Lee Harvey Oswald's Shooting Performance -- And Oliver Stone's Blunder
David Von Pein
OSWALD....TIME ME...."
"THIS IS THE WHOLE ESSENCE OF THE CASE TO ME. THE GUY COULDN'T DO THE
SHOOTING. NOBODY COULD. AND THEY SOLD THIS LEMON TO THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC."
-- Dialogue from Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK" (Chapter #33
on the 2001 DVD version of the film)
~~~~~~
BUT WHAT DID OLIVER STONE REALLY PROVE DURING THAT SCENE FROM HIS MOVIE
"JFK"?.....
WHAT HE PROVED WAS THAT A GUNMAN COULD, INDEED, FIRE THREE SHOTS FROM A
BOLT-ACTION RIFLE IN UNDER SIX SECONDS!
IRONY AT ITS FINEST.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very interesting fact was brought out (by total accident) in Oliver
Stone's fairy-tale flick "JFK" in 1991, when the actor playing Lou Ivon
(Jay Sanders) is seen attempting to duplicate the timing of Oswald's
shots (erroneously believed, for some reason, by the filmmakers to be
shoehorned into 5.6 seconds, when the Warren Commission explicitly
stated that the shooting took anywhere from "approximately 4.8 to in
excess of 7 seconds" {WR; Pg. 117}; therefore, as that passage
illustrates, the WC was certainly NOT boxing itself in to just a
"5.6-second" shooting timeline as Oliver Stone's movie wants people to
believe).
Anyway, Ivon/Sanders fires three shots in UNDER SIX SECONDS, utilizing
(I can only assume) a bolt-action rifle very similar to that of
Oswald's MC. Kevin Costner/"Jim Garrison", looking at his watch, claims
that Ivon took "between 6 and 7 seconds" to get off those three
shots....which is dead-wrong, and anyone can just watch their own DVD
player's elapsed-time counter and count the seconds for themselves.
It took Sanders approx. 5.5 seconds to squeeze off those 3 shots in the
movie. Sanders fires his first shot at exactly the 1:14:50 point in the
film (elapsed running time), with shot #3 occurring prior to the DVD's
time counter reaching the 1:14:56 mark.*
* = Based on the "Director's Cut" Two-Disc Special Edition DVD of the
film (released in 2001).
In other words, Oliver Stone's movie, apparently without Mr. Stone even
realizing what he had placed ON FILM in his own motion picture, PROVES
a key lone-assassin-favoring aspect of the JFK murder case (i.e., that
Oswald certainly had enough time to fire three shots from a bolt-action
rifle in the allotted time per the Zapruder Film). It's hilarious.**
** = Footnote -- I want to give the proper credit where the credit is
due re. that hysterically-funny portion of Stone's film. It was a
researcher on another JFK Forum who noticed that little goof of Ollie
Stone's. I've since checked it out myself (numerous times, just to make
sure of the "5.5-second" timing). Sanders gets off three shots in 5.5
seconds without a doubt.
If Oliver Stone had been smart (in his usual deceiving way), he would
have had Jay Sanders struggling like mad with the bolt of the rifle and
would have had the actor take 8 or 9 seconds (or maybe even longer) to
do the re-creation.
But as it is, Stone has his actor smoothly working that bolt and
getting off three shots in almost exactly the same amount of time that
most people think (incorrectly, of course) the WC was pigeonholing
itself into re. the shooting timeline.
Anyone who owns the DVD of Stone's "JFK" movie can watch for
themselves...and time the 3-shot re-creation for themselves. It's
really quite interesting...and very funny (considering it's proving
exactly the OPPOSITE of what the filmmaker is intending to "prove").
Also -- Jay Sanders was utilizing a weapon that I can only assume
Sanders hadn't used much, if at all, prior to the filming of the scene.
Although it is possible, of course, that "Take #39" was the one with
the 5.5-second shooting re-creation that ended up on screen in the
movie -- which, if true, would only tend to indicate that "Practice
Makes Perfect" when utilizing a bolt-action carbine for rapid-fire
shooting.
Maybe CTers can start up a new theory --- "Oliver Stone's motion
picture has been altered by a band of WC apologists and Government
shills in order to show that Oswald's shooting performance could be
accomplished in approx. 5.5 seconds!"
The same CTers who might be tempted to endorse the above theory can
then add (for good measure) --- "The film MUST be faked in some way
during that shooting re-creation scene in the Book Depository. Because,
why on this Earth would filmmaker and noted conspiracy theorist Oliver
Stone possibly want to have (ON FILM) proof of something that most
conspiracists say is utterly impossible?"
~wink~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6aad56e89432a6f9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ea3599e78a6b87e9
David Von Pein
December 2006
Lone
David Von Pein schrieb:
> "THE ZAPRUDER FILM ESTABLISHES THREE SHOTS IN 5.6 SECONDS....I'M
> OSWALD....TIME ME...."
>
> "THIS IS THE WHOLE ESSENCE OF THE CASE TO ME. THE GUY COULDN'T DO THE
> SHOOTING. NOBODY COULD. AND THEY SOLD THIS LEMON TO THE AMERICAN
> PUBLIC."
>
> -- Dialogue from Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK" (Chapter #33
> on the 2001 DVD version of the film)
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> BUT WHAT DID OLIVER STONE REALLY PROVE DURING THAT SCENE FROM HIS MOVIE
> "JFK"?.....
>
> WHAT HE PROVED WAS THAT A GUNMAN COULD, INDEED, FIRE THREE SHOTS FROM A
> BOLT-ACTION RIFLE IN UNDER SIX SECONDS!
The Zapruder Film fabrications you can see on Y TOUBE establish
nothing, but a 43 long history of altering, fabrication and
manipulation. If you believe these faked versions, you rather go
fishing!
Check out this:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1.html
Click: David Healy: Altering the zapruder film...
Watch two non- manipulated frames:
http://i17.tinypic.com/2czrbdw.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/483skew.jpg
lazu...@webtv.net
opposite without fail. If you are honest-sometimes lone nutters are
gonna be wrong-sometimes CTer's will be wrong, but nobody is right all
the tme on this case, even though we have some huge egomaniacs on both
sides.
David Von Pein
There was no recoil during the Ivon/Sanders re-creation, that's true.
But that doesn't remove the LIE in the film when Costner falsely says
the re-creation took "between 6 and 7 seconds".
Three other notable falsehoods in that very same TSBD scene in the film
(I'm sure there are many more than just three as well; these are merely
off the top of my head after having just watched Chapter 33 of the
Stone fantasy motion picture).....
1.) When Ivon/Garrison agree that Oswald couldn't possibly have
succeeded in shooting JFK if the limo had stayed on Main Street. "Too
far", says Ivon. Totally wrong. Oswald's MC was more than capable of
making that shot, even if JFK had stayed on Main.
2.) When Ivon claims that the shooting took place through "heavy
foliage", implying that there was "heavy foliage" throughout the ENTIRE
assassination shooting timeline....even mentioning the "88 yards"
statistic, which equates only to the FINAL shot, which was well beyond
the "foliage" in Oswald's sights. A rather blatant misrepresentation,
IMO.
