee conceal it. This would indicate that at some point
during the morning Lee had to leave the building, recover his package
and
carry it, unseen again, to the sixth floor.
Difficult to explain? Indeed !
Now, the defenders of the curtain rod story also have some explaining
to
do.
If Lee did take paper and tape from the shipping room and was able at
some point to construct the brown paper bag, the same scenario exists.
If
he had curtain rods in the package when he exited Frazier's car and
was
seen empty handed by Dougherty, what happened to his rods?
Let's examine Dougherty's testimony since so much value is placed on
his
seeing Lee enter the back door empty handed.
He says he was sitting on the wrapping table "when Lee came through
the
rear door" empty handed. When asked about the location of the door and
if
it was the only door, he said , "Yes."
He was not necessarily lying. However, what he said was misleading.
To
explain, we must examine the floor plan drawing of the first floor of
the
TSBD. (CE 1061). Where he was seated, he could not have seen Lee enter
the rear door to the building from outside since that door only
deposits a
person onto the deck of the rear loading dock-not the first floor
proper
where Dougherty described seeing Lee enter empty handed.
LOOKING AT THE DRAWING: After entering the loading dock from outside,
we see a door from the dock to the first floor and the shipping floor
equipment where Dougherty was sitting. So now we have our antinomy!
Both sides of the argument can argue that Lee left the package
(containing the rods or rifle) someplace on the loading dock where
neither Frazier or Dougherty would have seen it.
If I was making the movie, I would opt for the cutrain rod story and
improvise from there. Of course, that does not exclude the possibility
of
the rifle, or a similar rifle, having been brought into the building
before the morning of the 22nd., especially since we are not sure when
the rifle might have been removed from the Paine's garage, are we?
And obviously, Lee had not planned on returning home again to Irving,
and
logic says that he at least wanted to see his family for possibly the
last
time, so he fibbed to Frazier about why he wanted to go home a day
early.
And not to be seen as a liar, he did have a set of Ruth's curtain rods
in
a common store shopping bag that contained groceries the day before.
Hell,
Ruth had lots of cheap rods and wasn't using them anyhow,
Yes.if I was making the movie, I would plan the shooting from a
window
on the fifth floor and I would have my rifle nearby and ready to fire.
I
would hide it behind a box of those books and have it marked for my
shooter so he would know where to pick it up when ready.
When the human traffic was too much on the fifth floor , I would have
him
hurry to the sixth floor and look for a place to shoot at the
motorcade
from.
Would I provide some background scenes to convince my audience that
my
movie making plot was sincere? Of course. I would have open windows on
the
west side of the fifth floor and I would show the marking made by Lee
for
my shooter, on the box where the gun was hidden (earlier by Lee-not
necessarily on the 22nd. (CE 490)
But , I am not really making a movie so posting my thoughts will have
to
do for now.
See:http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wcexlink.htm
Scan down to Vol.XVII and view CE 730, 731, and 732 to see the
wrapping
benches where Dougherty was sitting when he saw Lee enter at 8:am.
Then scan to CE 1061-the floor plan and observe the outer door to the
loading dock and the door from the dock into the first floor.Then-
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
(CE 490) to see where the rifle was hidden behind a box marked with
the
notation: CHICAGO ORDER.
Hmmm! I wonder what that means. Compare the handwriting with Lee's
script in the many letters available in the WC Report
tomnln
David Von Pein
So, just like I said before....WHY PLANT ANYTHING AT ALL (at Parkland
or elsewhere)? It could only HURT their case; not enhance it.
>>> "They knew in their hearts that JFK was a communist who was ruining the country by giving the niggers rights that they should not have. So they were doing the right thing and didn't worry about
making every tiny piece fit." <<<
So, just like I said....WHY PLANT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL?
Geez.
Oh, btw, nice job (via that disgusting "N" word) at revealing yourself
as a bigot too. Your overall profile is really a glowing one now.
