MORE ASSASSINATION DEBATES
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald's actions indicate that he DID NOT know that JFK had been shot when Baker and Truly saw him in the lunchroom." <<<
I couldn't disagree more strongly.
Oswald wasn't the slightest bit surprised to see Baker's gun pointed
at him. And Oswald never said a word, such as: "WTF is this? Why are
you holding a gun on me?!"
The reason he wasn't surprised? -- He expected the cops to show up
fast. How could he NOT have expected them? Oz just fired three loud
shots from upstairs, therefore he KNEW the place would be crawling
with police really quick.
His non-surprised reaction is more indicative of guilt than innocence,
IMO. For example, if you were innocent of all wrong-doing and had a
cop rush at you with a gun....wouldn't you be a bit surprised and want
to know what's going on?
And Oswald's leaving the building within a minute of his Baker
encounter also reeks of guilt...in fact, even more so due to his Baker
encounter. Oz has a gun shoved in his gut and then hears Reid tell him
"The President's been shot" as he strolls through the 2nd-Floor
office.....and then what does Oz decide he wants to do? He decides he
wants to leave this exciting scene of action and go to a movie in Oak
Cliff (and sneak into the theater without paying, to boot)!!
Yeah, that makes sense.
<laugh>
>>> "His countenance when Baker pointed his revolver at him was one of surprise and bewilderment." <<<
Why are you saying this? His reaction was exactly the
opposite....i.e., calm, cool, not surprised at seeing Baker or his gun
at all (per Baker and Truly).
>>> "You have absolutely no proof that Oswald knew that JFK had been shot when he met Reid on his way to the front door of the TSBD." <<<
Other than the fact that his gun and shells and prints and paper bag
(with still more prints on it) are upstairs in the Sniper's Nest,
where people saw Oswald or an Oswald look-alike shooting at JFK --
that's all.
Oh....and the fact that Mrs. Reid TOLD Oswald "The President's been
shot".
>>> "You may "believe" he knew that JFK had been shot, but I don't share your belief." <<<
That's because you're a kook.
>>> "I believe that Oswald didn't know that there had been a shooting until he got outside and heard the spectators talking about it." <<<
Goodie, goodie. More purely made-up kookshit from Walt. Surprise!
And via this theory, I guess you think Oswald didn't hear a word of
Reid's "The President's been shot" statement as Oz walked by...right?
But Oswald "mumbled something" to Reid just after she told him about
the President being shot (per Reid's WC testimony), as if he was
acknowledging what she had just said (at least in a sense, albeit via
only a "mumble").
>>> "Oswald looked calm and unruffled when Baker and Truly saw him in the lunchroom." <<<
I thought just a second ago you said Oswald looked "surprised and
bewildered"? Is that supposed to be the same thing as "calm and
unruffled"?
>>> "But when he got on McWatters' bus, Mrs. Bledsoe said he looked like a maniac. What happened between the time that Reid saw him and the time Bledsoe saw him?" <<<
Oswald's main concern at the TSBD, of course, was to NOT LET ON HE HAD
JUST SHOT THE PRESIDENT -- so, naturally, he tried to put on the best
"act" he could until he was able to get away from the immediate crime
scene.
And his act worked perfectly too, as he was cleared by Truly as just
another Depository employee, which enabled him to get away from Baker
and out of the building unchallenged.
I take Bledsoe's testimony with a large granule of salt, and the
"maniac" reference I've always thought of as a sort of COMBINATION of
how Oz really looked and Bledsoe's inner feelings of dislike for this
guy she had kicked out of her lodgings the previous month.
Bledsoe also stated she barely even looked at him at all on the bus.
Once she realized it was Oswald, she avoided looking at him at all,
mainly because she didn't want HIM to see HER. So she couldn't have
noticed TOO much about his appearance if she only saw him as he
initially got on the bus.
But the key point to be made re. Bledsoe is -- We know it had to be
Oswald on that bus because Bledsoe KNEW HIM ON SIGHT. She had no doubt
it was Oz, because she remembered him from the previous month when he
rented a room from her.
And the fact that she wanted to keep him from seeing her on the bus is
also a strong indication that the man she was TRYING TO AVOID was,
indeed, the man she refused to continue to rent a room to and was a
person she had a REASON TO REMEMBER.
These things re. Bledsoe are also additional reasons to rake Mark Lane
over the coals re. this "bus" matter. In Lane's film, he hints that
Oswald possibly wasn't on McWatters' bus at all...but Lane never ONCE
mentions the BEST witness to Oswald having been on the bus -- Mary
Bledsoe.
David Von Pein
>>> "Why in hell would Oswald stop to eject the shells from his pistol after he allegedly shot Tippit? Was he trying to set himself up?!" <<<
You'll have to ask the murderer himself (Oswald) that question. (If
you can dig him up.)
But Oswald DID do just that, i.e., eject four shells at the scene of
the Tippit murder. Of that there is not a shred of a doubt. Multiple
witnesses positively IDed Oswald as the SHELL-DUMPING KILLER, for Pete
sake!
What MORE do you need to be convinced of his guilt?
I doubt if a film of Oz doing his evil deeds in Dallas would convince
a lot of you conspiracy kooks of Oz's guilt. That's why
you're....kooks (of course).
Read up on the Tippit case before posting any more stupid comments
like the ones you wrote above, Clement. Okay?
Try the WC testimony of Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis first. Are
both of these young girls "in" on the plot to frame a poor innocent
"patsy"? (Get real.).....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
TIPPIT'S MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS DEFENSE OF LEE OSWALD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85fe573544d89f90
And Gerald Ford's "on paper" "move" of the back wound does NOTHING to
discredit the SBT at all. Here's why:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
>>> "You didn't see Oswald eject those shells, so you can't say that." <<<
LOL. You're too funny, Mr. Kook. By this oddball logic of yours, the
fact that *I* didn't "see" Oz eject the shells would therefore mean,
if I had been on Oswald's jury at a trial, I would be forced to
believe that Oz really DIDN'T eject them, regardless of how many
witnesses claimed to see him do it. Right?
Geesh. God help us if you ever sit on a jury.
>>> "Those "multiple witnesses" were losing relatives and getting death threats; so sure they IDed Oswald fast!" <<<
You're really in fantasy-land now. Just exactly how many relatives did
Barbara and Virginia Davis lose to the proverbial "Mystery Death
Squad" post-Nov. 22nd?
The "Mystery Deaths" thing is yet another of the silly CT myths you've
fallen for, I see. Typical.
But let's take a look at some of those "mystery" deaths, to see if
they make ANY sense at all....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d52845e6c744cccf
>>> "Oswald was never tried or convicted of ANY murder..." <<<
Only because Jack Ruby (another lone nut) intervened. But, per Mr.
Finn-kook, we should just IGNORE all the evidence that leads to ONLY
Oswald (and it's approx. 58 miles high) and give him 2 free murders on
the house because there was never a "trial" to convict him.
If Charlie Manson and Susan Atkins had been killed before their trial,
would I be obliged to ignore all of the evidence of their guilt in the
7 Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969, too?
>>> "You're stuck in THEORY land..." <<<
Not at all. You, being a rabid conspiracist (via your silly postings
thus far), are the one stuck in "theory land". That's all CTers have
are "theories"...and unsupportable crazy ones at that.
The "LN" crowd has something else -- Hard, physical, documented
evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered 2 men in 1963.
You should be embarrassed by desiring to willingly set a known double-
killer free. If you knew anything at all about the verified evidence
in the JFK/Tippit cases, you couldn't blather on about poor Oswald's
constitutional rights. That talk sickens me.
Oswald was guilty. Live with it.
~~~~~~~~~~
A "Vince Preview" of what's coming in May 2007:
"Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt.
"If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?
"If Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's
assassination and was framed....this otherwise independent and defiant
would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned
out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
Kennedy'!!!"
"ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, would
believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the
Spanish language!" -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
>>> "You need to get past the Warren Commission and read some of the HSCA, which found conspiracy." <<<
Are you really this stupid? The HSCA came to the same identical
conclusion that the WC did 15 years earlier with regard to the ONLY
gunman who hit any victims on 11/22/63 -- with that gunman being Lee
Harvey Oswald.
Hence, the HSCA declared Oswald the murderer of President Kennedy
(plus Officer Tippit).
The since-debunked Dictabelt crap is the ONLY thing that led the HSCA
to the (false) notion of conspiracy.
But even WITH that "probable conspiracy" declaration, the HSCA deemed
Oswald guilty....something that you can't seem to do, despite TWO
Govt. inquiries that say he's guilty as hell.
>>> "If you're not rabid why is everyone who disagrees with you a kook?" <<<
Because it's a word that perfectly fits conspiracy theorists like you.
And, it's fun to say.
Your first comments to me re. the Tippit shells proved instantly that
you resided in the "kook" category.
For, anyone who thinks Oswald even MIGHT be innocent of killing Tippit
is either nuts or is sleeping with Oliver Stone and/or Jim Garrison's
ghost.
>>> "I'm willing to entertain most any theory in this case, even that Oswald acted alone. But no one can PROVE anything in it anymore." <<<
It's already been proven sixteen ways to Sunday. You just don't want
to accept the official versions of Oz's guilt, merely because a guy
with a robe wasn't sitting behind a high desk someplace. Thus...you're
a kook. A kook who is dead-wrong. ~Mark VII~
Yes, I lied. I said I was done listening to you.
But kook-fighting is my job, you see. The CIA pays me well, so it's
hard just to bypass such an easy target as your kooky self whenever
you say something stupid...like you've been doing today.
>>> "The law requires more than the fact that a defendant lied about something to get a conviction." <<<
<hearty laugh>
As if that "more" doesn't exist in the two murders Oz committed.
You're a stitch.
There's enough "more" there to convict Oz 30 times over and everybody
with a brain knows it -- his guns, his shells, his bullets, his
prints, witnesses to Oz committing both murders, his own actions right
after both murders. The list is almost endless.
The EVIDENCE convicts him too, you know. Whether it was presented in a
court or not...the evidence still EXISTS. It's not going away. And
you're goofy to ignore it all just because Ruby intervened.
>>> "And that tells me that no person has ever been tried in acourt of law in the murder of John F. Kennedy." <<<
Dead-wrong. Clay Shaw was. And it took the jury less than one hour to
return with a verdict of Not Guilty.
>>> "Nobody else wants to bother talking with you; only misguided charity has kept me around." <<<
Consider yourself freed up from your horrible burden then. Stop
talking. Because I'm certainly done listening to you. There's no
reasoning with kooks like you. So take a hike.
Happy trails as you continue to attempt to exonerate a proven-guilty
double-murderer.
Hitler's probably on your "innocent" list too, right?
David Von Pein
MORE ABOUT THE "JAMES TAGUE MYSTERY"............
================================================
ANOTHER LNer SAID:
>>> "Well, I must say that I still don't understand what is so impossible about either of the shots having caused Tague's cheek wound. Can someone please enlighten me?" <<<
DVP SAYS:
There's nothing (at all) impossible about either of Oswald's shots (#1
or #3) having caused the Tague wound and microscopic Main St. curb
damage.
The oak tree could (and probably would) have taken a considerable
amount of velocity off of Oswald's #1 shot, hence (possibly) resulting
in the teeny-weeny curb damage. .....
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/curb.jpg
And the head-shot fragment theory is not totally crazy. I've always
said it was a possibility (although I prefer the "first-shot-hit-
Tague" scenario best).
And I'm wondering why it wouldn't be at least POSSIBLE for Oswald's
first bullet (which hit the oak tree) to have fragmented after
striking the hard oak of the tree....with a portion of that bullet
going out to hit Tague, while another portion hit the street behind
the limo, causing the witnesses to see the "sparks" of a bullet
hitting the pavement.
Why is that any more impossible than anything else that's been
purported re. this impossible-to-prove Tague wounding scenario?
To sum up........
The trajectory works (generally) fine for either of the two LN "Tague"
scenarios (oak tree or head fragment)......
1.) Oswald's gun is pointing west/southwest the entire time of the
shooting.
2.) Tague is located to the west/southwest of Oswald's gun during the
whole shooting timeline. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0458a.htm
3.) The only verified shots came from the SN of the TSBD (with the
rifle-rest box configuration in the Nest indicating the gunman
probably was only planning on shooting his gun at the President in a
west-southwesterly direction).
1 through 3 = The trajectory works fine given the DEFLECTION factor
which obviously HAD to have occurred NO MATTER HOW TAGUE WAS WOUNDED.
(Or was that gunman who hit Tague just a really, really piss-poor
shot...or blind?)
Would some CTer now care to demonstrate how they can PROVE just
exactly how a 6.5mm FMJ bullet being fired from where Oswald fired
from is going to move, fragment, and generally behave after having
struck another object before coming to rest?
You can't possibly predict with perfect accuracy how any deflected
bullet is going to behave and exactly where it's going to end up after
hitting something like a tree branch at a totally-unknown angle, or a
President's head. But good luck if you want to attempt to prove
something like that.
David Von Pein
>>> "You can't prove there weren't curtain rods in the bag because you can't prove what was in it." <<<
Oswald TOLD US that there weren't any "curtain rods" in that bag (or
ANY
other bag)! He told us that when he denied (to the police) that he had
ever said anything to Wes Frazier about "curtain rods".
Oswald also flat-out denied ever taking ANY large (non-lunch) bag into
the
TSBD on 11/22. That, too, is a PROVABLE LIE. (Unless you'd rather take
the
word of the accused murderer on this matter, rather than the word of
TWO
people who weren't being charged with double-murder -- Wes Frazier and
Linnie Mae Randle.)
Oswald's lies, alone, PROVE that there were no curtain rods. Because
if
there HAD been any innocuous "rods" in the bag (and not something
like,
say, a rifle, that Oswald desperately wanted/needed to distance
himself
from), Lee would have said to the cops: "Yeah, I took some curtain
rods
into work".
And then, Oswald would have been able to PRODUCE SOME PHYSICAL CURTAIN
RODS to back up that claim. Or at least tell the police what he did
with
said rods.
No rods in TSBD + No rods at LHO's roominghouse + Oswald's lies to
police
re. the rods/Frazier = THERE NEVER WERE ANY CURTAIN RODS...PERIOD.
>>> "There are many things that could have been in that bag about which Oswald might have wanted privacy for one reason or another -- a children's toy, a medical sample container, erotica, family heirlooms, etc." <<<
Yeah, anything could have been in that bag except Rifle C2766...right?
Anything but that!!!
A "family heirloom" or "child's toy" that Oswald feels he has to lie
about
to both Wes Frazier and the Dallas Police Department???
<laugh>
David Von Pein
>>> "There is another factor that must be considered....the distance of the viewer from the building." <<<
Which is pretty much what I said via my earlier (generalized)
disclaimer re. Brennan:
"There's the 60-foot-high "angle" of Brennan's SN observations to
consider in all of this as well." -- DVP
But, no matter how much energy Walt The Kook spends in trying to
rewrite assassination history, he has not changed a single one of the
facts in the case. And the main "Brennan Fact" is, beyond all doubt,
that Howard L. Brennan saw ONE man in ONE Depository window (the
southeast, SN window) on 11/22/63.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0112a.htm
Brennan never saw anyone in ANY OTHER WINDOWS on the 6th Floor of the
Depository. And this short excerpt of Brennan's testimony proves that
beyond all doubt:
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
Walt wants to believe that Brennan actually saw the killer on the west
end of the 6th Floor, even though Brennan never ONCE says a thing
about the WEST-end windows.
And whether he was specifically asked or not, if the assassin had
actually been on the west side, Brennan would certainly have pointed
out that fact during the duration of his WC testimony. Especially as
he places circles around a window on TWO different WC exhibits, plus a
rifle-angle notation on yet another exhibit...with all of these
markings showing the EAST window, not the west.
Brennan just didn't think it mattered if he was marking the wrong
window on THREE exhibits, is that what Walt believes?
Walt's skewed interpretation regarding Howard Brennan's testimony
should be flushed down the toilet, where such "I Need A Conspiracy"
excrement belongs.
Regardless of how Walt attempts to micro-manage Brennan's remarks
about the gunman's "hips", "waist", "standing" position, etc. -- one
thing will not change .... and that is the fact that Howard Brennan
positively saw a gunman firing a rifle at JFK's car from the southeast
corner 6th-Floor window of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:30
PM on 11/22/63. And Mr. Brennan said that that gunman was Lee Harvey
Oswald.
That basic fact will not change....Walt's micro-analysis of Brennan's
every word notwithstanding.
Plus, another thing that makes Walt's theory hilarious and totally
absurd is this ---
Walt thinks the REAL 6th-Floor shooter was on the WEST side of the
building....and yet the plotters (in charge of the proverbial "Patsy
Plot") decided to plant evidence of a gunman in the EAST window!
How stupid is this plan? They shoot from one window; but attempt to
frame their dupe from the OPPOSITE end of the building?
What if a gob of witnesses (or a cameraman) had seen this west-end
shooter firing at the President? What then?
The "West-End TSBD Gunman" theory is silly from every Walt-invented
angle (especially within the framework of a pre-arranged "Let's Frame
Oswald On The East End" mindset).