3.) When Ivon/Garrison say that the motorcade route was "changed" (the
commonplace CT argument/falsehood). The pair claims that the "original"
route had the cars staying on Main in order to get to Stemmons and the
Trade Mart. Which, of course, is dead wrong. Here's why.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
It's no wonder so many people believe in Stone's and Garrison's silly
theories (esp. if they fail to follow-up and fact-check anything being
spewed forth during those 3-plus hours of on-screen
fiction)....because there are no "footnotes" or source notes to consult
when watching Stone's film. So a viewer is left to his/her own devices
to reveal the film for what it truly is -- a gross misrepresentation of
three real-life murders (JFK's, Tippit's, and Oswald's).
lazu...@webtv.net
questionable statements in Stone's film, there is also a helluva lot of
truths therein- specifically, when JFK came out-there is now an
abundance of info that LHO WORKED FOR BANISTER-WAS IN CONTACT WITH MANY
INTELL ASSETS PIMARILY IN NO & Dallas- and the evidence is overwhelming
he knew SHAW AND FERRIE AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THOSE 2 LYING
ABOUT THE KEY THINGS. To be a lone nutter you must deliberately
misrepresent every crucial area and leave none in doubt, lest there is
any possibility of conspiracy.
Ed Dolan
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> David- there is certainly some embellishments, falsehoods, and
> questionable statements in Stone's film, there is also a helluva lot of
> truths therein- specifically, when JFK came out-there is now an
> abundance of info that LHO WORKED FOR BANISTER-WAS IN CONTACT WITH MANY
> INTELL ASSETS PIMARILY IN NO & Dallas-
Since there is an abundance of info, why not cite it? All of it with
proof of its accuracy and original sourcing?
> and the evidence is overwhelming he knew SHAW AND FERRIE
Provide it!
AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THOSE 2 LYING
> ABOUT THE KEY THINGS.
Provide them!
And for all you provide give your ersonel guarantee that you have
verified them nand guarantee them as absolutely true.
Dolan
> To be a lone nutter you must deliberately
> misrepresent every crucial area and leave none in doubt, lest there is
> any possibility of conspiracy.
How about proving conspiacy! Ihave seen conjecture supported by lie,
but I have yet to see proof of a conspiracy.
Dolan
Ben Holmes
says...
Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. There simply isn't any way that a
reasonable person can deny the overwhelming evidence that something wasn't
kosher.
Those who do, reveal their character flaws... since most of 'em can't claim
ignorance.
This explains why most LNT'ers run away at the slightest hint of evidence,
citation, and fact.
They will *claim* that they are interested in debating such - but can never
point to any such example of reasoned debate in the past.
Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray can trip
them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
Or FBI intimidation...
Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
Ed Dolan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <568-458C...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
> says...
> >
> >David- there is certainly some embellishments, falsehoods, and
> >questionable statements in Stone's film, there is also a helluva lot of
> >truths therein- specifically, when JFK came out-there is now an
> >abundance of info that LHO WORKED FOR BANISTER-WAS IN CONTACT WITH MANY
> >INTELL ASSETS PIMARILY IN NO & Dallas- and the evidence is overwhelming
> >he knew SHAW AND FERRIE AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THOSE 2 LYING
> >ABOUT THE KEY THINGS. To be a lone nutter you must deliberately
> >misrepresent every crucial area and leave none in doubt, lest there is
> >any possibility of conspiracy.
>
>
> Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. There simply isn't any way that a
> reasonable person can deny the overwhelming evidence that something wasn't
> kosher.
Oh? Lay it out with documentation. I dare you!
>
> Those who do, reveal their character flaws...
That describes conspirinuts like you. As one of the HSCA attormeys
wrote about conspiracy believers - they have an agenda. You have
nothing to set fotrh proof of a conspiracy with documentation.
>
> .. since most of 'em can't claim ignorance.
Ignorance of what?
>
>
> This explains why most LNT'ers run away at the slightest hint of evidence,
> citation, and fact.
Are you referring to the WRC material inadmissable in court? If not,
what?
>
> They will *claim* that they are interested in debating such - but can never
> point to any such example of reasoned debate in the past.
There hasn't been any from conspirinuts.
>
> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray can trip
> them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact? Do you dare? I
doubt it, you are too afraid.
>
> Or FBI intimidation...
What intimidation? DOcument it!
> Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
Dolan
BTW, why weren't you at the Basic School at Quantico at 1000 on
12/14/06? Afraid?
lazu...@webtv.net
the evidence and the witnesses when corroborated.
Ed Dolan
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Yep Ben- you sure don't have to believe the conspiracy theorists, just
> the evidence and the witnesses when corroborated.
Why not present here for all to see, especially the corroboration
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <568-458C...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
>> says...
>> >
>> >David- there is certainly some embellishments, falsehoods, and
>> >questionable statements in Stone's film, there is also a helluva lot of
>> >truths therein- specifically, when JFK came out-there is now an
>> >abundance of info that LHO WORKED FOR BANISTER-WAS IN CONTACT WITH MANY
>> >INTELL ASSETS PIMARILY IN NO & Dallas- and the evidence is overwhelming
>> >he knew SHAW AND FERRIE AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THOSE 2 LYING
>> >ABOUT THE KEY THINGS. To be a lone nutter you must deliberately
>> >misrepresent every crucial area and leave none in doubt, lest there is
>> >any possibility of conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. There simply isn't any way
>> that a reasonable person can deny the overwhelming evidence that something
>> wasn't kosher.
>
>Oh? Lay it out with documentation. I dare you!
Been there, done that. Many times. You may start by explaining the 6.5mm
virtually round object in the AP X-ray that all three prosectors deny was there
on the night of the assassination.
Then explain how Oswald put it there...
>> Those who do, reveal their character flaws...
>
>That describes conspirinuts like you. As one of the HSCA attormeys
>wrote about conspiracy believers - they have an agenda. You have
>nothing to set fotrh proof of a conspiracy with documentation.
You see? There simply isn't any way that a reasonable person can deny the
overwhelming evidence that something wasn't kosher.
I clearly specified *reasonable* people. Did you suppose that *you* fit into
that category?
Perhaps you believe that the up to 90% of the American population that believes
that there was a conspiracy are the "unreasonable" crowd?
>> .. since most of 'em can't claim ignorance.
>
>Ignorance of what?
You see??? You don't even know what your ignorant of! A good reason, no doubt,
for the virtual non-existence of any postings from you that discuss the actual
evidence in this case.
>> This explains why most LNT'ers run away at the slightest hint of evidence,
>> citation, and fact.
>
>Are you referring to the WRC material inadmissable in court? If not,
>what?
Oh, I'm sure it *is* inadmissible... The WC wasn't interested in *legalities*.
But no, my statement meant exactly what it said. Most LNT'ers run away when the
*EVIDENCE* is discussed... citations being something that frighten most LNT'ers.
>> They will *claim* that they are interested in debating such - but can never
>> point to any such example of reasoned debate in the past.
>
>There hasn't been any from conspirinuts.
Here's a perfect case in point. Ed Dolan tries to imply that he's willing to
"take on the CT'ers"... but please note his total lack of rebuttal on the 6.5mm
virtually round object, or FBI intimidation, or any other topic I care to bring
up.