Walt
Give me a break.... Who made the word "nigger" the ultimate dirty
word? I'm no bigot....I object to screw -balls twisting the meaning
of words. If this crap continues it won't be long before we'll be
referring to Mexicans as "M" word or Chinese as those "Cn's" muslims
as "MM's". I grew up using the word nigger, as a slang term for a
black person...It wasn't intended to be derogatory, any more than the
term Kraut, or Mick or Limey..... Dick Gregory ( a black man) made
exactly the same point on Bill OReilly's show a week or so back. He
used the word "nigger" and drew gasps for saying it....He then went on
to say basically the same thing I just said. If we don't wake up and
learn to shrug off, and laugh at perceived insults we're gonna lose
much of the flavor of being different.
So screw you you stuffed shirt arrogant Kraut... VON Pea Brain.
Walt
Walt
I wrote it that way to emphasize the feelings of many southerners back
in the sixties.
Walt
Walt
> >>> "Is the lab man that matched CE399 to the TSBD Carcano the same guy that matched those three bullets to the Carcano?" <<<
>
> Hoover's initial "three bullets" reference was quite obviously
> referring to.....
>
> 1.) CE399.
> 2.) One of the front-seat bullet fragments.
> 3.) The other front-seat bullet fragment.
Whoa!!..... Not so fast hoss.... If you don't want to have to
apologize to me again you'd better read that memo. Hoover was
referring to WHOLE bullets and he specified where those whole bullets
had been found.
Walt
>
> All three of the above, of course, were positively linked to Rifle
> #C2766.
>
> It was just one of several FBI errors during the early stages of the
> investigation. .....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7835a5f11f2d5dcd
>
> >>> "Who verified that the bullets were ballistically linked to that MC?" <<<
>
> Trick question again? Or are you truly THIS ignorant of the basic
> facts surrounding some of the most important evidence and testimony in
> the whole case?
>
> Allow me to lead you to a page of the Warren Report you've probably
> never seen....
>
> WR; Pp. 84-85:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0054b.htmhttp://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0055a.htm
Walt
> Shit! I've been put in a cruddy position...I must apologize to Walt
> The Kook. (Boy, this sucks.) :(
>
> Yes, in Brennan's AFFIDAVIT he said he could see "all of the barrel"
> of the rifle. I humbly apologize for this oversight. When I earlier
> said Brennan never said "barrel"...I was indeed correct...but only
> with respect to Brennan's WC testimony (which is what I was focusing
> on at the time...and what Walt appeared to be focusing on as well).
>
> But, yes, Brennan did say what Walt said he said in his 11/22
> affidavit. Walt did a nice job earlier of mixing in Brennan's WC
> statements with his affidavit remarks.
Thank you.... It doesn't matter WHEN Brennan made certain
statements.... the FACT that he gave information that refutes the
basic lie of the Warren Commission is the important point. So now
that you know that the gunman that Brennan saw was NOT Lee Oswald, nor
was the rifle in the gunmans hands a standard issue military
Mannlicher Carcano, don't you think it would be wise for you to give
up beating the dead horse of the Warren Report? Do you want to be
seen as a blithering idiot?
Walt
David Von Pein
I've always considered it to be that. The fact that you don't tells me
something else about you.
David Von Pein
And how do I know this, Mr. Kook? Just because you say the rifle had a
long metal barrel (which Brennan NEVER said, btw)?
Get real.
>>> "Nor was the rifle in the gunman's hands a standard issue military Mannlicher Carcano..." <<<
And just how do you KNOW this? Via Rowland's and Brennan's comments.
Even though Brennan admitted to the WC he was no expert on rifles??
Get real, again.
Next hunk of shit please......
>>> "Don't you think it would be wise for you to give up beating the dead horse of the Warren Report?" <<<
Based on your subjective rifle descriptions from witnesses who caught
a mere glance of the weapon, ya mean?
Yep. I was right. Kookshit.
Next....
>>> "Do you want to be seen as a blithering idiot?" <<<
I see that you're beyond the point of being able to help yourself from
reaching such a "blithering" zenith.
tomnln
Your side got caught Withholding Evidence
Your side got caught Altering Evidence
Your side got casught Destroying Evidence
Your side got caught suborning Perjury
Your side is the ONLY PROVEN Criminal.
You support those Felonies.
THAT makes you an "Accessory After the Fact".
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177615669.1...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...