Give up on this silly theory, Walt. It's moribund. (And then some.)
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi's self-proclaimed proteges have not measured up to the task. Why should he do any better?" <<<
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much
more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and
an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything
to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and
objectivity. I have no others." -- Vince B.
>>> "There is no new inculpatory evidence." <<<
Why would there necessarily be any "new" evidence?
Do you expect the Tague bullet to drop from heaven after 43 years?
(Yes, that'd be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Wouldn't matter
anyway...kooks would just claim that God was a plotter too, or that
Moses planted the Tague bullet on some kid's stretcher.)
>>> "LHO was tried and convicted by the WC after his death, and the prosecution's case has not advanced an iota." <<<
It would take a loon to say something so stupid. I guess you qualify.
Your above declaration is totally untrue, of course. The newer
technologies employed by FAA and MPI and Dale Myers and others have
certainly not harmed the LNer case at all.
They've ALL "advanced" the idea that LHO was probably a lone killer.
That's what they've done. It's not "new physical evidence", per se.
But it's a newer way to evaluate and assess the current evidence
that's on the table....and none of it has raised the red flag of
"conspiracy".
And don't you think that's a tad odd if a multi-shooter conspiracy DID
exist in DP on 11/22/63? If not, why not?
This "newer" stuff would certainly also include the Discovery
Channel's SBT test in 2004. That test bullet behaved remarkably
similar to the SBT bullet (399). But a CT-Kook tosses up his hands and
exclaims "Not good enough! This test proves the SBT is wrong!".
To that CTer, who believes that up to THREE separate bullets did all
of this damage to two victims, it was just a miraculous coincidence
that the test bullet fired in 2004 through two dummies just happened
to take a pretty good general course that CE399 is said to have taken,
hitting the same bones in a mock Connally, "tumbling" sideways into
Connally's back, and emerging COMPLETELY INTACT after doing all of
this damage and going completely through two "bodies"....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
But to a reasonable, sensible person looking at that Discovery Channel
simulation of the SBT, it would have taken a series of conspiracy-
tinged miracles in order for two (and probably THREE) bullets to have
mirrored even a halfway decent-looking "SBT" pattern....right down to
the INTACT bullet that just happened to bounce off of the same area of
the JBC mock-up (the thigh) that was actually struck in the real JBC
by the spent bullet in 1963...and right on down to the elongated entry
hole on the mock Connally back.
Talk about "magic". The CTers have up to three bullets performing an
act that the WC reconciled (very nicely too) into just one missile.
How is that even REMOTELY possible if three bullets did all of the
damage?
AND: All of the CTer bullets GET LOST, too!
Can anyone not see the idiocy of the anti-SBT CTer position here? How
is it possible to not see it?
>>> "The LN'ers are still using the same tired old evidence..." <<<
~laugh~
"Same tired old evidence" -- like all of those LHO bullets, fragments
(right INSIDE THE LIMO!), shells, and guns. Yeah, that DOES get
tiresome looking at all that "LHO WAS HERE" stuff day after day.
Why don't you show us a Mauser instead. That'll spice up the
proceedings. And then you can tell us (via the "Patsy" plot that so
many Stone-lovers believe) WHY the dopey plotters would want to plant
a Mauser on the 6th Floor...even though their "Patsy" can never be
tied to it?
Were the plotters cunning....or crackpots?
>>> "How can another lawyer settle all this and put the final nail in the coffin?" <<<
By studying the actual evidence in the case (and by studying the CT-
Kooks and their worthless theories) for 21+ years. And by being
Vincent T. Bugliosi.
Next?....
>>> "It can't be done." <<<
It's already been done. You just don't realize it yet.
A reviewer of VB's book (not related to me, honest) writes:
"This is the work of a true genius. How did he do this, when he is a
mere human? He has left no stone unturned, including Oliver Stone.
'Reclaiming History' is an epic book, and as long as people are
interested in the J.F.K. case, even if it is centuries from now, they
will look to this masterpiece as the definitive book on the Kennedy
assassination. Fortunately for the historical record, Bugliosi, this
nation's foremost prosecutor, has successfully taken on the most
important murder case in American history. He has proven Oswald's
guilt and the absence of a conspiracy beyond all doubt. This is
definitely Nobel and Pulitzer Prize material. In setting the record
straight, 'Reclaiming History' couldn't be a more perfect title for
this book. No home library should be without this work of literature."
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780743566674&z=y#CRV
>>> "Among people knowledgeable about this case, the Bug will simply replace Posner as the LN laughingstock." <<<
What the above really means is: "Among conspiracy-loving, Anybody-But-
Oswald Mega-Kooks", of course.
>>> "Old Laz..."
"Old Laz" is an "Old Idiot".
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ce01f58c25e19d1
>>> "Finally the WC finds something inadmissible because its origins "can not be traced to the victim"." <<<
But the example Bud gave is probably not the same as the situation
that exists to irrevocably tie Bullet CE399 to John Connally and the
JFK assassination. (Although, I'll admit, I didn't study the link he
provided in depth; perhaps the details of that gunshot-victim case are
explained in the link.)
But my guess is that the bullet in Bud's example was probably never
traced to a particular weapon (probably because the weapon was never
found after the shooting incident, which is very common, of course). I
could be wrong, but if I am wrong about that, then it seems silly to
say that a bullet tied to a particular gun "cannot be traced to the
victim" (assuming, that is, that the weapon it was traced to was
connected to the gunman, which also assumes that the gunman was caught
too; lots of gaps to fill in regarding that case that Bud brought up).
But in the JFK case, CE399 can positively be "traced to the
victim" (via just common sense, if nothing else). But there's so much
more beyond just that "CS" factor as well. Such as.....
1.) CE399 is positively a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 MC
rifle.
2.) Oswald's C2766 rifle was positively used to fire bullets at
President Kennedy's car on 11/22/63. Bullet fragments from LHO's rifle
found in the limousine itself (CE567 and CE569) prove this fact
conclusively and beyond all possible doubt.
3.) Oswald's C2766 rifle was found in the Book Depository 52 minutes
after the shooting.
4.) CE399 was found inside the same hospital where shooting victims
JFK and JBC were taken.
5.) John Connally was shot in the upper back by one bullet.
6.) No whole bullets (and very, very few bullet fragments) were found
in JBC's body at Parkland Hospital.
7.) John Connally's stretcher was positively one of the two stretchers
that was located in the hallway at Parkland Hospital when CE399 was
found by Darrell Tomlinson sometime between 1:00 PM and 1:45 PM CST
(approx.) on November 22nd.
8.) The non-Connally stretcher in the hallway belonged to Parkland
patient Ronnie Fuller, who was definitely NOT SHOT BY ONE OF LEE
HARVEY OSWALD'S CARCANO BULLETS ON 11/22/63.
9.) JFK's stretcher was never in the area of Parkland Hospital where
the bullet was found by Tomlinson.
10.) JFK himself was never physically located in the area of Parkland
Hospital where the bullet was found by Tomlinson.
==============
Adding up #1 through #10 above = Bullet CE399, although not plucked
directly from the body of John Bowden Connally Jr. on Friday, November
the 22nd, 1963, can be "traced to the victim" (JBC) via ample amounts
of physical circumstantial evidence that ties Oswald's bullet (CE399)
to at least one of LHO's two victims (Governor Connally) beyond a
reasonable doubt.
=========================================================
WAS BULLET CE399 "PLANTED" IN PARKLAND HOSPITAL? (PART 1):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
WAS BULLET CE399 "PLANTED" IN PARKLAND HOSPITAL? (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
THE ODD (BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE) JOURNEY OF BULLET CE399:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c565d3b4c930a683
TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
IF BULLET CE399 DIDN'T INJURE GOVERNOR CONNALLY, WHAT BULLET DID?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
=========================================================
tomnln
1 WC submitted CE-399
2 "Pointed bullet" handled by Parkland Parkland Security O. P. Wright
3 Bullet that fell on the floor of JBC's operating room
4 Bullet "EXTRACTED" by Dr from JBC's leg
Ce 399 had 4 different points of origin>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/1734e956...
>
> >>> "Oswald's actions indicate that he DID NOT know that JFK had been shot when Baker and Truly saw him in the lunchroom." <<<
>
> I couldn't disagree more strongly.
>
> Oswald wasn't the slightest bit surprised to see Baker's gun pointed
> at him. And Oswald never said a word, such as: "WTF is this? Why are
> you holding a gun on me?!"
Baker's gun pointed at him.... POINTED at him????
Where do you get this crap??? Where is the PROOF that Baker had his
revolver POINTED at Oswald??
It's no wonder you can't see the truth... You deal in imagined
fantasy.
David Von Pein
>>> "Baker's gun pointed at him.... POINTED at him???? Where do you get this crap??" <<<
Roy Truly (of course), you moron.
>>> "It's no wonder you can't see the truth... You deal in imagined fantasy." <<<
Yeah, Baker had his gun drawn in the lunchroom and was probably
pointing it at MR. TRULY instead of Oz, right Walt-Kook?
David Von Pein
>>> "You deal in imagined fantasy." <<<
It just hit me WHO it was who uttered the above words in my direction
-- it was Walt "JFK WAS HIT AT Z161" Cakebread.
That really takes the 'cake', huh? (And the bread too.)
Walter telling ME that *I* am dealing with "imagined fantasy".
Can it get any better on the pot/kettle front than that?
aeffects
proof, hon..... not one of your wetdream[s] talk about a Lone Nut
*KOOKeroo* ol;e Dave is topping the list these day's... Gotta dust his
sorry ass off and drag him out of retirement when the Nutters are
losing ground EVERYWHERE!
David Von Pein
There you have it folks -- straight from the e-lips of R.P. McMurphy.
(Nurse Ratched! He's running around loose again! Can't you keep this
nut in his padded cell where he belongs, Nurse R.?!)
But, since I'm such an obliging chap (i.e., always willing to make a
kook look like a kook), here's the "proof" you crave in this
regard.....
ROY S. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun POINTING
AT OSWALD [emphasis supplied by DVP]. The officer turned this way and
said, "This man work here?" And I said, "Yes."
DAVID W. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to
run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Let me ask you this now. How far was the
officer's gun from Lee Harvey Oswald when he asked the question?
Mr. TRULY. It would be hard for me to say, but it seemed to me like it
was almost touching him.
Mr. BELIN. What portion of his body?
Mr. TRULY. Towards the middle portion of his body.
==========================
BONUS TESTIMONY (SPONSORED BY DVP's "KOOK-BASHERS, INC."; 404 W. CS&L
Ave., Reasonville, USA):
==========================
Mr. BELIN. Could you see Lee Harvey Oswald's hands?
Mr. TRULY. Yes. .... I am sure I could, yes. I could see most of him,
because I was looking in the room on an angle, and they were this
way. ....
Mr. BELIN. All right. Could you see whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald
had anything in either hand?
Mr. TRULY. I noticed nothing in either hand.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see both of his hands?
Mr. TRULY. I am sure I did. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure. I
did.
Walt
> On Feb 25, 11:12 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Baker's gun pointed at him.... POINTED at him???? Where do you get this crap??" <<<
>
> > Roy Truly (of course), you moron.
>
> > >>> "It's no wonder you can't see the truth... You deal in imagined fantasy." <<<
>
> > Yeah, Baker had his gun drawn in the lunchroom and was probably
> > pointing it at MR. TRULY instead of Oz, right Walt-Kook?
Representative Boggs.
When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been
running or what?
Mr. Baker.
It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
Representative Boggs.
Was he calm and collected?
Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir. He never did say a word or nothing. In fact, he didn't
change his expression one bit.
Mr. Belin.
Did he flinch in anyway when you put the gun up in his face?
Mr. Baker.
No, sir.
Mr. Dulles.
There is no testimony that he put the gun up in his face.
Mr. Baker.
I had my gun talking to him like this.
Mr. Dulles.
Yes.
Mr. Belin.
How close was your gun to him if it wasn't the face whatever part of
the body it was?
Mr. Baker.
About as far from me to you.
Mr. Belin.
That would be about how far?
Mr. Baker.
Approximately 3 feet.
Mr. Belin.
Did you notice, did he say anything or was there any expression after
Mr. Truly said he worked here?
Mr. Baker.
At that time I never did look back toward him. After he says, "Yes, he
works here," I turned immediately and run on up, I halfway turned then
when I was talking to Mr. Truly.
Walt
Pssst.. Von Pea Brain..... You left out the last part of Mrs Reid's
statement. Did you "forget" that she added the disqualifier.... "but
maybe he wasn't hit" What would Oswald think when Mrs Reid said
that??
>
> > But Oswald "mumbled something" to Reid just after she told him about
> > the President being shot (per Reid's WC testimony), as if he was
> > acknowledging what she had just said (at least in a sense, albeit via
> > only a "mumble").
>
> > >>> "Oswald looked calm and unruffled when Baker and Truly saw him in the lunchroom." <<<
>
> > I thought just a second ago you said Oswald looked "surprised and
> > bewildered"? Is that supposed to be the same thing as "calm and
> > unruffled"?
Representative Boggs.
Does this sound like Baker was holding his revolver in a threatening
manner??? I don't believe that Baker had his revolver aimed at
Oswald... IF... he even had it in his hand. There's nobody that
doesn't show cold fear when they are suddenly confronted by a man
aiming a gun at them. But by there own admission Oswald showed no
fear at all...That's just not normal IF Baker had his revolver aimed
at Oswald...PARTICULARLY if he had just shot the President of the
UNited States.
This whole scenario is just plain crazy.... You assholes would have
us believe that Oswald fled in panic after shooting JFK , throwing his
rifle down on the floor and stacking boxes over it, before charging
headlong down the stairs to arrive in the lunchroom just a split
second before Officer Baker arrived on the second floor. Which means
he would have had to have met Roy Truly on the stairs because Truly
preceded Baker by several seconds.
On one hand you say Oswald fled in panic but then when Baker arrives
with a gun aimed at Oswald he shows no sign of fear. How flippin
stupid are you???
> > Bledsoe.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "You left out the last part of Mrs Reid's statement. Did you "forget" that she added the disqualifier..."but maybe he wasn't hit". What would Oswald think when Mrs. Reid said that??" <<<
Although I can't read Ozzie's mind...I have a feeling that Oz probably
was quite amused when he heard those words from Mrs. Reid. And (if I
were to wager on it) he probably exhibited the trademark Oswald smirk
after he passed by Reid and heard her say "maybe they didn't hit
him" (which is the exact quote, per Mrs. Reid's own testimony, vs. the
version Walt offered, which was close).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/reid.htm
>>> "On one hand you say Oswald fled in panic but then when Baker arrives with a gun aimed at Oswald he shows no sign of fear." <<<
And this lack of any "sign of fear" is, IMO, as I've said many times
previously, more indicative of Oswald's GUILT (given the circumstances
of having a cop coming at him with a gun) vs. an indication of
innocence on Oz's part.
A truly innocent person, given those circumstances, IS probably going
to show some signs of fear, by asking (at the least) "What's going
on?" or "What did I do?".
But Oswald didn't need to ask anything like that....because he already
KNEW what was "going on", and he also HAD to have known that the place
would be crawling with cops within minutes (or seconds) of the
shooting...and, of course, it was.
It's kind of funny, too....because if Officer Baker had taken some
additional time to fully assess Oswald's very calm and cool demeanor
(after being confronted by a hurried policeman with his gun out),
perhaps he, too, on his own, might have added things up a little
differently concerning the man he stopped in the lunchroom that Friday
in the Book Depository.
But Baker, of course, was in a very big hurry to get to the roof of
the building (from where he thought he might have a good chance to
trap the killer, who certainly hadn't had much time to get away by
12:31 or 12:32 PM), and therefore, in his haste, Baker inadvertently
allowed President Kennedy's real murderer to go free after
encountering him on the 2nd Floor just a minute or two after JFK was
slain.
Nobody can possibly place any blame on Officer M.L. Baker though. He
was doing his job that day as best he knew how. And he had no reason
(on the surface) to suspect Lee Harvey Oswald of any wrong-doing as of
12:31 or 12:32 on November 22.
After Roy Truly cleared Oswald as merely another of the many people
who worked in the Depository, it isn't surprising at all that Baker
let LHO go immediately.
But I've often wondered if Marrion L. Baker, when he reflects back on
that day, ever places some degree of blame on himself for not
capturing the President's murderer in that lunchroom. For if Baker had
done that, J.D. Tippit's life would have been spared.
But hindsight--as always--is 20/20.
Walt
> >>> "You left out the last part of Mrs Reid's statement. Did you "forget" that she added the disqualifier..."but maybe he wasn't hit". What would Oswald think when Mrs. Reid said that??" <<<
>
> Although I can't read Ozzie's mind...I have a feeling that Oz probably
> was quite amused when he heard those words from Mrs. Reid. And (if I
> were to wager on it) he probably exhibited the trademark Oswald smirk
> after he passed by Reid and heard her say "maybe they didn't hit
> him" (which is the exact quote, per Mrs. Reid's own testimony, vs. the
> version Walt offered, which was close).