Denials simply aren't good enough.
>> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
>> can trip them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
>
>HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact?
Ah! An "artifact"... one that wasn't seen on the night of the assassination.
Calling it an "artifact" is silly. You are now contradicted by *ALL* medical
experts who sat in at the Clark Panel and HSCA.
Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there on
the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
>Do you dare? I doubt it, you are too afraid.
How silly! It's simple. The object wasn't there on the night of the
assassination... it appeared there by the time of the Clark Panel. It was added
to the X-ray. Tis that simple.
For more detailed information - lurkers can do a search on "6.5mm object" in
past posts... posts that are strangely lacking any response by Ed Dolan.
>> Or FBI intimidation...
>
>What intimidation? DOcument it!
Already have. Do a search on "FBI Intimidation" as a subject line. If you're
really interested in trying to rebut it, I'll be happy to repost it just for
you, Ed.
But I *have* posted it dozens of times... Toddy keeps ducking it, as well as
others. Certainly *you* have been quite silent on the topic - as you will again
should I repost it.
>> Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
>
>There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
Entire books have been written on the topic. One simple bit of evidence is the
efforts made by the FBI to erase the Minox camera from the listings of evidence
made by the DPD.
Sorta makes your statement that there aren't "anay" silly, doesn't it?
". . . Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there
are the fingerprints of intelligence." --Senate Intelligence Committee member
Richard Schweiker
>Dolan
>
>BTW, why weren't you at the Basic School at Quantico at 1000 on
>12/14/06? Afraid?
Why haven't you ever bothered to come to the Encino Judo Club? I'm there 2-3
nights a week, and you never seem to show up.
Nice place, Quantico. Turned in one of my fastest 3-mile times in foot deep
snow there one year. Little place in town makes a mean Gyro.
Sure is gutless of you to be unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.
Ben Holmes
>
>In article <1166921113....@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Dolan
>says...
>>
>>
>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>In article <568-458C...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
>>> says...
>>> >
>>> >David- there is certainly some embellishments, falsehoods, and
>>> >questionable statements in Stone's film, there is also a helluva lot of
>>> >truths therein- specifically, when JFK came out-there is now an
>>> >abundance of info that LHO WORKED FOR BANISTER-WAS IN CONTACT WITH MANY
>>> >INTELL ASSETS PIMARILY IN NO & Dallas- and the evidence is overwhelming
>>> >he knew SHAW AND FERRIE AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THOSE 2 LYING
>>> >ABOUT THE KEY THINGS. To be a lone nutter you must deliberately
>>> >misrepresent every crucial area and leave none in doubt, lest there is
>>> >any possibility of conspiracy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. There simply isn't any way
>>> that a reasonable person can deny the overwhelming evidence that something
>>> wasn't kosher.
>>
>>Oh? Lay it out with documentation. I dare you!
>
>
>Been there, done that. Many times. You may start by explaining the 6.5mm
>virtually round object in the AP X-ray that all three prosectors deny was
>there on the night of the assassination.
>
>Then explain how Oswald put it there...
Works every time!! All you have to do to shut up a LNT'er is to get specific
with the evidence.
Ed Dolan is still running from this one, it looks like.
And here we see it again. Ed Dolan says 'bring it on', then runs when I do.
>Denials simply aren't good enough.
>
>
>>> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
>>> can trip them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
>>
>>HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact?
>
>
>Ah! An "artifact"... one that wasn't seen on the night of the assassination.
>Calling it an "artifact" is silly. You are now contradicted by *ALL* medical
>experts who sat in at the Clark Panel and HSCA.
>
>Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there on
>the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
This is probably why Ed Dolan doesn't want to respond. He's been shown up to be
a fool on a simple issue.
Calling the 6.5mm virtually round object an "artifact" doesn't solve *any* of
the problems, indeed, it even makes it worse. For now you have to explain how
the 'bumblers' that conducted the autopsy evidently ignored what they must have
recognized was an "artifact", yet the medical experts who came after - the Clark
Panel, the HSCA; all got it wrong. I thought the LNT'er handbook's position was
that the prosectors were idiots and bumblers.
It's no wonder that Ed decided to run away from this.
>>Do you dare? I doubt it, you are too afraid.
>
>
>How silly! It's simple. The object wasn't there on the night of the
>assassination... it appeared there by the time of the Clark Panel. It
>was added to the X-ray. Tis that simple.
But... does Ed Dolan "dare" to respond???
>For more detailed information - lurkers can do a search on "6.5mm object" in
>past posts... posts that are strangely lacking any response by Ed Dolan.
>
>
>
>>> Or FBI intimidation...
>>
>>What intimidation? DOcument it!
>
>
>Already have. Do a search on "FBI Intimidation" as a subject line. If you're
>really interested in trying to rebut it, I'll be happy to repost it just for
>you, Ed.
Dead silence. Do you suppose that Ed knew that he was lying when he tried to
imply that I'd never previously documented the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
>But I *have* posted it dozens of times... Toddy keeps ducking it, as well as
>others. Certainly *you* have been quite silent on the topic - as you will
>again should I repost it.
>
>
>>>Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
>>
>>There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
>
>
>Entire books have been written on the topic. One simple bit of evidence is
>the efforts made by the FBI to erase the Minox camera from the listings of
>evidence made by the DPD.
>
>Sorta makes your statement that there aren't "anay" silly, doesn't it?
Better yet, Ed... just run away so you don't have to answer this.
Ed Dolan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1166921113....@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Dolan
> says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <568-458C...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >David- there is certainly some embellishments, falsehoods, and
> >> >questionable statements in Stone's film, there is also a helluva lot of
> >> >truths therein- specifically, when JFK came out-there is now an
> >> >abundance of info that LHO WORKED FOR BANISTER-WAS IN CONTACT WITH MANY
> >> >INTELL ASSETS PIMARILY IN NO & Dallas- and the evidence is overwhelming
> >> >he knew SHAW AND FERRIE AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THOSE 2 LYING
> >> >ABOUT THE KEY THINGS. To be a lone nutter you must deliberately
> >> >misrepresent every crucial area and leave none in doubt, lest there is
> >> >any possibility of conspiracy.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. There simply isn't any way
> >> that a reasonable person can deny the overwhelming evidence that something
> >> wasn't kosher.
> >
> >Oh? Lay it out with documentation. I dare you!
>
>
> Been there, done that. Many times.
Ducking agiain. You claim that but cannot show it. I have noy seen
anything gfrom you to prove your phony claim.
>
> You may start by explaining the 6.5mm > virtually round object in the AP X-ray that all
> three prosectors deny was there on the night of the assassination.
Prove it was there. What is your explantion?
>
> Then explain how Oswald put it there...
You tell me since Oswald never left Texas after he shot JFK> You
can't. can you? That's another of your lies.
>
>
> >> Those who do, reveal their character flaws...
> >
> >That describes conspirinuts like you. As one of the HSCA attormeys
> >wrote about conspiracy believers - they have an agenda. You have
> >nothing to set fotrh proof of a conspiracy with documentation.
>
>
> You see? There simply isn't any way that a reasonable person can deny the
> overwhelming evidence that something wasn't kosher.
Oh? Lay it out for asll to see. If you dare, that is, instaed of
ducking when you arwe nailed.
>
> I clearly specified *reasonable* people. Did you suppose that *you* fit into
> that category?
Unlike you, yes.
>
> Perhaps you believe that the up to 90% of the American population that believes
> that there was a conspiracy are the "unreasonable" crowd?
Prove that statement. The American people never voted in referendum
on that question.
You won't will you? You will find a way to duck again.
>
> >> .. since most of 'em can't claim ignorance.
> >
> >Ignorance of what?
>
>
> You see??? You don't even know what your ignorant of!
Another cowardly duck as you are totally unable to snswer. To be
expected.
>
A good reason, no doubt,
> for the virtual non-existence of any postings from you that discuss the actual
> evidence in this case.
What evidence? THe crap you call evidence.
>
>
>
> >> This explains why most LNT'ers run away at the slightest hint of evidence,
> >> citation, and fact.
> >
> >Are you referring to the WRC material inadmissable in court? If not,
> >what?
>
>
> Oh, I'm sure it *is* inadmissible... The WC wasn't interested in *legalities*.
> But no, my statement meant exactly what it said. Most LNT'ers run away when the
> *EVIDENCE* is discussed... citations being something that frighten most LNT'ers.
What evidence? That which you take out of conrext and then twist for
your purposes?
>
>
>
> >> They will *claim* that they are interested in debating such - but can never
> >> point to any such example of reasoned debate in the past.
> >
> >There hasn't been any from conspirinuts.
>
>
> Here's a perfect case in point. Ed Dolan tries to imply that he's willing to
> "take on the CT'ers"... but please note his total lack of rebuttal on the 6.5mm
> virtually round object, or FBI intimidation, or any other topic I care to bring
> up.
1) You provide the explanation of the "6.5mm virtually round object"
and then perahaps we will have a basis for discussion, if you can,
thatis.
2) What intimidation, That's your spin on apparent comments made by
some. The fist go around you were shown that is what you di. i.e.,
lie.
>
> Denials simply aren't good enough.
>
>
> >> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
> >> can trip them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
> >
> >HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact?
>
>
> Ah! An "artifact"... one that wasn't seen on the night of the assassination.
> Calling it an "artifact" is silly.
Oh? What do you call it? Prove it is what you assert!
>
>You are now contradicted by *ALL* medical
> experts who sat in at the Clark Panel and HSCA.
And what was their claim, and their proof?
>
> Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there on
> the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
Oh? Then why did you claim it was missed on the night of the
assassinatio if it wasn't there? Or can't you recall what you write?
What is your proof it was added and by whom?
>
>
> >Do you dare? I doubt it, you are too afraid.
>
>
> How silly! It's simple. The object wasn't there on the night of the
> assassination...
But yu asserted it was missed. What is it- midssed or not there?
>
it appeared there by the time of the Clark Panel. It was added
> to the X-ray. Tis that simple.
Oh? Prove it? Tell us by whom and when!
>
> For more detailed information - lurkers can do a search on "6.5mm object" in
> past posts... posts that are strangely lacking any response by Ed Dolan.
Don'T forget you provide nothing to respond to.
>
>
>
> >> Or FBI intimidation...
> >
> >What intimidation? DOcument it!
>
>
> Already have. Do a search on "FBI Intimidation" as a subject line. If you're
> really interested in trying to rebut it, I'll be happy to repost it just for
> you, Ed.
Oh do!
>
> But I *have* posted it dozens of times... Toddy keeps ducking it, as well as
> others. Certainly *you* have been quite silent on the topic - as you will again
> should I repost it.
You post YOUR interpretation. Why should you be beleived?
>
>
> >> Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
> >
> >There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
>
>
> Entire books have been written on the topic.
Name one or two with citation. I have seen a number of lies.
>
One simple bit of evidence is the
> efforts made by the FBI to erase the Minox camera from the listings of evidence
> made by the DPD.
But there was no Minox camera.
>
> Sorta makes your statement that there aren't "anay" silly, doesn't it?
No but it shows how desperate you get.
>
> ". . . Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there
> are the fingerprints of intelligence." --Senate Intelligence Committee member
> Richard Schweiker
Did Schweiker note them? Why should I believ him? Tell us about
them. Can you?
>
>
> >Dolan
> >
> >BTW, why weren't you at the Basic School at Quantico at 1000 on
> >12/14/06? Afraid?
>
> Why haven't you ever bothered to come to the Encino Judo Club?
Why? That's not a Marine Corps historical repository. Besides I
don't travel well, especially for nothing.
>
I> I'm there 2-> nights a week, . . .
Are you the janitor?
>
>. . .and you never seem to show up.
What for? I see no reason to travel acress the country fo nothing. You
have nothing for me.
>
> Nice place, Quantico. Turned in one of my fastest 3-mile times in foot deep
> snow there one year.
Oh! Goody! I spent an entire winter (1945-4946) field training in
the snow in the boondocks. I also did a tour to Newfoundland for
winter training.
Little place in town makes a mean Gyro.
So? If we, my classmates and II went out to eat we went to DC on the
RF&P. Besides that's where the women were. During the week we rarely
had timd to go anyplace dueing the week as we had studying.
>
> Sure is gutless of you to be unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.
I realize you are hard up for money, that's why I didn't even suggest
any from you. . But you showed how big a coward you are by not coming
to Quantico where you could shoud how "brave" a supposed Marine you
are.
Ed Dolan
THis is a typicla cowardly li e that shows you are a disgrace to the
Marine Corps. Unlike you, I have a life ouside being on the web.
>
> Ed Dolan is still running from this one, it looks like.
LIAR!
LIAR, a disgrace to the marine corps, and a coward for not showing up
at Quantico to boot where their are official archives.
>
>
>
> >Denials simply aren't good enough.
> >
> >
> >>> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
> >>> can trip them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
> >>
> >>HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact?
> >
> >
> >Ah! An "artifact"... one that wasn't seen on the night of the assassination.
> >Calling it an "artifact" is silly. You are now contradicted by *ALL* medical
> >experts who sat in at the Clark Panel and HSCA.
> >
> >Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there on
> >the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
>
>
> This is probably why Ed Dolan doesn't want to respond.
Proof your are a cheap, sleazy liar, coward.
>
He's been shown up to be a fool on a simple issue.
LIAR!
>
> Calling the 6.5mm virtually round object an "artifact" doesn't solve *any* of
> the problems, indeed, it even makes it worse.
Suppose you show your brilliance by explaing it IN DETAIL! Dare you?
For now you have to explain how the 'bumblers' that conducted the
autopsy evidently
> ignored what they must have recognized was an "artifact", yet the medical experts who
> came after - the Clark
> Panel, the HSCA; all got it wrong. I thought the LNT'er handbook's position was
> that the prosectors were idiots and bumblers.
What handbook? Where can it be found? Are you coing to duk that
again. Which of yiur positions is true? THat itwas missed the night
of the assassination? Oradded later?
>
> It's no wonder that Ed decided to run away from this.