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/reid.htm
>
> >>> "On one hand you say Oswald fled in panic but then when Baker arrives with a gun aimed at Oswald he shows no sign of fear." <<<
>
> And this lack of any "sign of fear" is, IMO, as I've said many times
> previously, more indicative of Oswald's GUILT
Well you're more naive, and gullible, than I.... I'm more
skeptical... I'd say the FACT that Oswald showed no fear when
confronted by Baker indicates that ... (1) Baker never had his gun in
his hand and (2) Oswald had no reason to be afraid.
David Von Pein
You probably change your telephone number weekly (to keep one step
ahead of those awful Feds), right kook?
>>> "Baker never had his gun in his hand..." <<<
So, let's examine Walter's position here regarding Baker......
Baker (we know) rushed into the TSBD within seconds of the last shot
he heard fired from a weapon that he believed possibly/probably was
located on or near the roof of the Depository Building.....
Therefore, Baker (who was armed with a service revolver of course),
logically and obviously, had every reason to think that he was going
to very possibly encounter a potential Presidential assassin (who was
ARMED WITH SOME KIND OF WEAPON just seconds earlier) inside the
building that Baker is rushing into.....
But, per Walt: "Baker never had his gun in his hand" when Marrion
stopped Lee Oswald in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom within 2 minutes of the
last gunshot being fired from the TSBD.
The only thing that remains to be uttered now is this:
Walt....you're an idiot.
Walt
> >>> "Well you're more naive, and gullible, than I....I'm more skeptical..." <<<
>
> You probably change your telephone number weekly (to keep one step
> ahead of those awful Feds), right kook?
>
> >>> "Baker never had his gun in his hand..." <<<
>
> So, let's examine Walter's position here regarding Baker......
>
> Baker (we know) rushed into the TSBD within seconds of the last shot
> he heard fired from a weapon that he believed possibly/probably was
> located on or near the roof of the Depository Building.....
Yes, That's correct Von Pea Brain ... Baker said he thought the shots
MAY have come from the ROOF of the TSBD. ( because he saw the pigeons
burst from behind the billboad on the roof.) So just a few seconds
after the shooting he encounters a young man who who is in a lunchroom
that is FAR REMOVED from the roof, and you think he already has his
revolver in his hand. At that time Baker only knew he had heard what
might have been a gun shot. He didn't know for sure that the sound
he'd heard had been a gunshot, nor did he know that it wasn't the
Secret Service who had fired at a suspected assassin, and had no idea
if anybody had been hit by the shot. But he thought the shot had been
fired from up on the roof.... So why would he pull his revolver from
his holster before he's anywhere close to the ROOF????? I don't
believe he had his pistol in his hand, when he encountered Oswald SIX
floors below the roof.
Walt
> >>> "You left out the last part of Mrs Reid's statement. Did you "forget" that she added the disqualifier..."but maybe he wasn't hit". What would Oswald think when Mrs. Reid said that??" <<<
>
> Although I can't read Ozzie's mind...I have a feeling that Oz probably
> was quite amused when he heard those words from Mrs. Reid. And (if I
> were to wager on it) he probably exhibited the trademark Oswald smirk
> after he passed by Reid and heard her say "maybe they didn't hit
> him" (which is the exact quote, per Mrs. Reid's own testimony, vs. the
> version Walt offered, which was close).
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/reid.htm
>
> >>> "On one hand you say Oswald fled in panic but then when Baker arrives with a gun aimed at Oswald he shows no sign of fear." <<<
>
> And this lack of any "sign of fear" is, IMO, as I've said many times
> previously, more indicative of Oswald's GUILT (given the circumstances
> of having a cop coming at him with a gun) vs. an indication of
> innocence on Oz's part.
>
> A truly innocent person, given those circumstances, IS probably going
> to show some signs of fear, by asking (at the least) "What's going
> on?" or "What did I do?".
>
> But Oswald didn't need to ask anything like that....because he already
> KNEW what was "going on", and he also HAD to have known that the place
> would be crawling with cops within minutes (or seconds) of the
> shooting...and, of course, it was.
You are a screwball and a con-man,.... You're utterly out of touch
with human nature.... There are very very few people who could murder
a head of state and not even have an increase in heart rate. Oswald
was NOT one of those individuals.
Hell, you yourself have said that he became angry at Marina and struck
her for trivial reasons. Marina said he was in near panic when he
returned from firing a bullet through General Walker's window.
Walt
Good point....Baker had something that you don't....COMMON SENSE... He
knew that it was unreasonable to believe that the man who had fired
the rifle on the ROOF of the TSBD could be in the lunchroom.
David Von Pein
Even though BOTH Truly & Baker said he had the pistol in his hand.
Right, kook?
Walt thinks that Baker kept his gun holstered, even though he knew an
assassin was probably in the building.
No sense in taking out the gun until the 7th Floor or the roof...right
Walt?
IOW -- There was no CHANCE, per Walt, that Baker might have thought
the killer would actually want to GET OFF THE ROOF and exit the
building before the cops came (which is what did happen in real-life
with Oswald).
Hey, Walt....tell us again about the Croft picture and the piece of
shirt coming out a bullet hole in that pic.
Please! Please! I wanna hear it again! (And don't you dare tell me
you've changed your theory on that! I'll be severely disappointed if
you've changed to a "JFK WAS SHOT BY BILL NEWMAN AT Z-FRAME 145"
theory. Save that new one till next month. For now, I wanna know all
the scuttlebutt on that "Shirt Piece Visible In Croft Pic" tripe.)
David Von Pein
>>> "There are very very few people who could murder a head of state and not even have an increase in heart rate. Oswald was NOT one of those individuals." <<<
Oh goodie! The kook now thinks he can tell what Oswald's "heart rate"
was as of 12:31-12:32 PM on 11/22/63!
Too bad that Officer Baker didn't whip out a stethoscope (instead of a
gun) and check Oz's heart rate. If only he had a stethoscope on him!
That would have solved the case for sure!
What kind of crappy police force was the DPD anyway? They let killers
go free without even bothering to get detailed "heart rate"
measurements before sending them on their way?? Damn lazy bums!
David Von Pein
>>> "Baker had something that you don't....COMMON SENSE. He knew that it was unreasonable to believe that the man who had fired the rifle on the ROOF of the TSBD could be in the lunchroom." <<<
Yeah...that must be why Baker bothered to stop Oz in the lunchroom at
gunpoint....right, Mr. Kook?
IOW -- Baker, in a big hurry to get to the roof and (per Walt The
Kook) knowing that the killer couldn't POSSIBLY have been on the 2nd
Floor when Baker was there, went ahead and wasted time by STOPPING
OSWALD ON THE SECOND FLOOR ANYWAY!
Wonderful logic, Walt.
What's next on your "Type Before You Think" agenda today? I can't
wait.
(But keep in mind my very weak bladder before you post your next hunk
of stupid shit. 10-4?)
David Von Pein
>>> "Marina said he was in near panic when he returned from firing a bullet through General Walker's window." <<<
You mean to say you ACTUALLY DO think Oswald fired a bullet at Walker?
And you ACTUALLY BELIEVE a word that came out of the mouth of that
tramp, Marina Oswald?!!
Or were you merely in your "I'LL TYPE THIS STUFF OUT THAT I DON'T
BELIEVE HAPPENED AT ALL BEFORE I HAVE TIME TO REALIZE I'M
CONTRADICTING MYSELF" mode?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1e85c128f39cf44
>>> "Your anger at him {Saint Craig} is a good sign for us CTers, as it shows how important this guy is to the real story." <<<
Yeah, that sounds like the basic way you kooks go about solving the
case.
>>> "There were multiple guns found, I'm sure of it." <<<
You were on the sixth floor on 11/22, eh? Are you visible in the Alyea
film, too?
>>> "I haven't seen anything that shows me he {Pope Craig} was {a} liar." <<<
That's because you're a kook.
>>> "You haven't disproved a single thing he {President Craig} said." <<<
I've disproved EVERY single crackpot thing Craig said. .....
1.) It's not possible for Craig to have seen Oswald get in a Rambler
on Elm at 12:40.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0499b.htm
2.) It's not possible that Craig saw a "7.65 Mauser" being held up by
Fritz/Day.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
3.) It's not possible that Craig saw the bullet shells just "an inch
apart" beneath the Sniper's-Nest window.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
4.) It's not possible for Craig to be correct about Tippit being shot
at "1:06 PM", because Lee Harvey Oswald (beyond all doubt) is the
person who shot Officer Tippit.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0110a.htm
5.) The best evidence is that Craig was not inside Will Fritz' private
office on 11/22/63, and did not hear Lee Oswald shout out any remarks
in an angry manner. (The "Everybody will know who I am now" statement
attributed to Oswald by Craig doesn't even make any sense. It's
just....dumb.)
J. WILL FRITZ SAID -- "I am sure of one thing...I didn't bring him
{Lord Craig} in the office with Oswald."
>>> "Oswald was framed, period. The guns had nothing to do with him, but rather show how many real assassins there were." <<<
And if there's one thing that the patsy-framers CERTAINLY wanted to do
on 11/22/63, it was to leave behind gobs of evidence in the Depository
to "SHOW HOW MANY REAL ASSASSINS THERE WERE".
Right, Mega-Kook?
[ROFL Break.]
>>> "It really didn't matter where they planted the gun, as the officials involved in the coverup would make everything gel later on, as we saw. Planting shells and all that good stuff." <<<
Yeah, the patsy-framers who were involved in the PRE-ARRANGED framing
and setting up of JUST Oswald somehow KNEW that the rotten, evil
Government AND the rotten, evil Dallas Police Department AND the
rotten, evil Dallas County Sheriff's Department would be WANTING TO
FRAME THE EXACT SAME PATSY THAT THE PRE-NOVEMBER 22 PLOTTERS WERE
TRYING TO FRAME.
Right, Super-Mega-Kook?
Rob makes this so easy. Can't anyone stop him from making his daily
fool of himself? Surely there's some LAW on the books about the
"Prevention Of Self-Implosion"...or SOMETHING similar. Isn't there?
(I hope not, though. Because this is too much fun.)
David Von Pein
>>> "The accoustical [sic] evidence was revisited, and UPGRADED to a 96% or better degree of probability." <<<
And that "96%" is perched on a foundation that is 100% invalid, based
on the location of where a motorcycle NEEDED TO BE (per the HSCA's
acoustics experts) in order for the Dictabelt "gunshots" to be
validated.
The film taken by assassination eyewitness Robert Hughes ALONE debunks
the HSCA's acoustics evidence. It couldn't BE any more obvious that no
motorcycle is going to be at the corner of Elm & Houston at the time
the HSCA desperately needed one there. Just look.....
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d4cf8c9b254c64ab
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KEPyzR1c_mc
>>> "The Texas A&M studies show {Dr. Vincent P.} Guinn operated from a FALSE premise and based ALL his findings on this premise." <<<
CTers love to spout this nonsense (it makes the CT-Kooks feel better
to concentrate on chaff like this, rather than focus any attention at
all on the much-more important and overpowering "LHO Did It" evidence
that flows like water in this murder case).
The long and the short of the ballistics matter is that the odds of
ANY of the tiny bullet fragments recovered in the limousine or in the
bodies of the two victims coming from a different rifle than Lee
Oswald's MC #C2766 are incredibly small.
The odds of those fragments coming from a non-C2766 weapon are so low
as to be nearly a flat zero. Certainly darn close to "zero" at any
rate, when some common sense is thrown into the argument concerning
the ballistics evidence. (This being based on the provable fact that
the ONLY bullet fragments and whole bullets recovered at the crime
scene or at the hospital are bullets conclusively from Oswald's
rifle.)
If the plotters were able to shoot John F. Kennedy AND John B.
Connally with bullets from more than just Oswald's gun and yet have
the ONLY ballistically-linked fragments and bullets that showed up in
the car and hospital being linked to Oswald's rifle and only his
rifle....then it was such an incredible miracle that the plotters
probably deserved to get away with it. (Because miracles like that
don't occur every day; so we might as well celebrate it in grand
fashion when they do occur.)
BTW, Dale K. Myers wrote an impressive and extremely-interesting
article that appeared this morning on his website (jfkfiles.com). In
the article, Dale touches on the silliness of the "NAA
studies" (particularly the July 2006 Grant/Randich study). Here's a
link:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/news/news_11220701.htm
>>> "I find it amazing you believe that the shot to the head blew out the right front part of his skull, but the autopsy photos show his forehead intact." <<<
So what? The forehead need not be blown out by Oswald's bullet.
Kennedy was leaning significantly forward and to his left at the time
of the head shot. There's no question about this. Just look at the
Moorman picture for a good look at how FAR LEFT Kennedy was leaning at
the time of the fatal shot. .....
http://www.image-acquire.com/moorman.jpg
Via this orientation of JFK's head when it was struck by a bullet,
plus the possibility of the bullet changing course slightly after it
crashed full-speed into the President's head (which is quite likely,
at least to a small extent), a RIGHT-FRONTAL blow-out is perfectly
consistent with a bullet coming from Oswald's window in the Book
Depository.
And even WITHOUT any pictures to verify the "Kennedy Lean", it
wouldn't matter....because there's the verifiable proof of the autopsy
pictures and autopsy report, which confirm beyond all possible doubt
that only one bullet hit JFK in the head, and that bullet entered in
the back of the head and exited in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP portion of the
head.
Whether CTers wish to accept those irrevocable FACTS is not really of
any particular importance or significance. For, no LNer on the planet
can satisfy a CTer's Wishful Thinking. It's impossible. The kooks WANT
a bullet hitting JFK from the front, and always will WANT that. And to
hell with the evidence that says otherwise.
44 years of denial. Pathetic, isn't it? (I think so too.)
>>> "You need to compare the autopsy photo to the actual X-ray admitted in evidence; they DON'T MATCH." <<<
Is that why the HSCA had no qualms whatsoever in declaring all of the
autopsy photographs AND X-rays "unaltered" in any manner? As well as
the Clark Panel in '68?
The HSCA's distinguished FPP panel seems to disagree with Richard.
Then, too, every official Government body disagrees with Mr. Van Noord
about almost everything connected to the tragedy that occurred in
Dallas 44 years ago this very noon. So, nothing new there.
But Richard will dredge up old, worn-out CT arguments today as if the
last 597 debunkings of such tripe had never even taken place. Go
figure.
>>> "Meanwhile, it seems as though David is a medical expert and has placed the {upper-back} wound conveniently above the throat wound." <<<
Which it is...and always was. And that fact can easily be verified by
this autopsy photograph of the late President Kennedy:
www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the
entrance wound in the {President's} back was definitely above the exit
wound in the throat appears in one of {the} autopsy photos taken of
the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his
head on a metal headrest.
"Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his
upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that
the wound to the back was definitely ABOVE the exit wound in the
throat." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d0e813277d5baa0
>>> "I was at a conference proving Marrion Baker arrived at the TSBD doorstep in 22 seconds, smashing the Dale Myers/Todd Vaughan timeline of 35 seconds." <<<
LOL. I love it. Evidently, a whopping THIRTEEN seconds' difference = A
conspiracy. (And it's "13 seconds" that cannot possibly be verified
with 100% certainty, because ALL TIMELINES connected with the shooting
are only "approximations" and "estimates" (just as the Warren
Commission fully acknowledged).
And those "approximations" include, of course, the estimated movements
of the ASSASSIN HIMSELF (Lee Oswald), in conjunction with Officer
Marrion L. Baker's movements just after the shooting took place.
And (quite obviously) nobody was able to get Oswald himself to tell us
just exactly how fast or how slow he was walking or running just after
he fired his three bullets at President Kennedy forty-four years ago
today.
Therefore, any 13-second differential in Marrion Baker's movements
immediately after the assassination mean very, very little when
compared to the "GRAND WHOLE" that tells the world that Lee Harvey
Oswald was shooting at John Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
But, to Richard "I LIKE CHAFF MUCH BETTER THAN WHEAT" Van Noord, those
thirteen ESTIMATED seconds are evidently supposed to bring the "Lone
Assassin" scenario to its knees.
LOL reprise! I love it!
RECONSTRUCTING THE STEPS OF A PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aaeb4a1389e69938
Walt
> >>> "I don't believe he had his pistol in his hand, when he encountered Oswald SIX floors below the roof." <<<
>
> Even though BOTH Truly & Baker said he had the pistol in his hand.
> Right, kook?
Yes, even though Truly said Baker had his gun pointed at Oswald....
Truly was a liar who pointed the finger at Oswald when his commonsense
should have told him that Oswald wasn't the culprit.
Truly had seen Oswald in the lunchroom just seconds after the
shooting, and Oswald showed NO SIGNS of being a murderer fleeing the
scene. When Truly saw LHO, Lee acted just as you, or I, might act if
a cop were to were to poke his head in the door of the lunchroom
while we're having lunch. WHY did Truly sic the dogs on
Oswald??
>
> Walt thinks that Baker kept his gun holstered, even though he knew an
> assassin was probably in the building.