>From what? You have never provided an explantion, have more than one
position, And provode evidence for any view to discuss.
>
>
>
> >>Do you dare? I doubt it, you are too afraid.
> >
> >
> >How silly! It's simple. The object wasn't there on the night of the
> >assassination... it appeared there by the time of the Clark Panel. It
> >was added to the X-ray. Tis that simple.
>
>
> But... does Ed Dolan "dare" to respond???
I;m here. Why were you afraid to come to Quantico where I could show
you records that makes you a big f------ liar when you claim I am a
coward. And we could verify if you were ever in the Corps since you
are deathly afraid to mention any organizaion in which you may have
served, I have provided citations for my being in the Corps, but you
don't accept them, that's why you should have come to Quantico. BTW, I
didn't aiuthor the cites I gave,
>
>
> >For more detailed information - lurkers can do a search on "6.5mm object" in
> >past posts... posts that are strangely lacking any response by Ed Dolan.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Or FBI intimidation...
> >>
> >>What intimidation? DOcument it!
> >
> >
> >Already have. Do a search on "FBI Intimidation" as a subject line. If you're
> >really interested in trying to rebut it, I'll be happy to repost it just for
> >you, Ed.
>
>
> Dead silence.
Another in that I had other things to do before tking time to respond
to your crap.
>
> Do you suppose that Ed knew that he was lying when he tried to
> imply that I'd never previously documented the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
A cheap trick, obviously made in desperation. Typical of a
conspiranut.
>
>
> >But I *have* posted it dozens of times... Toddy keeps ducking it, as well as
> >others. Certainly *you* have been quite silent on the topic - as you will
> >again should I repost it.
> >
> >
> >>>Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
> >>
> >>There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
> >
> >
> >Entire books have been written on the topic. One simple bit of evidence is
> >the efforts made by the FBI to erase the Minox camera from the listings of
> >evidence made by the DPD.
> >
> >Sorta makes your statement that there aren't "anay" silly, doesn't it?
>
>
> Better yet, Ed... just run away so you don't have to answer this.
You'd like that, wouldn't you. A mental midget deathly afraid ro
provide info on supposed USMC service, and unwilling to come to
Quantico where there is a repository of recorfds like unit diaries.
Don't want that, do you.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1166921113....@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Dolan
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <568-458C...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>,
>>lazu...@webtv.net
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >> >David- there is certainly some embellishments, falsehoods, and
>> >> >questionable statements in Stone's film, there is also a helluva lot of
>> >> >truths therein- specifically, when JFK came out-there is now an
>> >> >abundance of info that LHO WORKED FOR BANISTER-WAS IN CONTACT WITH MANY
>> >> >INTELL ASSETS PIMARILY IN NO & Dallas- and the evidence is overwhelming
>> >> >he knew SHAW AND FERRIE AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THOSE 2 LYING
>> >> >ABOUT THE KEY THINGS. To be a lone nutter you must deliberately
>> >> >misrepresent every crucial area and leave none in doubt, lest there is
>> >> >any possibility of conspiracy.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. There simply isn't any way
>> >> that a reasonable person can deny the overwhelming evidence that something
>> >> wasn't kosher.
>> >
>> >Oh? Lay it out with documentation. I dare you!
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that. Many times.
>
>Ducking agiain. You claim that but cannot show it. I have noy seen
>anything gfrom you to prove your phony claim.
Of course you haven't. You keep your eyes closed. But any long-term lurkers
have seen over and over again the FACTS and EVIDENCE that I list for conspiracy.
That you aren't willing to address them is clear.
>> You may start by explaining the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
>> X-ray that all three prosectors deny was there on the night of the
>> assassination.
>
>Prove it was there. What is your explantion?
"Prove it was there?"
Are you a nutcase? It's clearly visible to anyone who takes a look. So if
you're trying to imply that it *wasn't* there on the night of the autopsy,
you've proven my case.
The truth is, of course, that you simply don't know anything about this.
Ignorance among LNT'ers is epidemic.
>> Then explain how Oswald put it there...
>
>You tell me since Oswald never left Texas after he shot JFK You
>can't. can you? That's another of your lies.
Can't follow simple logic, can you? You try to imply that this object wasn't
there the night of the autopsy - yet if you want to deny a conspiracy to frame
LHO you *MUST* figure out a way for LHO to have put that object on the AP X-ray.
It's good that you acknowledge that he couldn't have.
By the way, how can a *QUESTION* be a lie? Nutcase, aren't you?
>> >> Those who do, reveal their character flaws...
>> >
>> >That describes conspirinuts like you. As one of the HSCA attormeys
>> >wrote about conspiracy believers - they have an agenda. You have
>> >nothing to set fotrh proof of a conspiracy with documentation.
>>
>>
>> You see? There simply isn't any way that a reasonable person can deny the
>> overwhelming evidence that something wasn't kosher.
>
>Oh? Lay it out for asll to see. If you dare, that is, instaed of
>ducking when you arwe nailed.
You see? There simply isn't any way that a reasonable person can deny the
overwhelming evidence that something wasn't kosher.
This went over your head, Ed... but don't worry... I suspect most lurkers caught
it.
>> I clearly specified *reasonable* people. Did you suppose that *you* fit
>> into that category?
>
>Unlike you, yes.
Said the coward who refuses to address the evidence...
>> Perhaps you believe that the up to 90% of the American population that
>> believes that there was a conspiracy are the "unreasonable" crowd?
>
>Prove that statement. The American people never voted in referendum
>on that question.
>You won't will you? You will find a way to duck again.
Been there, done that. The polls are there for anyone to see.
Rather cowardly to refuse to acknowledge well documented facts, isn't it?
>> >> .. since most of 'em can't claim ignorance.
>> >
>> >Ignorance of what?
>>
>>
>> You see??? You don't even know what your ignorant of!
>
>Another cowardly duck as you are totally unable to snswer. To be
>expected.
LOL!!
>A good reason, no doubt,
>> for the virtual non-existence of any postings from you that discuss the
>> actual evidence in this case.
>
>What evidence? THe crap you call evidence.
Are you going to deny that the 6.5mm virtually round object is not evidence???
>> >> This explains why most LNT'ers run away at the slightest hint of evidence,
>> >> citation, and fact.
>> >
>> >Are you referring to the WRC material inadmissable in court? If not,
>> >what?
>>
>>
>>Oh, I'm sure it *is* inadmissible... The WC wasn't interested in *legalities*.
>>But no, my statement meant exactly what it said. Most LNT'ers run away when the
>>*EVIDENCE* is discussed... citations being something that frighten most LNT'ers.
>
>What evidence?
You see? You prove my point.
>That which you take out of conrext and then twist for
>your purposes?
Show where anything I've stated has been "twisted" out of context. Bring *IN*
the context that illustrates it.
You won't, of course...
>>>> They will *claim* that they are interested in debating such - but can never
>> >> point to any such example of reasoned debate in the past.
>> >
>> >There hasn't been any from conspirinuts.
>>
>>
>> Here's a perfect case in point. Ed Dolan tries to imply that he's
>> willing to "take on the CT'ers"... but please note his total lack of
>> rebuttal on the 6.5mm virtually round object, or FBI intimidation, or
>> any other topic I care to bring up.
>
>1) You provide the explanation of the "6.5mm virtually round object"
>and then perahaps we will have a basis for discussion, if you can,
>thatis.
Already have. Many times. Even here in this thread.
>2) What intimidation, That's your spin on apparent comments made by
>some. The fist go around you were shown that is what you di. i.e.,
>lie.
Once again, Ed "the coward" Dolan refuses to address even those few bits of
evidence I cite in *this* post... let alone the massive amount I've cited in
other posts...
>> Denials simply aren't good enough.
>>
>>
>> >> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
>>>> can trip them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
>> >
>> >HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact?
>>
>>
>> Ah! An "artifact"... one that wasn't seen on the night of the assassination.
>> Calling it an "artifact" is silly.
>
>Oh? What do you call it? Prove it is what you assert!
Been done. See the optical density measurements done by Dr. Mantik.
>>You are now contradicted by *ALL* medical
>> experts who sat in at the Clark Panel and HSCA.
>
>And what was their claim, and their proof?
Sorry... you're going to have to do your own research. I've always commented
about how ignorant LNT'ers are... this is another perfect example.
>>Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there on
>> the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
>
>Oh? Then why did you claim it was missed
Find someone who says it *was* there. If you dare...
>on the night of the
>assassinatio if it wasn't there?
If it *wasn't* there, you're in trouble. For the only way it could have been
placed there is by a government conspiracy to frame LHO.
>Or can't you recall what you write?
I've been entirely consistent in what I write. You're illiteracy concerns me
not at all. I'm perfectly aware that high intelligence has never been a
requirement to join the Marine Corps.
>What is your proof it was added and by whom?
Nutcase, aren't you? This is really quite simple.
>> >Do you dare? I doubt it, you are too afraid.
>>
>>
>> How silly! It's simple. The object wasn't there on the night of the
>> assassination...
>
>But yu asserted it was missed. What is it- midssed or not there?
This is really simple. *YOU* must assert that it was missed. That is, if you
actually knew the evidence and consequences.
*YOU* can't cite any evidence that it *was* there on the night of the autopsy.
>>it appeared there by the time of the Clark Panel. It was added
>> to the X-ray. Tis that simple.
>
>Oh? Prove it?
Just did.
>Tell us by whom and when!
On orders from Ebersole. As testified to.
But you aren't ready for this yet. You still haven't addressed the basic facts.
>> For more detailed information - lurkers can do a search on "6.5mm object" in
>> past posts... posts that are strangely lacking any response by Ed Dolan.
>
>Don'T forget you provide nothing to respond to.
Liar, aren't you?
Even in this post, you duck. Tell us, Ed... was that "artifact" there on the
night of the autopsy? If you say yes, provide the *EVIDENCE* that it was. If
it wasn't, tell us how it got there.
Then tell us what *EVERY* official expert on the Clark Panel and HSCA has stated
that this object represents.
>> >> Or FBI intimidation...
>> >
>> >What intimidation? DOcument it!
>>
>>
>>Already have. Do a search on "FBI Intimidation" as a subject line. If you're
>> really interested in trying to rebut it, I'll be happy to repost it just for
>> you, Ed.
>
>Oh do!
Okay... keep an eye out for it.
>> But I *have* posted it dozens of times... Toddy keeps ducking it, as well as
>>others. Certainly *you* have been quite silent on the topic - as you will again
>> should I repost it.
>
>You post YOUR interpretation. Why should you be beleived?
You don't need to believe *me* at all. Believe the evidence. But, of course,
you don't even *know* what the evidence is.
>>>> Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
>> >
>> >There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
>>
>>
>> Entire books have been written on the topic.
>
>Name one or two with citation. I have seen a number of lies.
Try Epstein's "Legend, the secret world of Lee Harvey Oswald" for starters. If
you need more, ask.
>> One simple bit of evidence is the
>>efforts made by the FBI to erase the Minox camera from the listings of evidence
>> made by the DPD.
>
>But there was no Minox camera.
Then can you explain the Minox camera held in evidence at NARA?
>> Sorta makes your statement that there aren't "anay" silly, doesn't it?
>
>No but it shows how desperate you get.
"Desperate" to merely state the facts? How silly!
>> ". . . Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with
>> him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence." --Senate Intelligence
>> Committee member Richard Schweiker
>
>Did Schweiker note them?
Not in this quote, no.
>Why should I believ him?
That you're willing to refuse to believe a Senator who was on the Senate
Intelligence Committee says volumes about your faith.
For faith is exactly what it is... a belief in something that can't be
substantiated by facts.
>Tell us about
>them. Can you?
Of course... As I said, entire books have been written on the subject.
>> >Dolan
>> >
>> >BTW, why weren't you at the Basic School at Quantico at 1000 on
>> >12/14/06? Afraid?
>>
>> Why haven't you ever bothered to come to the Encino Judo Club?
>
>Why? That's not a Marine Corps historical repository. Besides I
>don't travel well, especially for nothing.
Nor are you willing to put your money where your mouth is. Fortunate for your
finances, isn't it?
And if you'd bothered to check the Staff Academy rosters, you'd have seen my
name. Tell us, if you know - what percentage of the Marine Corps' Staff NCO's
get the chance to attend the Staff Academy?
>I> I'm there 2-> nights a week, . . .
>
>Are you the janitor?
Come by and find out. Or jump on any of the martial arts forums and try to tell
'em that I don't practice Judo.
>>. . .and you never seem to show up.
>
>What for? I see no reason to travel acress the country fo nothing. You
>have nothing for me.
Oh... I do!
>> Nice place, Quantico. Turned in one of my fastest 3-mile times in foot deep
>> snow there one year.
>
>Oh! Goody! I spent an entire winter (1945-4946) field training in
Looks like more than one winter... illiteracy strikes again! :)
>the snow in the boondocks. I also did a tour to Newfoundland for
>winter training.
>
>> Little place in town makes a mean Gyro.
>
>So? If we, my classmates and II went out to eat we went to DC on the
>RF&P. Besides that's where the women were. During the week we rarely
>had timd to go anyplace dueing the week as we had studying.
>>
>> Sure is gutless of you to be unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.
>
>I realize you are hard up for money, that's why I didn't even suggest
>any from you. .
Ah! But I'm willing to part with any amount you care to match... You see, I
really *did* serve in the Marine Corps. Gutless liar that you are, you will
*never* put up the money, since I'm sure you know quite well that you'd lose it.
>But you showed how big a coward you are by not coming
>to Quantico where you could shoud how "brave" a supposed Marine you
>are.
Silly...
Ben Holmes
Implying, of course, that the only reason you didn't respond to this thread is
that you were busy off the Internet.
But this doesn't explain why you were posting on *OTHER* threads in the
meantime. You see, I didn't post this until I *KNEW* that you'd had the
opportunity to respond, and was merely ducking again, as you have many times
before.
>> Ed Dolan is still running from this one, it looks like.
>
>LIAR!
Ah! But you *were*, until I pointed it out. Even now, you won't address the
evidence.