>
> No sense in taking out the gun until the 7th Floor or the roof...right
> Walt?
Pssssst Dumbass... The POINT is:... Baker thought the shot ( or
firecracker) had been fired from the ROOF of the TSBD. When he
encountered Oswald just seconds after the shooting his commonsense
would have told him that LHO could not have been on the roof just
seconds prior to their meeting... Therefore there was NO reason for
Baker to point his revolver at Oswald. And since Oswald showed no
sign of being startled, or frightened, Baker probably never had his
gun POINTED AT Oswald. He "MAY" have had it in his hand, but
Oswald's reaction indicate that the officer's gun wasn't POINTED at
him.
Walt
> >>> "There are very very few people who could murder a head of state and not even have an increase in heart rate. Oswald was NOT one of those individuals." <<<
>
> Oh goodie! The kook now thinks he can tell what Oswald's "heart rate"
> was as of 12:31-12:32 PM on 11/22/63!
Duh... Dumbass. the term "heart rate" is a synonym for all of the
characteristics that LHO SHOULD have been experiencing IF IF IF he
had jusy murdered the President of the United States.
Walt
> >>> "Baker had something that you don't....COMMON SENSE. He knew that it was unreasonable to believe that the man who had fired the rifle on the ROOF of the TSBD could be in the lunchroom." <<<
>
> Yeah...that must be why Baker bothered to stop Oz in the lunchroom at
> gunpoint....right, Mr. Kook?
>
> IOW -- Baker, in a big hurry to get to the roof and (per Walt The
> Kook) knowing that the killer couldn't POSSIBLY have been on the 2nd
> Floor when Baker was there, went ahead and wasted time by STOPPING
> OSWALD ON THE SECOND FLOOR ANYWAY!
Damn !!.. What a stupid liar you are.... Anybody who knows the very
basics of the case will recognize that you are a liar, because Baker
never STOPPED Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. He merely saw him
there and was curious what he (LHO) was doing. When he saw the coke
in Oswald's hand and realized that he had entered a lunchroom that
pretty well answered his question. Truly's statement of "he works
here" would not have been enough to dismiss Oswald if he had just
exited an an elevator. ( Baker was unfamiliar with the building so he
had no way of knowing that there wasn't an elevator beyond the
door)
Walt
> >>> "Marina said he was in near panic when he returned from firing a bullet through General Walker's window." <<<
>
> You mean to say you ACTUALLY DO think Oswald fired a bullet at Walker?
> And you ACTUALLY BELIEVE a word that came out of the mouth of that
> tramp, Marina Oswald?!!
Yer gonna hafta LEARN TO READ.... I' ve always said that Oswald fired
a bullet through Walker's window. That's NOT to say he was trying to
hit Walker. That bullet hole in Walker's window was mean't to be
stark evidence that Oswald had attempted to shoot Walker, but IF IF
LHO had INTENDED to hit Walker he could not have missed... The range
was less than 100 feet and the target was sitting stationary in a
chair behind the window in a well lighted room. Oswald INTENDED to
miss.... Even his babysitter George de Morhenschildt, knew that
Oswald had deliberately missed walker, because when he next saw Oswald
a couple of days after the shooting he asked.... My god Lee, how
could you possibly have missed him!!??".
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/734dcce7...
>
> >>> "Why in hell would Oswald stop to eject the shells from his pistol after he allegedly shot Tippit? Was he trying to set himself up?!" <<<
>
> You'll have to ask the murderer himself (Oswald) that question. (If
> you can dig him up.)
>
> But Oswald DID do just that, i.e., eject four shells at the scene of
> the Tippit murder. Of that there is not a shred of a doubt. Multiple
> witnesses positively IDed Oswald as the SHELL-DUMPING KILLER, for Pete
> sake!
>
> What MORE do you need to be convinced of his guilt?
>
> I doubt if a film of Oz doing his evil deeds in Dallas would convince
> a lot of you conspiracy kooks of Oz's guilt. That's why
> you're....kooks (of course).
>
> Read up on the Tippit case before posting any more stupid comments
> like the ones you wrote above, Clement. Okay?
>
> Try the WC testimony of Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis first. Are
> both of these young girls "in" on the plot to frame a poor innocent
> "patsy"? (Get real.).....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
>
> TIPPIT'S MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS DEFENSE OF LEE OSWALD:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85fe573544d89f90
>
> And Gerald Ford's "on paper" "move" of the back wound does NOTHING to
> discredit the SBT at all. Here's why:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
>
> >>> "You didn't see Oswald eject those shells, so you can't say that." <<<
>
> LOL. You're too funny, Mr. Kook. By this oddball logic of yours, the
> fact that *I* didn't "see" Oz eject the shells would therefore mean,
> if I had been on Oswald's jury at a trial, I would be forced to
> believe that Oz really DIDN'T eject them, regardless of how many
> witnesses claimed to see him do it. Right?
>
> Geesh. God help us if you ever sit on a jury.
>
> >>> "Those "multiple witnesses" were losing relatives and getting death threats; so sure they IDed Oswald fast!" <<<
>
> You're really in fantasy-land now. Just exactly how many relatives did
> Barbara and Virginia Davis lose to the proverbial "Mystery Death
> Squad" post-Nov. 22nd?
>
> The "Mystery Deaths" thing is yet another of the silly CT myths you've
> fallen for, I see. Typical.
>
> But let's take a look at some of those "mystery" deaths, to see if
> they make ANY sense at all....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d52845e6c744cccf
>
> >>> "Oswald was never tried or convicted of ANY murder..." <<<
>
> Only because Jack Ruby (another lone nut) intervened. But, per Mr.
> Finn-kook, we should just IGNORE all the evidence that leads to ONLY
> Oswald (and it's approx. 58 miles high) and give him 2 free murders on
> the house because there was never a "trial" to convict him.
>
> If Charlie Manson and Susan Atkins had been killed before their trial,
> would I be obliged to ignore all of the evidence of their guilt in the
> 7 Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969, too?
>
> >>> "You're stuck in THEORY land..." <<<
>
> Not at all. You, being a rabid conspiracist (via your silly postings
> thus far), are the one stuck in "theory land". That's all CTers have
> are "theories"...and unsupportable crazy ones at that.
>
> The "LN" crowd has something else -- Hard, physical, documented
> evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered 2 men in 1963.
>
> You should be embarrassed by desiring to willingly set a known double-
> killer free. If you knew anything at all about the verified evidence
> in the JFK/Tippit cases, you couldn't blather on about poor Oswald's
> constitutional rights. That talk sickens me.
>
> Oswald was guilty. Live with it.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> A "Vince Preview" of what's coming in May 2007:
>
> "Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
> guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
> Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
> one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt.
>
> "If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
> purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago?
How about saving me the time of looking this up to see if you're lying
again....
When did Oswald deny that he purchased "that Carcano rifle from the
Klein's store in Chicago"
Address this very specific statement..... WHERE IS THE PROOF that
Oswald ever said anything about Klein's sporting goods.
Why
> did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
> to do that if he's innocent?
>
> "If Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's
> assassination and was framed....this otherwise independent and defiant
> would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned
> out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
> mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
> could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
> declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
> Kennedy'!!!"
>
> "ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, would
> believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the
> Spanish language!" -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
>
> >>> "You need to get past the Warren Commission and read some of the HSCA, which found conspiracy." <<<
>
> Are you really this stupid? The HSCA came to the same identical
> conclusion that the WC did 15 years earlier with regard to the ONLY
> gunman who hit any victims on 11/22/63 -- with that gunman being Lee
> Harvey Oswald.
>
> Hence, the HSCA declared Oswald the murderer of President Kennedy
> (plus Officer Tippit).
>
> The since-debunked Dictabelt crap is the ONLY thing that led the HSCA
> to the (false) notion of conspiracy.
>
> But even WITH that "probable conspiracy" declaration, the HSCA deemed
> Oswald guilty....something that you can't seem to do, despite TWO
> Govt. inquiries that say he's guilty as hell.
>
> >>> "If you're not rabid why is everyone who disagrees with you a kook?" <<<
>
> Because it's a word that perfectly fits conspiracy theorists like you.
> And, it's fun to say.
>
> Your first comments to me re. the Tippit shells proved instantly that
> you resided in the "kook" category.
>
> For, anyone who thinks Oswald even MIGHT be innocent of killing Tippit
> is either nuts or is sleeping with Oliver Stone and/or Jim Garrison's
> ghost.
>
> >>> "I'm willing to entertain most any theory in this case, even that Oswald acted alone. But no one can PROVE anything in it anymore." <<<
>
> It's already been proven sixteen ways to Sunday. You just don't want
> to accept the official versions of Oz's guilt, merely because a guy
> with a robe wasn't sitting behind a high desk someplace. Thus...you're
> a kook. A kook who is dead-wrong. ~Mark VII~
>
> Yes, I lied. I said I was done listening to you.
>
> But kook-fighting is my job, you see. The CIA pays me well, so it's
> hard just to bypass such an easy target as your kooky self whenever
> you say something stupid...like you've been doing today.
>
> >>> "The law requires more than the fact that a defendant lied about something to get a conviction." <<<
>
> <hearty laugh>
>
> As if that "more" doesn't exist in the two murders Oz committed.
> You're a stitch.
>
> There's enough "more" there to convict Oz 30 times over and everybody
> with a brain knows it -- his guns, his shells, his bullets, his
> prints, witnesses to Oz committing both murders, his own actions right
> after both murders. The list is almost endless.
>
> The EVIDENCE convicts him too, you know. Whether it was presented in a
> court or not...the evidence still EXISTS. It's not going away. And
> you're goofy to ignore it all just because Ruby intervened.
>
> >>> "And that tells me that no person has ever been tried in acourt of law in the murder of John F. Kennedy." <<<
>
> Dead-wrong. Clay Shaw was. And it took the jury less than one hour to
> return with a verdict of Not Guilty.
>
> >>> "Nobody else wants to bother talking with you; only misguided charity has kept me around." <<<
>
> Consider yourself freed up from your horrible burden then. Stop
> talking. Because I'm certainly done listening to you. There's no
> reasoning with kooks like you. So take a hike.
>
> Happy trails as you continue to attempt to exonerate a proven-guilty
> double-murderer.
>
> Hitler's probably on your "innocent" list too, right?
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/1734e956...
>
> >>> "There is another factor that must be considered....the distance of the viewer from the building." <<<
>
> Which is pretty much what I said via my earlier (generalized)
> disclaimer re. Brennan:
>
> "There's the 60-foot-high "angle" of Brennan's SN observations to
> consider in all of this as well." -- DVP
Pssst Von Pea Brain.... Find a seventh grader who can do bacis
geometry and have them explain to you why yer full of crap... The
angle from Brennan, who was sitting on a wall about 120 feet away from
the TSBD, to the sixth floor was approximately 25 degrees. Thats not
a very steep angle.... You are the liar who gives credence to
witnesses like James Worrell who was standing only a few feet away
from the TSBD, ( an impossibly steep angle) while attempting to
discredit Howard Brennan.
>
> But, no matter how much energy Walt The Kook spends in trying to
> rewrite assassination history, he has not changed a single one of the
> facts in the case. And the main "Brennan Fact" is, beyond all doubt,
> that Howard L. Brennan saw ONE man in ONE Depository window (the
> southeast, SN window) on 11/22/63.
Why did you want to drag me into this debate....You know I'll just
show you to be a lying ignoramus.
Brennan said he saw the gunman moving back and forth behind WINDOWS
( plural) on the sixth floor.
Brennan's observations are supported by several other witnesses who
also saw the man moving back and forth (east to west and west to
east) behind the WINDOWS, BEFORE the motorcade arrived. And there is
a movie film that verifies that there was a person in LIGHT COLORED
clothing walking rapidly back and forth behind the WINDOWS. (plural)
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> Brennan never saw anyone in ANY OTHER WINDOWS on the 6th Floor of the
> Depository. And this short excerpt of Brennan's testimony proves that
> beyond all doubt:
So what if Brennan never saw anybody else but the 165 to 175 pound,
light clothing clad gunman, who Brennan said was at least ten years
older than Lee Oswald???
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
> can recollect?
> Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
>
> Walt wants to believe that Brennan actually saw the killer on the west
> end of the 6th Floor, even though Brennan never ONCE says a thing
> about the WEST-end windows.
Well at least ya got that right.... I guess you can understand simple
ideas, even with the cannabis smoke in yer eyes.
>
> And whether he was specifically asked or not, if the assassin had
> actually been on the west side, Brennan would certainly have pointed
> out that fact during the duration of his WC testimony.
Nonsense.... Brennan was very fearful for the safety of his family.
He better than any other person UNDERSTOOD that the authorities were
framing Oswald, and if he didn't go along with their story he could be
putting his family in jeopardy.
Especially as
> he places circles around a window on TWO different WC exhibits, plus a
> rifle-angle notation on yet another exhibit...with all of these
> markings showing the EAST window, not the west.
Brennan was referring to the window where he had seen the LIGHT
CLOTHING clad gunman BEFORE the motorcades arrival. In his afidavit
he DESCRIBED the window where he'd seen the WHITE CLOTHING clad
gunman aiming the rifle AT THE TIME of the shooting. The ONLY window
that matches his DESCRIPTION was at the WEST end of the sixth floor.
>
> Brennan just didn't think it mattered if he was marking the wrong
> window on THREE exhibits, is that what Walt believes?
He was marking windows where he had seen the 175 pound, LIGHT
CLOTHING clad, 35 year old, gunman
just minutes before the motorcade arrived in dealey plaza.
>
> Walt's skewed interpretation regarding Howard Brennan's testimony
> should be flushed down the toilet, where such "I Need A Conspiracy"
> excrement belongs.
>
> Regardless of how Walt attempts to micro-manage Brennan's remarks
> about the gunman's "hips", "waist", "standing" position, etc. -- one
> thing will not change .... and that is the fact that Howard Brennan
> positively saw a gunman firing a rifle at JFK's car from the southeast
> corner 6th-Floor window of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:30
> PM on 11/22/63. And Mr. Brennan said that that gunman was Lee Harvey
> Oswald.
Liar.... Bennan viewed a line up just a few hours afterthe
assassination in which oswald was present. Brennan said the gunman
he'd seen was NOT in the line up.
>
> That basic fact will not change....Walt's micro-analysis of Brennan's
> every word notwithstanding.
>
> Plus, another thing that makes Walt's theory hilarious and totally
> absurd is this ---
>
> Walt thinks the REAL 6th-Floor shooter was on the WEST side of the
> building....and yet the plotters (in charge of the proverbial "Patsy
> Plot") decided to plant evidence of a gunman in the EAST window!
Hey Dumbass....The planted evidence was good enough to fool the
suckers ( as you readily demonstrate, by being a prime example)
>
> How stupid is this plan? They shoot from one window; but attempt to
> frame their dupe from the OPPOSITE end of the building?
>
> What if a gob of witnesses (or a cameraman) had seen this west-end
> shooter firing at the President? What then?
>
> The "West-End TSBD Gunman" theory is silly from every Walt-invented
> angle (especially within the framework of a pre-arranged "Let's Frame
> Oswald On The East End" mindset).
>
> Give up on this silly theory, Walt. It's moribund. (And then some.)
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> www.JFK-Audio-Video-Page.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
>>> "I' ve always said that Oswald fired a bullet through Walker's window." <<<
Ahhhh, yes....the good ol' "staged attempt".
Lovely theory.
And the JFK attempt was supposedly merely a "staged attempt" too,
right?
Question:
When did you decide to become the evidence-skewing moron you currently
are, Walter? Was it in the 70s, 80s, or 90s?
David Von Pein
Multiple instances of Walt skewing the evidence in the paragraph above
(as per the kook's norm, of course).
Question:
When exactly was it, Walt, that you decided that YOU ALONE would be
the one who would decide on what the real evidence in this case is
going to be?
Just curious.
David Von Pein
So, Truly was the one who was controlling Baker's actions, is that it
kook?
Truly didn't stop Oswald in the lunchroom....Officer Baker did.
======================================
~~ Awaiting the next piece of known, verified evidence that will be
mangled by "Walt The Evidence-Skewing Idiot" ~~
======================================
David Von Pein
Look at this hunk of evidence-mangling, folks.
And yet *I* am the "liar" in this equation.
Ain't that a hoot?
Walt, face facts -- you're a shameless evidence-skewing moron. And
even you HAVE to know that fact.
David Von Pein
>>> "WHERE IS THE PROOF that Oswald ever said anything about Klein's sporting goods?" <<<
He didn't say anything about "Klein's". Of course he didn't....because
he DENIED EVER OWNING A RIFLE AT ALL IN NOV. 1963.
In case you missed it, THAT was the whole point of that part of my
post.
David Von Pein
>>> "Why did you want to drag me {a kook named Walter Cakebread} into this debate? You know I'll just show you to be a lying ignoramus." <<<
<chuckle time>
This is kind of like a turtle saying to a rabbit: "Why bother racing
me, Mr. Rabbit? You know I'll just end up beating you by a mile."