You can research the records at Quantico. You don't need me to hold your hand.
>> >Denials simply aren't good enough.
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
>>>>> can trip them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
>> >>
>> >>HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact?
>> >
>> >
>>>Ah! An "artifact"... one that wasn't seen on the night of the assassination.
>>>Calling it an "artifact" is silly. You are now contradicted by *ALL* medical
>> >experts who sat in at the Clark Panel and HSCA.
>> >
>>>Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there on
>> >the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
>>
>>
>> This is probably why Ed Dolan doesn't want to respond.
>
>Proof your are a cheap, sleazy liar, coward.
Not responding to the evidence, again.
> He's been shown up to be a fool on a simple issue.
>
>LIAR!
Any lurker can make up their own mind.
>> Calling the 6.5mm virtually round object an "artifact" doesn't solve *any* of
>> the problems, indeed, it even makes it worse.
>
>Suppose you show your brilliance by explaing it IN DETAIL! Dare you?
Been there, done that. Once again, you duck the issue. Scared and ignorant,
aren't you?
Why not do some basic research on this topic before you make even more ignorant
statements?
>> For now you have to explain how the 'bumblers' that conducted the
>> autopsy evidently ignored what they must have recognized was an "artifact",
>> yet the medical experts who came after - the Clark Panel, the HSCA; all
>> got it wrong. I thought the LNT'er handbook's position was
>> that the prosectors were idiots and bumblers.
>
>What handbook? Where can it be found? Are you coing to duk that
>again. Which of yiur positions is true? THat itwas missed the night
>of the assassination? Oradded later?
Spit it out, Ed. Tell us what you're trying to say.
>> It's no wonder that Ed decided to run away from this.
>
> From what? You have never provided an explantion, have more than one
> position, And provode evidence for any view to discuss.
How sad that Ed proves my point virtually every time he opens his mouth.
>> >>Do you dare? I doubt it, you are too afraid.
>> >
>> >
>> >How silly! It's simple. The object wasn't there on the night of the
>> >assassination... it appeared there by the time of the Clark Panel. It
>> >was added to the X-ray. Tis that simple.
>>
>>
>> But... does Ed Dolan "dare" to respond???
>
>I;m here. Why were you afraid to come to Quantico where I could show
>you records that makes you a big f------ liar when you claim I am a
>coward.
Ah! But you *ARE*. I dared you to respond to my paragraph above, and you
didn't.
I've dared you to put your money where your mouth is, and you *still* haven't.
You're a coward, Ed Dolan.
>And we could verify if you were ever in the Corps since you
>are deathly afraid to mention any organizaion in which you may have
>served,
How silly! Put up the money, Ed; and I'll prove beyond any reasonable doubt
that I served in the Corps. Honorably.
>I have provided citations for my being in the Corps, but you
>don't accept them, that's why you should have come to Quantico. BTW, I
>didn't aiuthor the cites I gave,
Unlike you, I understand perfectly that you've served in the Corps.
You're simply a coward.
>> >For more detailed information - lurkers can do a search on "6.5mm object" in
>> >past posts... posts that are strangely lacking any response by Ed Dolan.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Or FBI intimidation...
>> >>
>> >>What intimidation? DOcument it!
>> >
>> >
>>>Already have. Do a search on "FBI Intimidation" as a subject line. If you're
>> >really interested in trying to rebut it, I'll be happy to repost it just for
>> >you, Ed.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence.
>
>Another in that I had other things to do before tking time to respond
>to your crap.
And now that you've had the opportunity... STILL dead silence.
>> Do you suppose that Ed knew that he was lying when he tried to
>>imply that I'd never previously documented the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
>
>A cheap trick, obviously made in desperation. Typical of a
>conspiranut.
FBI intimidation, Ed. That's the topic.
>> >But I *have* posted it dozens of times... Toddy keeps ducking it, as well as
>> >others. Certainly *you* have been quite silent on the topic - as you will
>> >again should I repost it.
>> >
>> >
>>>>>Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
>> >>
>> >>There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
>> >
>> >
>> >Entire books have been written on the topic. One simple bit of evidence is
>> >the efforts made by the FBI to erase the Minox camera from the listings of
>> >evidence made by the DPD.
>> >
>> >Sorta makes your statement that there aren't "anay" silly, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>> Better yet, Ed... just run away so you don't have to answer this.
>
>You'd like that, wouldn't you. A mental midget deathly afraid ro
>provide info on supposed USMC service, and unwilling to come to
>Quantico where there is a repository of recorfds like unit diaries.
>Don't want that, do you.
Once again, ducked the issue. Why does the evidence seem so frightening to you,
Ed?
Minox camera, FBI Attempts to erase from the record is the topic. Can you
answer it, Ed? Or are you going to duck and run again?
aeffects
they CERTAINLY did!
Ed Dolan
I was wondering what took you so long to reply. Apparently you were
trying to go for the ibg lie, which you did with your renaming the
thread, You proved beyond all doubt you nothing but a cheap liar and
an ytter disgrace to the Marines, that is if you ever were one,
cringing in fear when asked to name a unit you served with.
> >This is a typical cowardly lie that shows you are a disgrace to the
> >Marine Corps. Unlike you, I have a life ouside being on the web.
>
> Implying, of course, that the only reason you didn't respond to this thread is
> that you were busy off the Internet.
How did you guess? As I wrote, I have a life.
>
> But this doesn't explain why you were posting on *OTHER* threads in the
> meantime. You see, I didn't post this until I *KNEW* that you'd had the
> opportunity to respond, . . .
A Quick commnt doesn't mean that I had the opportinity to respond to
your junk and lies.
> . . . and was merely ducking again, as you have many times before.
Agaib yiou prove you are the consummate LIAR.
>
> >> Ed Dolan is still running from this one, it looks like.
> >
> >LIAR!
>
> Ah! But you *were*, until I pointed it out. Even now, you won't address the
> evidence.
LIAR . What evidence? I seen a lot thatYOU call evidence, but is
relevancy is in doubt, mant timed uncorroborated.
Cringing at the thought, aren't you? You are deathly scared of what
the records could , even would, show, If you served we could see the
documents, official documents. They would show, along with my DoD ID
card, that the references to me in public documents that you rejected
are true.. My ID card - DOC DD-2 (RETIRED) matches these records.
This cars that has my picture also has mt rankm service, status,
service number. With it got mtDoD cr decal which facilitates getting
on military installations, with a salute if the gate has military on
it. Many have civiliian cops. It also gets me military medical care,
and allows me to use exchanges, commissaries, and recreation
facilities. Of course you don't want to see records that provide the
proof you are an abso;ute liar. I can inderstand that, coward.
One of the things they would show how I voluntarily became an atomic
veteran, if you know what anything about suck, and woul also prove you
a comman LIAR when you call me coward.
>
>
>
> >> >Denials simply aren't good enough.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
> >>>>> can trip them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain it.
> >> >>
> >> >>HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>>Ah! An "artifact"... one that wasn't seen on the night of the assassination.
> >>>Calling it an "artifact" is silly. You are now contradicted by *ALL* medical
> >> >experts who sat in at the Clark Panel and HSCA.