(Does anybody really know if Walt The Kook ACTUALLY believes he has
defeated ANY LNer on this board [or any other board] with his make-
believe bullcrap? If he does, the word 'delusional' comes to mind
immediately.)
>>> "Brennan said he saw the gunman moving back and forth behind WINDOWS (plural) on the sixth floor." <<<
Lookie! Walt is skewing the evidence again! What a surprise!
Please provide a cite for your above lie, Walt-Kook.
>>> "Brennan was referring to the window where he had seen the LIGHT CLOTHING clad gunman BEFORE the motorcade's arrival. In his afidavit [sic] he DESCRIBED the window where he'd seen the WHITE CLOTHING clad gunman aiming the rifle AT THE TIME of the shooting. The ONLY window that matches his DESCRIPTION was at the WEST end of the sixth floor." <<<
I'm certainly not going to once again type out the actual evidence
that proves "Walt The Ultra-Mega-Kook" to be dead-wrong (as per
usual). We've been over this multiple times previously...and I've
totally demolished Walt's ridiculous "BRENNAN WAS DESCRIBING THE WEST-
END WINDOW" bullshit several times over.
If anyone wants to see the kook's theory ripped to shreds by the real
evidence and testimony in the case, you can check out the two links
below from March 2007:
SHATTERING A LOONY THEORY ABOUT HOWARD BRENNAN:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
>>> "Hey Dumbass....The planted evidence was good enough to fool the suckers (as you readily demonstrate, by being a prime example)." <<<
Hey Kook! There's not a person in this asylum who doesn't realize that
you are one of the "Kings of Evidence-Mangling". You wear the title
like it was a badge of honor.
Go figure somebody actually being PROUD of performing the kind of
evidence-twisting Walt engages in, 24/7.
~shrugs at the thought~
Walt
> >>> "Truly was a liar who pointed the finger at Oswald when his commonsense should have told him that Oswald wasn't the culprit." <<<
>
> So, Truly was the one who was controlling Baker's actions, is that it
> kook?
>
> Truly didn't stop Oswald in the lunchroom....Officer Baker did.
Liar!.... Baker didn't stop Lee Oswald. He merely encountered him in
the second floor lunch room. He didn't even ask him for his name...He
merely saw that Lee was eating his lunch and went on his way to find
the guy who he thought was on the roof.
David Von Pein
FULL REPLAY OF A 2007 POST (verifying Walt as an evidence-skewing
conspiracy-happy idiot):
===========================================================
>>> "He {Brennan} DESCRIBED the wide open WEST END window." <<<
Never happened, and even you know it never happened.
Brennan utilized FOUR different WC exhibits and via his own HAND he
drew a rifle angle on one exhibit and circled the ONLY window he saw a
gunman in on two other exhibits.....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0113a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0113b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0112a.htm
>>> "We can be sure the gunman was there in the WEST-end window because Arnold Rowland saw him there..." <<<
Not at 12:30 DURING the shooting. Even assassins have legs for
mobility, you know. Oswald moved from the west side to his SN window
on the east side after Rowland's west-end observation. Why do you
think the gunman HAD to be glued to the west end?
>>> "Maybe I am the only one who can see through the smokescreen laid down by the Warren Commission lawyers. It's readily apparent that you can't...but I've always attributed that to the fact that you have your head in your ass." <<<
That's funny...I've always attributed it to the fact that I'm not a
conspiracy-loving kook.
>>> "...And Brennan and Rowland saw him {the TSBD gunman} behind the wide-open WEST-end window." <<<
Not during the assassination. But keep thinking that your goofy
"lining up" of these witnesses gets Oswald off the hook for murder.
After all, everybody needs their fantasies. I'm still dreaming about
playing first base for the Reds some day. But my height will probably
prohibit that from happening (I'm 5'9", the same as your hero,
Oswald). But, then again, Vic Davalillo played a little first
base...and he was only 5'7". ~wink~
>>> "Oswald was dressed in dark-colored clothes at the time." <<<
And, once again, how would YOU know that? You don't think anybody ever
even saw LHO at the exact time of the shooting, do you? How the hell
do you know how he was dressed? He could have had on a hula-skirt and
a string of beads for all you know.
>>> "This FACT absolutely and utterly destroys the Warren Commission's THEORY that Oswald was the lone nut killer." <<<
What "FACT"? The "fact" that you believe that somebody saw a killer in
the WEST-end window DURING the shooting itself? But nobody testified
to that. That's your own invention. Always was.
Or the "fact" that the clothing descriptions vary? That doesn't get Oz
off the hook. That type of testimony is always going to vary. Always.
Plus: Oz had on TWO shirts when arrested remember...one dark; one
white (t-shirt). The outer one being easily-removable and also easy to
slip on quickly.
And Oswald's LIES re. the rifle would have convicted the bum -- all by
themselves.
Think up another theory--quick. Before Fetzer does!
<all of Walt's stupid Walker-related crap excised>
David Von Pein
BRENNAN never saw Oswald on the WEST end. Only Rowland saw Oz on the
west end. And I never said Brennan saw ANYONE on the west
end....because he obviously never did. Never. He would have said so if
he had, you goofball-slash-kook!
And Brennan certainly wouldn't have circled ONLY the southeast window
on TWO separate WC exhibits if he had actually seen Oswald SHOOTING
from a different (west) window, you stupid freakin' goofball!
You should really be embarrassed to post here with such obvious
distortions of the facts. I'm kinda embarrassed just talking to a
retard like you, in fact.
You actually want to believe that Brennan just obediently circled the
SN window on 2 exhibits, but he only saw Oz before the shooting in the
circled window?
But when it comes to the BIG, MAIN-EVENT evidence of Brennan SEEING
THE GUN BEING FIRED, Brennan never says a word about his circled
window on 2 exhibits (plus the "rifle-angle" drawing on yet another
exhibit) being the WRONG window??
Is this your retarded position as she exists as of 3/30/2007 AD, you
mindless retard?!
Walt
So it's not only yer mind, and spine, that's weak.....You also have a
weak bladder. You apparently are just a weakling.
David Von Pein
But we all know what Walt is, don't we now?
Walt
> >>> "WHERE IS THE PROOF that Oswald ever said anything about Klein's sporting goods?" <<<
He didn't say anything about "Klein's". Of course he
didn't....because he DENIED EVER OWNING A RIFLE AT ALL IN NOV. 1963.
If you knew that why did you write...."If Oswald were innocent, why
did he find it necessary to deny purchasing that Carcano rifle from
the Klein's store in Chicago?
It should be obvious to even a third grade school kid that you said
that Oswald denied "purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's
store in Chicago"
Thank you for admitting.... Of course he didn't say anything about
"Klein's".
It's great to pin yer ears back, and see you eating a little
crow..... Would you like some salt rubbed ...Er... I mean would you
like a little salt with that crow?
David Von Pein
<chuckle time>
Yeah, Walt-Kook really "pinned my ears back" that time, huh?
<additional chuckle ensues>
But just for Walt's record.....
Since Oswald denied owning the Kennedy murder weapon, period....he
obviously (by extrapolation) also denied ever purchasing that rifle
from the Klein's store in Chicago.
This type of "verbal license" that I was using when referring
specifically to "Klein's" is akin, for example, to the same type of
verbal extrapolation that could be used by saying this:
OSWALD DENIED EVER SHOOTING PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND GOVERNOR CONNALLY.
Now, AFAIK, Oswald never SPECIFICALLY denied shooting at Governor
Connally (although he did say "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir" at one
point in the DPD hallways)....but the above sentence is still true
just the same (in an extrapolated way). Because denying he shot JFK is
the very same thing as denying he shot the only other victim in the
limo too--John B. Connally.
The same thing applies to the Carcano/Klein's topic. Oswald denied
owning a rifle...therefore, he certainly (by necessity) also denied
ever personally purchasing such a weapon from "Klein's".
Perhaps it's not TECHNICALLY 100% accurate to phrase things in the
above extrapolated-like manner, and it's typical of mega-kooks like
Walt to want to focus on such obvious chaff-like things, but the
extended statements are both true nevertheless (based on what Oswald
DID say in November 1963).
Walt
Yea It's only us "mega-kooks" that distort information like ...Howard
Brennan said the the gunman Howard Brennan saw was at least ten years
older than Oswald. Of course Howard Brennan never used those exact
words in his testimony, but he DID say the gunman was in his "early
thirties" and since Oswald was in his early twenties by extension the
gunman was at least ten years older than Oswald. However... When I
make that point you assholes accuse me of lying. But when you post a
statement like...." Oswald denied purchasing that Carcano rifle from
the Klein's store in Chicago".. which is an outright lie, you
equivocate and lie some more.
The same thing applies to my interpretion of Brennan's estimate of the
gunman's weight... Brennan said the gunman weighed from 165 to 175
pounds..... Which is about 30 pounds heavier than Oswald's booking
weight. You assholes attempt to use the lower weight of Brennan's
estimate of 165 pounds and the highest weight of 150 pounds, that you
can find for Oswald, and then claim that Brennan was very close to
Oswald's actual weight.
Brennan was also very specific about the color of the gunman's
clothing, he said the gunman was wearing a "light colored, possibly a
dingy white" shirt and trousers that were "a shade lighter than his
shirt" ... You ignore Brennan's description of the color of the man's
trousers completely and attempt to make it appear that the man was
Oswald in his T shirt, even though you want to use the fiber evidence
that the FBI found some fibers of the BROWN shirt on the butt of the
rifle. So on one hand you claim that Oswald was wearing the reddish
brown shirt at the time of the assassination but on the other hand
you claim that Oswald was wearing his T shirt at the time of the
shooting, while completely ignoring the color of the gunmans
trousers. ( Oswald never even owned any white colored trousers)
do it it's
David Von Pein
>>> "But when you post a statement like: "Oswald denied purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago"....which is an outright lie, you equivocate and lie some more." <<<
Where's the "lie"?
Oswald positively DID deny owning Rifle C2766. Therefore, he
necessarily was ALSO DENYING that he had ordered and paid for that
same rifle (which we know came from Klein's).
Unless you maybe want to split hairs here and think Oswald DID order
the rifle from Klein's but HE HIMSELF was not the "owner" of said
weapon after Klein's shipped it to Oswald's own PO Box.
Maybe Lee bought the rifle as a gift for somebody else, huh?
Oh, BTW....
This whole conversation now belongs in the category of:
"D.V.P. WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG, EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T REALIZE IT."
Why?
Because after an easy 10-second search, I found the following
"Klein's" testimony given to the WC by DPD Captain J. Will Fritz:
JOSEPH BALL -- "You did ask him {LHO} if he had purchased a rifle from
Klein's store in Chicago, Illinois, didn't you?
CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "Yes, I did."
MR. BALL -- "What did he say?"
CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "He said he did not."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
(I'd forgotten about the above "Klein's" testimony provided by Fritz.
So, I was correct in the first place and didn't even realize it.
Amazing, huh?)
Walt
Pssst....asshole, here's what I asked you to do before we got into
this BS.....I asked you to post proof that Oswald had ever
specifically denied buying a rifle from Kleins.....Here's the
challenge.. "How about saving me the time of looking this up to see
David Von Pein
Nice try at backpedaling, Walt. But...too late, seeing as how you said
the following AFTER your "challenge", which obviously means that you
had no idea about the Fritz testimony re. Klein's that I posted
earlier:
"But when you post a statement like: "Oswald denied purchasing
that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago"....which is an
outright lie, you equivocate and lie some more." -- WALT-KOOK
David Von Pein
>>> "The evidence that was intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end window??" <<<
Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
going to say in just a second.
Gotta love it.
And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end (Arce maybe?; ask
Willis about this; you guys can write a new kookbook).
I love it.
>>> "Perhaps there were two men up there...and one planted the shells behind the east end window, while the man in the west end window was totally unaware that the the other guy was planting the shells." <<<
Please, Walt...stop!!
My bladder! Remember the weakness of it!!
Next On The Kook Channel......
TWO BOOBS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR WHO HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE OTHER WAS DOING
ON NOV. 22, EVEN THOUGH THE HEAD BOOB(S) WERE ATTEMPTING TO FRAME
OSWALD *WELL IN ADVANCE OF NOV. 22*!! Details at 11....if we can get
the editor to stop laughing and edit the damn film!
>>> "There are several other possible reasons that the shells were planted behind the east window, but I wasn't there at the time, so I can only speculate." <<<
Yes, you do that very well. In fact, that's ALL you do--speculate.
Hilarious.
>>> "However I do know that the gunman that Brennan saw firing a hunting rifle, was firing from the WEST end window." <<<
Goodie. Walt continues the "hunting rifle" lie. Try finding the word
"hunting" ANYWHERE on the webpages below....
David Von Pein
>>> "Can we have honest and open debates?" <<<
Walt says he wants an "honest and open debate" regarding the JFK
assassination. That's hilarious, coming as it does from a kook named
"Walt" who completely ignores and/or mangles virtually all of the
evidence surrounding this case (including the Tippit murder too).
Walt interjecting the word "honest" into his thread title is almost
too funny for words. As we all know, Walt is the one who decides who
is "honest" or not with respect to everything associated with the
official evidence in the JFK case. And anyone who has ever pointed a
finger of guilt in Oswald's direction was "dishonest"....just because
Walt (an "honest" man) has said so.
Here are some examples of Walt's "honesty" (IOW, an example of the
bullshit he's invented without a stitch of evidence to support such
crap). All of these are verbatim quotes from the e-lips of "Honest
Walt" (aka: one of the most despicable CTers ever to utilize a
computer keyboard)......
"David Belin did a good job of twisting Brennan's testimony."
"Belin twisted the events that happened BEFORE the shooting to
make it look like Brennan was talking about what he saw DURING the
shooting."
"Belin cleverly did not provide a photo that showed the entire
face of the TSBD as it appeared at 12:30 on 11/22/63. He gave Howard
Brennan photos that showed only windows on the upper east side,
forcing Brennan to use those photos to depict the events he
witnessed."
"There are also photos which show a rifle protruding from that
window BEFORE the motorcade arrived....But there was NOBODY in that
{southeast 6th-Floor} window at the time of the shooting."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- LOL time. But at least Walt's being "honest" when
it comes to the massive amount of hard evidence that he's flushing
right down the toilet with respect to a rifle being fired from
Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window on November 22, right Walter? He'll just
ignore or skew every last speck of that evidence. A nice "honest"
approach by Walt-Kook, isn't it?]
"If the truth be known, the gunman was probably planting the
spent shells when Brennan saw him."
"Do you think that Howard {Brennan} was hallucinating??.....That
the 35 year old, 175 pound gunman who was dressed in a WHITE shirt and
trousers was merely a figment of his imagination?"
[DVP INTERJECTION -- Nice "honesty" depicted above about what Brennan
actually said, huh?]
"There WAS a 35 year old, 175 pound man, dressed in a white
shirt and trousers, visible in that window just a few minutes prior to
the shooting."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- Walt again thinks he can place such exactitude on
such things as "age" and "weight" and even "clothing", all the while
mangling the actual words uttered by Howard Brennan. Lovely "honesty"
once more, eh?]
"He {Howard Brennan} DESCRIBED the location where he saw the
gunman aiming the rifle from the window, and he did NOT describe the
window on the EAST end of the sixth floor."
"I believe the so called "Sniper's Nest" was nothing more than a
hidden "Smoker's Nook" that a TSBD employee had constructed so that he
could goof off and smoke without being seen by the boss."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- This particular brainstorm of Walter's, uttered
on August 6, 2006, deserves some extra attention from those "LOL"
initials once more!]
"There's no doubt about it.....Howard Brennan saw a man who was
NOT Lee Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD. He saw him in the
partly open S.N. window BEFORE the motorcade arrived, and he saw him
firing a rifle from a WIDE OPEN during the shooting."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- "There's no doubt about it", folks. That's
because Walt is an "honest" person when it comes to fairly and
reasonably evaluating and assessing the physical evidence in the case
and the testimony of one Howard Leslie Brennan. Right, Walt-Kook?]
"The Croft photo...shows a tiny piece of JFK's white shirt being
blown out through his suit jacket by the exiting bullet. .... The
bullet hole in JFK's jacket is EXACTLY where the tiny piece of white
shirt appears in the CROFT photo. .... The bullet was a TINY (perhaps
55 grain) .22 caliber bullet. A bullet this size will lose its energy
very rapidly. .... Therefore, after passing through JFK's body, it's
[sic] energy was pretty well spent. When it passed through one of the
grill openings {of the SS follow-up car} and struck some metal behind
the grill, it didn't have much more energy than a BB fired from a BB
gun. It simply fell into the area behind the grill of the Caddy."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- The above is a good example of a Mega-Kook's
imagination run amok in Dealey Plaza. Walt thinks JFK suffered a
"throat-thru-back" bullet wound at approx. Z161 on the Zapruder Film.
Can Walt's "honest" and fair and reasonable approach to President
Kennedy's injuries possibly get any more idiotic than in his quote
above? And yet Walt expects people to be open and respectful to such
moronic and unsupportable bullshit like that. He actually seems to
think that such utter nonsense ISN'T worthy of being ridiculed. Go
figure.]
"Everyone can have a theory about why Tippit was there and why
he was killed. .... The one thing we can be sure of is Oswald was NOT
the killer."
[DVP INTERJECTION -- This completes the "Anybody But Oswald" circle
for "honest" kooks like Walter. Not only is Lee Oswald completely
innocent of shooting President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza per these
nutcases like Walt, but the "ABO" kooks also want to have the
obviously-guilty Oswald innocent of Officer Tippit's murder as well.
It's so "honest" of Walt to tell us to totally ignore that pile of
"LHO Killed Tippit" evidence, isn't it? Just toss it out, says
Walt....including the Tippit murder weapon, which every kook's
favorite patsy had ON HIM when arrested just a half-hour after
Tippit's murder.]
==========
Summarizing......
Don't ya love watching a researcher approach the JFK evidence in an
"open" and "honest" manner like Walt has done via the "Kook Kwotes" I
have provided above? Just lovely isn't it?
I can "honestly" say this without fear of embarrassment --- Walt is an
"honest"-to-goodness idiot when it comes to his forum posts regarding
the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.
David Von Pein
December 2007
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/77126c37...
>
Aha... So I slapped ya upside the head and yer tryin ta recover huh?
The fact that you have to go back and retrieve old posts in a futile
attempt to get off the ropes, shows ter desperation.
Pssst Von Pea Brain .... That tactic is only damaging to you. I
welcome, and encourage, you to go back into the archives and drag any
or all of my posts out to be reviewed. 99.8% of them are on subject
and most of them effectively rebutt the BS of yer bible ...The Warren
Report.
So bring em on Dumbass...... Some lurkers may enjoy seeing you flog
yerself.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "Belin twisted the events that happened BEFORE the shooting to=
>
>> make it look like Brennan was talking about what he saw DURING the
>> shooting."
>>
>
>> face of the TSBD as it appeared at 12:30 on 11/22/63. He gave Howard
>> Brennan photos that showed only windows on the upper east side,
>> forcing Brennan to use those photos to depict the events he
>> witnessed."
>>
>
>> window BEFORE the motorcade arrived....But there was NOBODY in that
>> {southeast 6th-Floor} window at the time of the shooting."
>>
>> [DVP INTERJECTION -- LOL time. But at least Walt's being "honest" when
>> it comes to the massive amount of hard evidence that he's flushing
>> right down the toilet with respect to a rifle being fired from
>> Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window on November 22, right Walter? He'll just
>> ignore or skew every last speck of that evidence. A nice "honest"
>> approach by Walt-Kook, isn't it?]
>>
>> spent shells when Brennan saw him."
>>
>at
>> the 35 year old, 175 pound gunman who was dressed in a WHITE shirt and
>> trousers was merely a figment of his imagination?"
>>
>> [DVP INTERJECTION -- Nice "honesty" depicted above about what Brennan
>> actually said, huh?]
>>
>> shirt and trousers, visible in that window just a few minutes prior to
>> the shooting."
>>
>> [DVP INTERJECTION -- Walt again thinks he can place such exactitude on
>> such things as "age" and "weight" and even "clothing", all the while
>> mangling the actual words uttered by Howard Brennan. Lovely "honesty"
>> once more, eh?]
>>
>> gunman aiming the rifle from the window, and he did NOT describe the
>> window on the EAST end of the sixth floor."
>>
> a
>> hidden "Smoker's Nook" that a TSBD employee had constructed so that he
>> could goof off and smoke without being seen by the boss."
>>
>> [DVP INTERJECTION -- This particular brainstorm of Walter's, uttered
>> on August 6, 2006, deserves some extra attention from those "LOL"
>> initials once more!]
>>
>s
>> NOT Lee Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD. He saw him in the
>> partly open S.N. window BEFORE the motorcade arrived, and he saw him
>> firing a rifle from a WIDE OPEN during the shooting."
>>
>> [DVP INTERJECTION -- "There's no doubt about it", folks. That's
>> because Walt is an "honest" person when it comes to fairly and
>> reasonably evaluating and assessing the physical evidence in the case
>> and the testimony of one Howard Leslie Brennan. Right, Walt-Kook?]
>>
>ng
>> blown out through his suit jacket by the exiting bullet. .... The
>> bullet hole in JFK's jacket is EXACTLY where the tiny piece of white
>> shirt appears in the CROFT photo. .... The bullet was a TINY (perhaps
>> 55 grain) .22 caliber bullet. A bullet this size will lose its energy
>> very rapidly. .... Therefore, after passing through JFK's body, it's
>> grill openings {of the SS follow-up car} and struck some metal behind
>> the grill, it didn't have much more energy than a BB fired from a BB
>> gun. It simply fell into the area behind the grill of the Caddy."
>>
>> [DVP INTERJECTION -- The above is a good example of a Mega-Kook's
>> imagination run amok in Dealey Plaza. Walt thinks JFK suffered a
>> "throat-thru-back" bullet wound at approx. Z161 on the Zapruder Film.
>>
>> Can Walt's "honest" and fair and reasonable approach to President
>> Kennedy's injuries possibly get any more idiotic than in his quote
>> above? And yet Walt expects people to be open and respectful to such
>> moronic and unsupportable bullshit like that. He actually seems to
>> think that such utter nonsense ISN'T worthy of being ridiculed. Go
>> figure.]
>>
>
>> he was killed. .... The one thing we can be sure of is Oswald was NOT
>> the killer."
>>
>> [DVP INTERJECTION -- This completes the "Anybody But Oswald" circle
>> for "honest" kooks like Walter. Not only is Lee Oswald completely
>> innocent of shooting President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza per these
>> nutcases like Walt, but the "ABO" kooks also want to have the
>> obviously-guilty Oswald innocent of Officer Tippit's murder as well.
>>
>> It's so "honest" of Walt to tell us to totally ignore that pile of
>> "LHO Killed Tippit" evidence, isn't it? Just toss it out, says
>> Walt....including the Tippit murder weapon, which every kook's
>> favorite patsy had ON HIM when arrested just a half-hour after
>> Tippit's murder.]
>>
>>
>> Summarizing......
>>
>> Don't ya love watching a researcher approach the JFK evidence in an
>> "open" and "honest" manner like Walt has done via the "Kook Kwotes" I
>> have provided above? Just lovely isn't it?
>>
>> I can "honestly" say this without fear of embarrassment --- Walt is an
>> "honest"-to-goodness idiot when it comes to his forum posts regarding
>> the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.
>>
>> David Von Pein
>> December 2007
I do hope that DVP is getting paid enough - for he clearly doesn't realize (or
doesn't care) just what a dishonest idiot he appears to be to those who *know*
the evidence.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <ec865fd2-5210-4c91-af00-5588ca369...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Does that include you, Ben?
Btw, do you still consider Gil Jesus "competent and intelligent"?
Walt
> In article <ec865fd2-5210-4c91-af00-5588ca369...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Ben.... IMO Von Pea Brain is an apt moniker for DVP.... He's so outta
touch with reality that he actually believes that he's beaten me and
I'll be embarrassed to have him repost my posts. ( He got that tactic
from perfesser Pissant, who also never realized how ineffective it
is) In his warped thinking he thinks that he's makin himself look
good by reposting our exchanges..... watta Dumbass!!
Walt
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
I'll recycle and re-post Ben's words above (so that the true meaning
will come through this time):
"I do hope that DVP is getting paid enough - for he clearly
doesn't realize (or doesn't care) just what a dishonest idiot he
appears to be to those who *MANGLE* the ACTUAL evidence BEYOND ALL
POSSIBLE RECOGNITION."
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/3f5fcdbd0807103d/4a04abc29b757f54?#4a04abc29b757f54
>>> "But was Oswald really a nut? Here's what the people who knew him had to say about that...{the "Lee Was Sweet" crap snipped; nice of Ms. Meagher to leave out the part about Oswald being a bona fide MURDERER too}...." <<<
More bullshit from another "I'LL BELIEVE ANYBODY DID IT EXCEPT LEE
HARVEY OSWALD" CT-Kook.
Ms. Meagher's "Here's How Sweet Lee Really Was" book passages
notwithstanding, there are ample other witness accounts to show that
Lee Oswald was all of the following things:
1.) A wife-beater (Marina herself told us that, of course).
2.) A semi-expert (and moving toward "expert" status) at manipulating
people to get exactly what he wanted. (His bald-faced lie about his
mother that he told to the Marine Corps in order to secure his
discharge in 1959 being a prime example of Ozzie's excellent
manipulating skills. And an excellent example of how Oswald was
willing to tell "whopper lies" to get what he wanted as well. "Curtain
rods" anyone?)
3.) A disturbed youth who was fixated on Marxism, Communism, and even
the sudden and violent death of the President of the United States.
(He threatened Eisenhower at one point in his life....and he was
barely starting puberty at the time. He was warming up in the bullpen,
it would seem, for November 22, 1963.)
4.) A top-notch liar. (Oh, I already mentioned that one, didn't I?
Well, it's worth a reprise anyway. Oz could lie like a champion "To
Tell The Truth" game-show contestant....day or night, pre-
assassination or post-.)
5.) A double-murderer, with every last scrap of physical (ballistics)
evidence in the 11/22/63 murders of JFK & JDT leading to one man's
guns -- Lee Harvey Oswald's.
Nice guy, wasn't Lee?
>>> "It's no secret that what I find so loathsome about Vincent Bugliosi is the way he smears a man who isn't there to defend himself." <<<
<hearty laugh>
As if Oswald would have uttered a single word in court had he stood
trial.
LHO would have been a fool to take the witness stand. Vince Bugliosi's
very first set of questions would have convicted the bastard. Let's
listen......
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 139,
which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766.
This exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace, the
Texas School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President Kennedy
was shot and killed from right in front of that building in November
of 1963. A palmprint of yours was located on this exact weapon. .... I
ask you now, Mr. Oswald, have you ever seen this rifle before?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I didn't order any rifle."
BUGLIOSI -- "Have you owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr. Oswald....a
privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the Marine Corps
in late 1959?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have never owned a rifle in my life."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
This man who looks exactly like you is holding a rifle, is carrying a
handgun, and is also holding up two Russian newspapers, dated early in
1963. .... I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this
photograph?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. That picture must be a fake or something. I never
posed for any picture like that before in my life."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a man by the name of Wesley Frazier?"
OSWALD -- "Yes, I work with him at the Depository."
BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
November 22, 1963?"
OSWALD -- "Yes....he did."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, take any kind of paper package with
you to work on that particular morning?"
OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch. That's all."
BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
November 22nd, is that correct?"
OSWALD -- "Yes, sir. I had my lunch with me."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"
OSWALD -- "No, I had nothing else."
BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
this jury that he observed you carrying a much-larger paper bag on the
morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
Wesley Frazier anything like like on the morning of November 22nd?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir! Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a thing
like that. I never told him anything like that."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
you carrying a bulky-type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
paper lunch sack?"
OSWALD -- "Well...uh...I really can't speak for what another witness
might or might not have seen...or said. I can only tell you that she's
wrong if she said I had a big bag with me that day. I just carried my
lunch to work, like I usually do on work days."
BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this
time."
==============
The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the TSBD on
11/22/63.
Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
my life"?
The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.
To sum up --- Oswald's many lies ALONE would have convicted him in a
court of law if he had taken the stand (and probably even if he hadn't
taken the stand....because his many lies would still have certainly
come to the forefront via other witnesses who would have testified at
the trial).
In addition, of course, the physical and circumstantial evidence in
the case also convicts LHO ten times over....but when Oswald's OWN
LIES are added to the mix -- it's the hangman's noose for sure for Mr.
Oz.
Because does an "INNOCENT PATSY" really NEED to lie this much?......
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
David Von Pein
LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S STATEMENTS MADE WHILE IN CUSTODY.....
EXAMINING OSWALD'S MANY, MANY LIES.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JFK assassination researcher Mae Brussell compiled a
fairly-comprehensive list of the oral statements made between November
22nd and November 24th, 1963, by President Kennedy's assassin, Lee
Harvey Oswald.
Here's a link to those statements:
"THE LAST WORDS OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD":
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
===============================
A couple of very interesting things stood out to this writer while
reading through Brussell's compilation of Oswald's utterances.....
One of those interesting things being the fact that Lee Oswald,
himself, admitted to authorities (on November 24, 1963, shortly before
he was murdered by Jack Ruby) that he had, indeed, made a trip to
Mexico City, in an attempt to return to Russia by way of Cuba.
The Mexico City admission by Oswald is also intriguing because of the
fact that just two days earlier LHO had flatly denied he had ever been
to Mexico City. .....
"I was never in Mexico City." -- LHO; 11/22/63
"I went to the Mexican Consulate in Mexico City. I went to the Russian
Embassy to go to Russia by way of Cuba. They told me to come back in
thirty days." -- LHO; 11/24/63
Now, regardless of exactly what MONTH or YEAR the latter statement
refers to -- Oswald has obviously been caught in a lie of some
sort....because BOTH of the above statements regarding Mexico City
certainly cannot be truthful.
Another thing that struck me as interesting via Mae Brussell's
compilation is the number of POSITIVELY VERIFIED Oswald quotes that do
not show up on Brussell's list....including Lee Harvey's most famous
verbal comment of them all....which was this remark made by Oswald in
front of a live television audience while LHO was being moved through
the DPD hallways:
"They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet
Union. I'm just a patsy!"
The above quote doesn't appear anywhere within Brussell's "Last Words"
article. Very odd. And another of Oswald's many Live-TV DPD hallway
declarations that is also conspicuous by its absence in Brussell's
work
is this one:
"I don't know what kind of facts you people have been given -- but I
emphatically deny these charges!"
It's very strange that such verifiable "Live On TV" quotes by Lee
Oswald would be omitted from what otherwise appears to be a very
complete record of all the verbal statements made by Oswald from
November 22 to 24.
Brussell also misquotes Oswald at one point during the "Midnight Press
Conference". Oswald didn't say "A cop hit me", as claimed in the
above-linked article. LHO's words were "A policeman hit me".
Other alleged statements attributed to Oswald by members of the Dallas
Police Department are also missing from Brussell's chronicle,
including
LHO telling the DPD he had eaten lunch with "Junior" (Jarman) on
November 22nd at the Book Depository, and Oswald saying he had talked
with Bill Shelley after the shooting had occurred, with Shelley
telling
Oswald he could go home (per what LHO told the police).
So, given these omissions and other errors, I would say it would be
wise to examine Brussell's article with a grain of salt by your side.
(Yes, I have a grain of salt by my own side too -- regarding the
"Mexico City" quotes mentioned earlier.)
Now, with that salt firmly by our sides, let's just have a look at the
falsehoods that were uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald from November 22 to
November 24, 1963, via Brussell's article as written (and the number
of
lies spoken by Mr. Oswald is a good-sized number, to be sure). Also,
according to Mae Brussell, not every quote is a "verbatim" LHO
utterance:
~~~~~~~~
A LIST OF OSWALD'S LIES:
1.) "The only thing I have done is carry a pistol into a movie."
2.) "I didn't kill anybody."
3.) "I haven't shot anybody."
4.) "A police officer has been killed?"
5.) "All I did was carry a gun."
6.) "I was never in Mexico City."
7.) "I never owned a rifle."
8.) "Because of all the confusion, I figured there would be no work
performed that afternoon so I decided to go home."
9.) "I carried a pistol with me to the movie because I felt like it,
for no other reason."
10.) "I didn't shoot President John F. Kennedy or Officer J.D.
Tippit."
11.) "My landlady didn't understand my name correctly, so it was her
idea to call me O.H. Lee."
12.) "The only package I brought to work was my lunch."
13.) "I bought a pistol in Fort Worth several months ago."
14.) "I never ordered any guns."
15.) "I didn't shoot anyone; I never killed anybody."
16.) "I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back
some curtain rods."
17.) "I did carry a package to the Texas School Book Depository. I
carried my lunch, a sandwich and fruit, which I made at Paine's
house."
18.) "It's a mistake; I'm not guilty."
19.) "I don't know what is going on. I just don't know what they are
talking about. Don't believe all the so-called evidence."
20.) "That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has
been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is
not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. ... The
small
picture was reduced from the larger one, made by some persons unknown
to me."
21.) "I never kept a rifle at Mrs. Paine's garage."
22.) "I have never ordered any guns."
23.) "I do not own a rifle, never possessed a rifle."
24.) "After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and
started to see what it was all about."
25.) "If you ask me about the shooting of Tippit, I don't know what
you
are talking about."
26.) "The only thing I am here for is because I popped a policeman in
the nose in the theater, which I readily admit I did, because I was
protecting myself."
27.) "I visited my wife Thursday night, November 21, whereas I
normally
visited her over the weekend, because Mrs. Paine was giving a party
for
the children on the weekend."
28.) "I don't recall the shape, it may have been a small sack, or a
large sack; you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches."
29.) "The sack was in the car, beside me, on my lap, as it always is."
30.) "It was not on the back seat. Mr. Frazier must have been mistaken
or else thinking about the other time when he picked me up."
31.) "I never ordered a rifle under the name of Hidell, Oswald, or any
other name."
32.) "I never ordered any rifle by mail order or bought any money
order
for the purpose of paying for such a rifle."
33.) "I didn't own any rifle."
34.) "I have not practiced or shot with a rifle."
35.) "I told you I haven't shot a rifle since the Marines, possibly a
small bore, maybe a .22, but not anything larger since I have left the
Marine Corps."
36.) "I never received a package sent to me through the mailbox in
Dallas, Box No. 2915, under the name of Alek Hidell, absolutely not."
37.) "American people will soon forget the President was shot, but I
didn't shoot him."
38.) "I never lived on Neely Street. These people are mistaken about
visiting there, because I never lived there."
39.) "I did not kill President Kennedy or Officer Tippit."
~~~~~~~~
Does an innocent "patsy" really need to lie this much?
Think about it.
====================================================
RELATED ARTICLE RE. OSWALD'S MANY LIES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
====================================================
David Von Pein
>>> "You endorse someone {Jim Moore} even you know is a LIAR. That makes both of you AFRAID to address {Marrion L.} Baker's lies." <<<
Jim Moore didn't lie, you wretched sack of conspiracy-thirsty gutter
slime.
Moore gave his OWN interpretation of the "soft drink" matter. I don't
agree with it. But Moore's entitled to believe what he wants. (Just as
gutter slime like The Nutsack is entitled to believe in the stupid
kookshit he ejaculates here regularly.)
And Officer Baker didn't lie either. Any slight discrepancies in his
account can be resolved with three simple words: He Was Human.
And the 9/23/64 document (signed by M.L. Baker) was obviously not
WRITTEN by Baker himself. It was written by the FBI agent, with Baker
CORRECTING the document and initialling it. ....
http://whokilledjfk.net/images/altgen9.jpg
The question I have now is -- Is Tom-Sack "human"? Or does he look
something like this?....
http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases06/images/060419_gort_lg.jpg
"Klaatu-Barada-Nutsack."
"The choice is yours -- join us (the LNers) and live in peace....or
follow your present course and face (VB) obliteration. The choice
rests with you. We will be waiting for your answer." -- Klaatu
David Von Pein
>>> "It's time a single-assassin theorist put together the evidence and come up with something the bulk of humanity can accept. The "you-must-be-stupid-because everything-is-clear-to-me" tactic has failed to win many converts." <<<
Possibly so. But that "tactic" you just mentioned is still pretty much
true (regardless of how many people refuse to "convert").
And all of your previous points are merely nitpicky minor points that
change NONE of the major pieces of evidence in the case -- e.g., all
of the bullets in evidence go into Oswald's gun; the autopsy report
declares without a shred of doubt or ambiguity that JFK was struck by
"two" bullets "from above and behind" him; Oswald evidence litters the
TSBD/SN; Oswald's actions reek of guilt; Oswald's post-11/22 lies reek
of guilt; and no other assassins/bullets have ever been recovered/
discovered.
It's time that CTers "get real" and add up the sum total of evidence
in a logical manner. When doing that hunk of addition, the "Oz Was
Guilty, And Probably Alone" conclusion is the end result of that math.
But maybe Patrick Speer consistently failed mathematics when he was in
school.
~shrug~
aeffects
> www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/Tx1F3XP4BQ7BGMV/1/ref=cm_cd_et_m...
>
> >>> "It's time a single-assassin theorist put together the evidence and come up with something the bulk of humanity can accept. The "you-must-be-stupid-because everything-is-clear-to-me" tactic has failed to win many converts." <<<
>
> Possibly so. But that "tactic" you just mentioned is still pretty much
> true (regardless of how many people refuse to "convert").
>
> And all of your previous points are merely nitpicky minor points that
> change NONE of the major pieces of evidence in the case -- e.g., all
> of the bullets in evidence go into Oswald's gun; the autopsy report
> declares without a shred of doubt or ambiguity that JFK was struck by
> "two" bullets "from above and behind" him; Oswald evidence litters the
> TSBD/SN; Oswald's actions reek of guilt; Oswald's post-11/22 lies reek
> of guilt; and no other assassins/bullets have ever been recovered/
> discovered.
>
> It's time that CTers "get real" and add up the sum total of evidence
> in a logical manner. When doing that hunk of addition, the "Oz Was
> Guilty, And Probably Alone" conclusion is the end result of that math.
>
> But maybe Patrick Speer consistently failed mathematics when he was in
> school.
>
> ~shrug~
with 2 outs, bottom of the ninth, daBugliosis' team is down by 6,
Vinnie comes to the plate. VonPein calls time, waddles out of the
dugout, approachs daBug, helps him adjust his cod-pad while whispering
in his ear... "let the first two go by, I got this guy all figured
out." Vinny watches Von Pain as his waddles back to the dugout
thinking, "we're not going to win this game, what kind of a dumb-fuck
team did I get bullshitted into signing with...."
carry on son, keep coming back till it works! ROTFLMFAO! Your great
for humor, kid!
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi gives two accounts of JFK's back wound between pp. 420-425." <<<
Yep. I discuss that very strange oddity in some depth near the bottom
of the webpage below:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
Vince isn't totally immune to a few errors here and there. He's also
made several small errors with regard to Dr. Gregory's testimony as it
relates to the Connally bullet fragments.
And: Vince has made some errors during his radio interviews
too....such as repeatedly telling listeners that "RH" is the "only"
book ever published that includes both frames 312 & 313 of the
Zapruder Film. That's positively wrong. I have several other books
that include both of those Z-frames in them.
And VB thinks that the only way to look at the WCR and the 26 volumes
is by reading the physical books themselves....which, of course,
couldn't be more incorrect. Every page of every WCR volume is
available for free at various Internet locations.
I've tried to get word through to Mr. Bugliosi about these errors (via
his secretary, whom I've talked to several times since July 2007), but
I've had no luck. ~shrug~
Anyway, in the final analysis, NONE of these "errors" I've been
talking about make any substantial difference whatsoever when it comes
to the Big-Ticket questions of: "Who Shot JFK?" and "Was There A
Conspiracy?"
Vince is human. He made a few errors. But those minor errors don't
change the following basic, undeniable FACT: Lee Harvey Oswald
murdered both JFK and J.D. Tippit in Dallas in 1963 (which is a fact
that the sum total of evidence in the case fully bears out).
CORRECTING A FEW "RECLAIMING HISTORY" ERRORS:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
David Von Pein
>>> "You deal in obfuscation, David; that's your stock in trade." <<<
I deal in the verified, documented evidence in the case....and
EVALUATE IT USING COMMON SENSE.
Try it sometime. Starting here is a good idea:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
CTers do not (and evidently cannot) evaluate the evidence and witness
testimony properly. Your recent pro-CT analysis of the Tippit crime
being a prime example.
Again, wheat vs. chaff.
LN = Wheat.
CT = Chaff.
>>> "I say the statements made by Officers Craig and Weitzman (7.65 Mauser) are evidence." <<<
Sure. But is it the BEST evidence? What evidence came to light AFTER
those initial, kneejerk observations made by Weitzman and Boone and
Craig?
IOW: Where's the Mauser? What Commission Exhibit number was the
phantom "Mauser" given? Where is it?
>>> "You say the pictures show a Mannlicher-Carcano was found." <<<
Yes.
>>> "I say dozens of people looked and ran to the grassy knoll." <<<
Switching gears fast now, huh?
OK, I don't deny this fact. Dozens of people DID run toward the Grassy
Knoll.
But consider this, Ric:
If you just heard gunshots from a certain location, would you want to
immediately RUN TOWARD A PLACE WHERE A KILLER MIGHT BE LOCATED?
If you answer 'yes', please tell me why??
And please note many of the pictures of the Knoll-Stormers....there
are women and children and some old ladies with umbrellas (sans any
flechettes in them I would surmise) running up the grassy slope.
Do you REALLY think all of those people (old ladies and 10-year-old
kids included) had a desire to PLAY HERO and catch the assassin(s)?
Or -- were they merely confused, excited, playing follow-the-leader,
and RUBBERNECKING?
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4932.jpg
And this "Two Directions" pie slice (which, in terms of exact numbers,
amounts to only 5 out of 104 witnesses) virtually destroys the idea
that any shots whatsoever came from the Grassy Knoll area on 11/22/63:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
>>> "You say one guy saw Oswald in the window." <<<
Yes. And others saw someone who looked generally like Mr. Oswald, too.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edwards.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer.htm
>>> "I say several witnesses to the Tippit murder saw two men." <<<
You're jumping from place to place, willy-nilly, it seems. Is this
supposed to link to the previous remark about Oz in the SN? If so,
how?
Anyway, you're wrong about "several witnesses" seeing two men (i.e.,
co-conspirators) at the scene of the Tippit murder. AFAIK, Clemons is
THE only witness on record who stated that more than one person was
involved. But Clemons did NOT see the actual shooting. She saw only
the aftermath.
Clemons probably saw Ted Callaway with Tippit's gun, and thought
Callaway (with gun in hand) had shot the officer. Callaway, who was a
real hero on 11/22 in my book, rolled Tippit's dead body over and took
his gun and went hunting for Tippit's LONE killer.
Please cite Mr. Wright too. I asked you to do that before. Got nothing
but static in return. Care to do it now?
>>> "You throw out all evidence that doesn't support your pre-conceived notion that Oswald is the shooter." <<<
It's not a "pre-conceived" notion, you nitwit. It's a mountainous
pattern of evidence of all types that leads inexorably to one man --
the man you seem to want to free from blame so much (for some reason)
-- L.H. Oswald.
Or, to put it another way......
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING {you} can do about it. ... Because there's
not one tiny grain of evidence....not one microscopic speck of
evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was
responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- VINCENT
BUGLIOSI; 1986
>>> "Worse still, you become belligerent when you're told what you do is obfuscation." <<<
Well, I never said I didn't have a fault or two. I grind my teeth
occasionally too. You?
Of course, in this instance (i.e., being told by a CT-Kook or a CT-
Faker {take your pick; matters not} that I'm indulging in
"obfuscation", it's hard not to become annoyed and testy, considering
the fact that such an allegation is hilariously absurd...in a Pot-
Kettle sort of way.)
>>> "You think your job is to discredit all information that doesn't support your pre-conceived notion." <<<
No, my job is to knock the wind out of a kook's sails. And I'm
underpaid too. I've asked VB for a raise. But Bud just got a raise
from the "WC Disinfo Agency, Inc."; so I might have to wait a few more
months. Their budget isn't limitless, after all. (Damn you, Bud, for
being so good at this; you stole my raise!)
>>> "You're not an assassination buff nor a "researcher." You're an institutional ideologue, a political hack, a party functionary." <<<
Leave anything out? Check your thesaurus again....surely you can add
two or three more impressive, highbrow-sounding things there.
Oh, I'm a big Gregory Peck fan too...don't leave that out of the mix.
>>> "Know much about Earl Warren?" <<<
He's my grandpa.
>>> "Know what a despicable human being he was?" <<<
<gasp> Which must make his grandson equally as despicable...knowing
his evil genes. Shit!
>>> "Born and raised in Bakersfield, California..." <<<
Yeah, most people from Bakersfield are detestable indeed. (Or bakers.)
BTW, you didn't get this exactly right either. Warren was born in Los
Angeles, but grew up in Bakersfield. (It's funny, though, that IMDB
doesn't include "despicable human being" on his webpage there. I guess
they should have checked with Ricland before writing up that Warren
profile.)
http://imdb.com/name/nm0912811/
<remainder of gutter talk not worthy of any retort>
David Von Pein
>> "The photo showing a bullet being dug out of the grass."
There was no bullet. That's your CT myth taking ahold.
If there was a bullet -- produce the Goddamn thing! If you can't (or
if
you can't cite somebody who said they saw such a missile)...then shut
up about it.
>> "But the best medical evidence is that there WAS NO TRANSIT, isn't it?"
Certainly not. The "best medical evidence" (coupled with just a small
dose of common sense) is -- A T&T transiting bullet went through JFK's
neck. The alternatives to this defy all belief, logic, and common
sense. (And everybody should know why.)
>> "Your "common sense" is another word for sheer speculation, isn't it?"
Speculation based on "common sense" isn't an evil,
you're-gonna-rot-in-hell syndrome to be ashamed of in many instances
re. this case. Not EVERY single thing CAN be answered with ONLY
"evidence". Why in the world WOULDN'T you apply some CS&L to the
proceedings at hand? You seem to think it's illegal to do so. Odd. And
silly. (See "The Crazy Multi-Shooter, One-Patsy Theory" for examples
of
how CTers fail to use "common sense"; it's blatantly obvious there.)
>> "Actually, there still *IS* one... although it's quite likely to be merely a shotgun pellet. On the other hand, perhaps it isn't..."
Are you "speculating" here? That's a no-no, ya know.
Shotgun pellet?? LOL.
Some great pro hit men you've got there. Using "shotgun pellets" on
their Presidential hit. Hilarious.
>> "And, in any case, the first and best medical evidence is for the neck wound to be an entry, wasn't it?"
The FIRST "speculation" re. that wound was that of "entry", yes. So
what? Dr. Perry said it could be "either" an exit or entry wound. He's
a liar, right? Or a Govt. shill. Right? Right.
>> "That the head wound extended to the back of the head, which is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile to the BOH photo."
Today's dictionary lesson for Ben-boy....
http://webster.com/dictionary/somewhat
>> "No, this {transiting wound} was speculation created *after* the body had already left the autopsy, as you well know."
Sure. So what? How does that make a T&T wound impossible or even
improbable?
>> "Shaw was also quoted on 11/27/63 in the New York Herald-Tribune as stating that a bullet had entered the front of JFK's throat and "coursed downward into his lung [and] was removed in the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy was performed."
So? Who cares what Shaw said on an AUTOPSY matter. WAS a bullet found
in JFK's lung?
Answer: No. End of story. Shaw's comments are meaningless. Besides,
was
Shaw one of KENNEDY'S Parkland doctors??
Answer: No.
>> "Or that you'll admit that Shaw was quoted on 11/29/63 in the "Houston Post" that "The assassin was behind him, yet the bullet entered at the front of his neck. Mr. Kennedy must have turned to his left to talk to Mrs. Kennedy or to wave to someone"."
Ridiculous comments by Shaw (assuming you've got those silly quotes
correct). He didn't have any more knowledge of JFK's wounds than I did
at the time.
And your quoting CONNALLY'S doctor with respect to JFK's wounds and
JFK'S AUTOPSY (which Shaw did not attend of course) is silly too.
But, being a CTer who likes to jump on every stupid thing imaginable
--
let's just totally disregard the testimony of THOSE WHO WERE AT THE
AUTOPSY and believe, instead, the word of a third party who was
thousands of miles to the southwest at the time of Kennedy's
post-mortem exam.
Yeah...let's do that, OK? It'll look good in court, too, to drag Dr.
Shaw into court as an "expert" on JFK's wounds and JFK's autopsy
(which
he knew NOTHING about first-hand). Great Johnnie Cochran-esque tactic
there. Keep it up. You're doing fine.
>> "So kindly explain why we should accept a statement that Shaw has contradicted with far more explanation, and under oath?"
Are you high on Groden-Gas or something???!!!
Are you sure you're quoting the right doctor here? Shaw??? Who NEVER
treated or even saw JFK at Parkland Hospital on 11/22? .....
Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render any aid to President
Kennedy on November 22?
Dr. SHAW - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you called upon to render medical aid to Gov. John
B. Connally on that day?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
>> "Actually, according to Dr. Shaw, who was the medical doctor who was one of those treating Connally - he could have been struck by as many as 3 shots... and Dr. Shaw didn't find it "monstrously-silly" to so consider."
Nor did he find it silly to state on Live TV on 11/22 that ALL of
Connally's wounds were likely caused by "one bullet".
If shot THREE times...where are the freakin' bullets? Naturally, they
"vanished" into CT Smoke, right? Yeah, right.
>> "The FBI made quite a bit of stuff simply disappear."
Speculating again, Ben? You know better, right?
IOW -- Prove it.
>> "Didn't take long to toss the rifle in to a car trunk, did it?"
Did the gunman/gunmen crawl into that trunk too? Must have I guess.
Nobody saw him/them.
>> "It was burned in a fireplace... remember?"
And please explain the logic of Humes ADMITTING to burning ANY
documents if he were on a "Mission To Make DVP's Life A Living Hell &
A
Mission To Make Ben-Boy (Not Sherlock) Holmes Look Like A Grandiose
Sleuth 40+ Years Later"??
IOW -- WHY would he say ANYTHING re. "burning" evidence up in his home
fireplace when he had no reason to do so in a strictly "cover-up"
mindset?
Humes is being boiled in hot CT oil for merely TELLING THE TRUTH re.
the "fireplace burning", and for actually using some COMMON SENSE when
attempting to figure out how JFK was killed.
And Dr. Humes is also strung up by CT morons for merely placing into
the official record THE ONLY CORRECT AND VALID AUTOPSY REPORT
(post-Perry conversation).
Proving that: Many CTers who do this berating of Humes are
first-rate....kooks. :)
>> "With no other guns being eliminated as being part of the crime via other fragments.
Nor was Oswald's C2766 weapon "eliminated" as the source of such
smaller fragments. But you know that of course.
>> "Yep...to LNT'ers, an observation made by medically-trained doctors on a topic that is their specialty means nothing if it doesn't support their "theory"."
Would the above comment also apply to Humes/Finck/Boswell with respect
to the "Only Two Bullets Struck President Kennedy" conclusion of their
Official Pathological Examination on JFK?
And -- Would that argument also apply to Dr. Gregory with respect to
the "micrograms" of bullet fragments left inside JBC's wrist?
Or is that argument only valid when a CT kook espouses it in feeble
attempts to avoid the obviousness of Lee Oswald's lone guilt?
(Thanks...thought so.)
>> "Quite probably {re. the kook-ster's unsupportable belief that a bullet/bullets lodged in JFK's chest and/or lungs}."
Oh, you must mean here that you are "speculating". Right? (Something
I'm not allowed to do it seems, ever. But you can do it when it suits
your needs (and whims). Nice double-standard. Thanks. I get it now.)
>> "Of course, Davey-boy is free to explain why Parkland felt the need to insert chest tubes if no damage ever occurred in the chest."
Nothing mysterious there.....
"I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage
of any blood or air which might be accumulated in the right
hemothorax." -- Dr. Perry (to WC)
But at autopsy, it was concluded there was no significant damage to
the
chest or lungs (except for a slight bruising of the pleura cavity,
which was NOT punctured or violated by any missile).
Wanna try another silly tack re. this matter?
>> "Untrue {re. "bullets left in body"}, of course."
OK. I'll bite. Produce those bullets you say were in his body.
>> "Dr. Kemp [sic; LOL added here] stated at the 11/22 press conference that the head wound could have been a tangential wound. According to a newspaper article dated 11/27, he was still stating this."
So? What does that prove?
Answer -- Nada.
(Think Dr. Clark might have been "speculating" there?)
BTW -- The doctor's name was "William Kemp Clark", not "Clark Kemp".
ROFL.
(But, then again, maybe "Clark Kent" was aiding "Clark Kemp" at
Parkland on 11/22. LOL. Could be. Kent and Superman MUST certainly
have
been there....because nothing short of "Super Hero" status could have
resulted in all those disappearing bullets and all the rest of that
cloak-&-dagger stuff following the shooting.)
>> "You simply line it up with the hole in the windshield, and follow the line."
And suppose you tell the rest of the world just exactly WHERE this
"frontal" shooter could have been situated (with rifle in tow) within
DP in order to achieve that "BOH" (far-right-rear) wound on JFK's head
that most/many CTers believe existed in 1963.
Where was this killer? On the Overpass (amongst Holland, Dodd,
Simmons,
and TWO DPD cops)? On the south side of Elm someplace? Perhaps James
Tague was really the killer. Hey, there's a CT I've never heard
spouted
before. You could write a new book!
>> "Hint: "SBT" means "Single Bullet THEORY". It's never been anything better than a theory - and one that has both ballistics experts, and medical doctors who disagree with it."
And (hint) it's also a "theory" that has MANY, MANY ballistics
experts,
doctors, animators, and investigators agreeing with its conclusions.
Shy of a reasonable, believable, based-on-the-evidence-in-the-case
alternate CT theory to replace it....the SBT is still (by far) the
best
explanation of the double-man wounding that took place on Elm St. in
Dallas. And everybody SHOULD know it...and know why this is.
>> "When you have to lie to make a point, all you've shown is that you're willing to lie."
The usual Ben-boy "Willing To Lie" mantra. I love it. Every time I see
it, I love it more. No matter how stupid it sounds. Thanks.
>> "Every {SBT} "test" has failed....beginning with the bullets fired into a cadaver's wrist by the WC, and moving up to the recent test done in Australia."
All together now! -----
Bull-shit!
If you think the Australian 2004 re-creation test "failed" to show the
viability (or at least the "possibility") of the SBT....you're as
goofy as The Comic Book Guy.
That re-creation verified virtually every aspect of the SBT's
potential
"doability"; and anybody outside of CT Kooksville USA could easily see
that was so.
And Dale Myers' SBT work only further cements the Single-Bullet Theory
as closer to "factual" than "theory"....and anybody with one eye who
isn't buried a mile deep in books written by
Marrs/Groden/Garrison/Mellen/Livingstone/and Fetzer could easily see
that fact as well.
Apparently, Ben-boy's stack of Fetzer & Marrs' tomes is too tall to
see
around. A pity.
See ya.
David Von Pein
May 23rd, 2006
David Von Pein
>>> "I've heard that he {J.D. Tippit, a good cop whom Walt is smearing without a shred of a good-enough reason to do so} would stop people and harass them just because he was an asshole with a badge." <<<
Another wet dream, Walt?
You're sickening. Smear the victim, and paint HIM as the bad guy. Nice
kook tactic there.
>>> "Perhaps Tippit had hassled this guy on previous occasions and the guy just lost it." <<<
And "the guy" just happened to kill Tippit within .85 mile of a place
that Oswald just left minutes earlier while in a hurry....and "the
guy" just happened to look like Oz and just happened to have Oswald's
gun on him (which was then later planted on Oswald in the theater I
guess, where Oswald attempts to use the PLANTED GUN on another cop,
even though he's innocent of killing the first).
JFK Conspiracy Kooks = A rare, rare breed indeed. (Hopefully they
won't breed further.)
>>> "That's ridiculous. Lee told Capt. Fritz that he decided to go to the movies when Shelly [sic] told him there wouldn't be anymore work in the TSBD that day." <<<
Yeah, let's start believing what the accused assassin has to say as if
it were The Gospel. Nice kook tactic.
Bill Shelley never saw or talked to Oswald after the shooting......
Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when
is the last time you saw Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
Mr. SHELLEY. At the police station when they brought him in.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him in the building at any time after 12?
Mr. SHELLEY. No.
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot see Oswald
in the building?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald
to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you tell anybody to go home?
Mr. SHELLEY. No.
Mr. BALL. You didn't tell anybody to leave the building at all?
Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
Walt ignores the above testimony (naturally), and believes Oswald had
a burning desire to go to a Van Heflin double-feature in Oak Cliff
(and sneak into the films WITHOUT PAYING A DIME!) just minutes after
the biggest event in the history of Dallas' Dealey Plaza has just
occurred within yards of Oswald's own workplace.
Oz must REALLY have loved Van Heflin!
David Von Pein
>>> "Can you support your side without references to the Warren Commission, Posner or Bugliosi?" <<<
Why on Earth would ANY LNer ever even ATTEMPT to "support" their
"side" without references to the first (and, by far, best) report and
inquiry re. the whole case -- i.e., The Warren Commission Report?
Seems to me that that would be the same as trying to confirm how to
spell a particular word, but then deciding that a dictionary ISN'T the
best place to go to confirm it. .... Or hitting a home run, and not
bothering to touch any of the four bases. Just...silly.
The Warren Report is easily the best and most complete volume re. the
JFK case (inc. the 26 supporting volumes). It's not a perfect report,
no. And not every witness who could have been interrogated was
interrogated, true.
But the Warren Report reveals the very, very likely TRUTH re. the
events of 11/22/63. And it hasn't been undercut in any major (bottom-
line) fashion in all the years since its 1964 publication. (And it's
certainly not for lack of CTers trying to undercut its LN
conclusions.)
==========================================================
>>> "Why do you completely ignore the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?" <<<
I'll readily admit right now, I don't have nearly as much knowledge
about the HSCA investigation as I probably should. (Probably due to
the HSCA's basic and repeated "LN" conclusions that were already
established by the WC. The acoustics debacle notwithstanding, of
course.)
But let me ask Gil this re. the HSCA......
Why do YOU completely ignore the pro-SBT conclusion of the HSCA panel?
You obviously DO reject both the HSCA's and the WC's "versions" of the
SBT, because you think a frontal shot hit JFK in the throat.
And why are conspiracy theorists so willing and eager to toss out all
of the "Oswald Was The Only Shooter Who Hit Anyone In The Limo With
Any Bullets" conclusion that was reached by BOTH the WC and the HSCA?
Why? ~cough~
Yes, I know that the two panels came to slightly different versions of
the SBT (with differing probable Z-Film frame numbers for the SBT
bullet strike).....but COMMON SENSE was being utilized by both of
those U.S. Government panels, because even though they wrestled with
the EXACT Z-Frame that equated to the "SBT" -- both panels realized
(based on the sum total of the evidence in the case that said they
were right to realize it) that a ZAPRUDER FILM FRAME WITH A SINGLE
BULLET TRAVELLING THROUGH BOTH VICTIMS *WAS* TO BE FOUND WITHIN THAT
26-SECOND AMATEUR MOTION PICTURE!
It's THERE! Positively. The HSCA and WC just had differing opinions as
to WHERE on the film it was exactly located (with, of course, that
damn freeway sign only serving to hinder both panels
significantly...and unfortunately).
But any reasonable researcher should be able to determine that a
single bullet IS, indeed, going through both victims at just about Z-
Frame #224. Film analysis is subjective, yes. And there's no large
black-lettered sign appearing on the screen during any Z-Frames
telling the world "THIS IS THE SBT FRAME, FOLKS!" -- but when
evaluating the evidence in favor of the SBT being true (vs. the
incredible and extraordinary things that must be accepted if the SBT
is UNTRUE), plus when examining Zapruder's movie....a reasonable
person has no choice, IMO, but to accept the Single-Bullet Theory as
the correct scenario for the double-man wounding on Dallas' Elm Street
in 1963.
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bb22792c022c5a2e
==========================================================
And, of course, these 4 Qs of Gil's are really aimed at CTers, right?
(You can't fool me. These are questions for conspiracy believers
only...without a doubt.) ;) .....
>>> "Do you ever get tired of trolling?"
>>> "Do you ever get sick and tired of being wrong?"
>>> "Do you ever troll newsgroups where you might actually KNOW something about the subject matter?"
>>> "Have you ever written any articles to support your side?"
David Von Pein
>>> "An easy, but exotic, way to have as many shooters as the conspirators want, and no pesky, errant fragments found: 1) Blend the bullet material with a radioisotope label, or irradiate the material as done in NAA. ... 2) Fire those labelled missles at the limo. ... 3) Post-shooting, retrieve the missles and frags with a geiger-counter, leaving only the evidence that fits LN-scenario." <<<
And Elvis is picking peaches and singing "My Way" in my backyard right
now too. (Can't get rid of him. He's always there.)
Your nifty "As Many Shooters As They Want" scenario is laughable at
best. You've totally ignored the very high likelihood that many
Parkland Hospital witnesses will blow the plot to Kingdom Come
(regardless of your fancy-schmancy "radioisotope" thingies. Because if
you truly think that "All The Shooters They Want" are ALL going to
somehow miss the one target of JFK's body, then those many shooters
have no business firing a gun at all, because they must all be the
worst gunmen ever...or completely blind.
But possibly the better question to ask when discussing these silly
multi-shooter "One-Patsy" scenarios, IMO, is not whether any of these
theories COULD have actually been pulled off (in some miraculous
fashion) after the fact -- the bigger question to ask, IMO, is:
"WOULD ANY PROFESSIONAL PLOTTERS, WANTING TO FRAME JUST ONE GUY,
ACTUALLY UTILIZE ALL THESE SHOOTERS" (with these plotters, as a
result,
having to KNOW that a whole bunch of "covering up" would be needed
afterward)?
And how could any plotters be so stupid to think that many people at a
local hospital (where the victim is bound to be taken--surely they
KNEW
this ahead of time, right?) would either just not notice the wounds
caused by the non-Oswald shooters or would be willing to just shut up
about the conspiracy they've just seen proven via their own eyes at
the
hospital?
In short -- It's a dumb plot. Plain and simple. And no amount of
Monday-morning assassination quarterbacking will change the fact that
a
pre-planned, multi-shooter, Single-Patsy plot is just.....dumb!
aeffects
David Von Pein
VINCE B.: "In fact, you could throw 80% of the evidence against him
out
the window and there would still be more than enough left to convince
any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime."
A C.T. KOOK REPLIED WITH THIS FOOLISH STATEMENT: "Bugliosi clearly
hasn't seen the polls either."
---------------
Davey-boy now replies.........
What Vince said was that there is ample evidence to prove Oswald's
sole
guilt to a "reasonable person" (which, of course, there is).
You don't qualify under these "reasonable" conditions, Ben. (Whether
you qualify under the "person" portion of VB's quote is also up for
debate as well. The jury's still out re. that determination.)
And Ben's last silly post only emphasizes (yet again) his inability to
evaluate evidence IN TOTAL. Such as the paper bag evidence. When
isolated, sure, it doesn't mean as much in the JFK murder case as it
does when evaluating what it obviously means when putting all the
pieces TOGETHER (e.g., a bag just like the one he carries into the
building turns up with Oswald's prints on it at just exactly the place
where a killer was shooting from at 12:30....just a mere coincidence I
suppose....Oswald was putting up some curtains there in the SN window
I
guess and left the bag there by mistake).
Ben continues to prove my point, post after post --- He is pathetic.
And that status only continues to grow. Nice job.
Let's now view two more Vincent B. quotes, shall we? Ya can't have too
many of those as we all know.......
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}. Just
theories
and motives." -- VB
--------------------
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
VB
David Von Pein
>>> "If it wasn't any gunshop employee, and it's provably not Oswald, then the anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald. ... I note that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION!!!" <<<
~Large-Sized LOL!~
Bud offered up a perfectly-reasonable "So The Hell What?" type of
"alternative" explanation for your gun shop caller -- an explanation
that grinds your skewed CT thinking right into the ground, where it
belongs. ....
I.E.: Why in HELL would these 'plotters' feel the need to add this
"anonymous call" to their already-thorough barrage of Patsy-Framing
handiwork?
They've set LHO up using the so-called faked backyard photos (showing
the gun and the Russian newspapers, et al).
And they've "planted" Oswald's palmprint on the rifle after the fact
(per some CT-Kookatics...of which you, Ben, are SURELY one...right?
Check).
And they've planted the rifle (C2766) in just the right place so it'll
certainly frame their Patsy, Ozzie-boy.
So....why the need for ANYTHING MORE?
Were these plotters just wanting something to do in the weeks leading
up to the assassination...so they went LOOKING for ways to add to the
frame-up (and, hence, add to the RISK as well)?
After all, Ben-boy, YOU seem to have "caught on" to this little
"gunshop/scope mount" scheme right quick. Surely, the FBI would be
able
to see through some phony "anonymous caller" implicating the
Patsy...right? Or is that type of detective work reserved only for the
CT-Kooks many years later?
Oh, shit, I forgot! The FBI was "in" on the Patsy Plot, right? Or at
least they were "in" on the "cover-up" operation after 11/22, right?
Right. So, naturally, they won't investigate this caller. Sorry for
that slip in judgement Check. Gotcha.
It's always a good thing for the CT-Kooks that they can fall back on
the "Everybody In Officialdom Is In On The Plot" scenario. It makes
creating these dead-end, unsupportable theories everlastingly
open-ended for the kook population. Of course, they can never PROVE
any
of these dead-end claims....but just the ACCUSATION itself is always
good enough for the CT-Kooks (naturally).
There must, therefore, have also been some kind of fake phone call or
sales receipt or "Oswald Sighting" to implicate Lee Harvey for the
purchase of his MC bullets too, right? Surely there must have been.
That always-bored patsy-framing Dream Team couldn't pass up another
meaningless opportunity to add to the assorted "It Was Oswald" phony
evidence....could they?
Oh, that's right, I forgot (again)....most CT-Kooks are of the belief
that Oswald purchased the type of Carcano rifle in March '63 that was
IMPOSSIBLE to find ammunition for. Correct? Check.
And since there's no specific paper trail for Oz's bullets -- this
means he couldn't have shot JFK with C2766, because he had no bullets
to place into the gun's chamber. Correct? Check.
If he were to ever have purchased his first car, I wonder if Oswald
would have bought the type of car for which no gasoline was readily
available? Seems about as logical as the "Buying A Gun That Can Never
Be Used" line of silly thought.
Anything else?
Silly question indeed. For you've got hundreds more of those
'pulled-from-somebody's-butt', unconnected, unsupportable conspiracy
theories....just like the gun-shop thingy.
Why not make a "Silly Unsupportable CT List"? And see how many miles
long the thing becomes.
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18eb996a...
>
> >>> "If it wasn't any gunshop employee, and it's provably not Oswald, then the anonymous caller must have been involved in framing Oswald. ... I note that YOU COULDN'T OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION!!!" <<<
>
> ~Large-Sized LOL!~
>
> Bud offered up a perfectly-reasonable "So The Hell What?" type of
> "alternative" explanation for your gun shop caller -- an explanation
> that grinds your skewed CT thinking right into the ground, where it
> belongs. ....
psssst, who the fuck cares what moron-Dudster came up with --
daBugliosi failed chump, as do you......
<snip the lone nutter nonsense>