> >> >
> >>>Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there on
> >> >the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is probably why Ed Dolan doesn't want to respond.
> >
> >Proof your are a cheap, sleazy liar, coward.
>
>
> Not responding to the evidence, again.
What evidence? That supposedly indicates conspiracy? You have none
unless you spin it.
>
>
>
> > He's been shown up to be a fool on a simple issue.
> >
> >LIAR!
>
>
> Any lurker can make up their own mind.
And if their honest and intelligent, and read your stuff, they would
know you lack intelligent reasoning.
>
>
>
> >> Calling the 6.5mm virtually round object an "artifact" doesn't solve *any* of
> >> the problems, indeed, it even makes it worse.
> >
> >Suppose you show your brilliance by explaing it IN DETAIL! Dare you?
>
>
> Been there, done that. Once again, you duck the issue. Scared and ignorant,
> aren't you?
So you claim, but I have never seen it, I've seen some of your
desperate attempts, but nothimg close to an ntelligent presentation,
Unlike you, scared tio name a Marine unit you served with, I am not
scared. You havr never posted an intelligent, coherent poffering, with
documentation.
>
> Why not do some basic research on this topic before you make even more ignorant
> statements?
After you! I done mush, things you have never looked at although in
the pub;lic domain. I've interviewed people that you never ha, and
many avoided by the conspirinuts.
>
>
> >> For now you have to explain how the 'bumblers' that conducted the
> >> autopsy evidently ignored what they must have recognized was an "artifact",
> >> yet the medical experts who came after - the Clark Panel, the HSCA; all
> >> got it wrong. I thought the LNT'er handbook's position was
> >> that the prosectors were idiots and bumblers.
> >
> >What handbook? Where can it be found? Are you coing to duk that
> >again. Which of yiur positions is true? That itwas missed the night
> >of the assassination? Oradded later?
>
> Spit it out, Ed. Tell us what you're trying to say.
Having trouble with English. Or are you just plain ducking the
questions? Or is your mind so bad (Altzheimes?) that youcan't
remember what you write? What Handbook you cited? Where can it be
found? Or is that proof you lied?
>
>
>
> >> It's no wonder that Ed decided to run away from this.
> >
> > From what? You have never provided an explantion, have more than one
> > position, And provode evidence for any view to discuss.
>
>
> How sad that Ed proves my point virtually every time he opens his mouth.
Liar, again. What evidence? Corroborated, snd verified as true,
incontrovertible? Let's see it.
>
>
>
> >> >>Do you dare? I doubt it, you are too afraid.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >How silly! It's simple. The object wasn't there on the night of the
> >> >assassination... it appeared there by the time of the Clark Panel. It
> >> >was added to the X-ray. Tis that simple.
> >>
> >>
> >> But... does Ed Dolan "dare" to respond???
> >
> >I;m here. Why were you afraid to come to Quantico where I could show
> >you records that makes you a big f------ liar when you claim I am a
> >coward.
>
> Ah! But you *ARE*.
Again, abolute proo, incontrovertibe, you are a LIAR.
I can't answer because the graf is one of theversions you havr posted.
E.g. You claimed Oswald put it there, but the x-ray was taken at
Bethesda and Oswald never left Texas alive. Try clarifying ywhat
you want answered, starting with your Oswald story and how he did it.
Then I can't follow up if you dare.
I dared you to respond to my paragraph above, and you didn'.t.
It is confusing. If youeceb present a clear question, saying
everything else you wrote, e.g., the Oswald story, I will, and I would
expect you to explain,
>
> I've dared you to put your money where your mouth is, and you *still* haven't
For what? To see something that is questionable? I realize you are in
need of money, desperately. But I don't see doing so for something you
have rather than go to the Marine Corps records. All you would have
to tell me, is a ubit you served with and when and I can verify you
were in it by lookingat the unit diaries, if you werer, but you are too
much the coward to do so.
.
>
> You're a coward, Ed Dolan.
Againg you prove beyond all doubt, you are the complete LIAR. BTW, I
will be in Quantico on Thursday for a graduation at the FBI academy st
1000. I will be indroduced by the CO, a Marine Colonel, anf you could
shout out that I am a coward, in front of s lot of Msarines and
families. You would show you have guts.
>
>
> >And we could verify if you were ever in the Corps since you
> >are deathly afraid to mention any organizaion in which you may have
> >served,
>
> How silly! Put up the money, Ed; and I'll prove beyond any reasonable doubt
> that I served in the Corps. Honorably.
You can only do that by going with me to the archives to see official
records. Or, provide a citation I could look up independent of you. I
would trust NOTHING oming from you since you lie so much. BTW,
fanother public source about me are the Frederiick, MD, newspapers in
the period of 1952-55 when I was stationed at the Army's BW Center.
>
>
> >I have provided citations for my being in the Corps, but you
> >don't accept them, that's why you should have come to Quantico. BTW, I
> >didn't aiuthor the cites I gave,
>
> Unlike you, I understand perfectly that you've served in the Corps.
>
> You're simply a coward.
Yet again, utter proof of your being th LIAR. If you knew I served in
the Corps you would kno you are lying.
>
>
> >> >For more detailed information - lurkers can do a search on "6.5mm object" in
> >> >past posts... posts that are strangely lacking any response by Ed Dolan.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> Or FBI intimidation...
> >> >>
> >> >>What intimidation? DOcument it!
> >> >
> >> >
> >>>Already have. Do a search on "FBI Intimidation" as a subject line. If you're
> >> >really interested in trying to rebut it, I'll be happy to repost it just for
> >> >you, Ed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence.
> >
> >Another in that I had other things to do before tking time to respond
> >to your crap.
>
>
> And now that you've had the opportunity... STILL dead silence.
>
>
>
> >> Do you suppose that Ed knew that he was lying when he tried to
> >>imply that I'd never previously documented the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
> >
> >A cheap trick, obviously made in desperation. Typical of a
> >conspiranut.
>
>
> FBI intimidation, Ed. That's the topic.
What intimidation. What you put the spin on to justify you vclaim for
which you have no verification?
>
>
>
> >> >But I *have* posted it dozens of times... Toddy keeps ducking it, as well as
> >> >others. Certainly *you* have been quite silent on the topic - as you will
> >> >again should I repost it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>>>>Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point out.
> >> >>
> >> >>There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Entire books have been written on the topic. One simple bit of evidence is
> >> >the efforts made by the FBI to erase the Minox camera from the listings of
> >> >evidence made by the DPD.
> >> >
> >> >Sorta makes your statement that there aren't "anay" silly, doesn't it?
> >>
> >>
> >> Better yet, Ed... just run away so you don't have to answer this.
> >
> >You'd like that, wouldn't you. A mental midget deathly afraid ro
> >provide info on supposed USMC service, and unwilling to come to
> >Quantico where there is a repository of recorfds like unit diaries.
> >Don't want that, do you.
>
>
> Once again, ducked the issue. Why does the evidence seem so frightening to you,
> Ed?
You lie. I.m not afraid,
>
>
> Minox camera, FBI Attempts to erase from the record is the topic. Can you
> answer it, Ed? Or are you going to duck and run again?
THERE WAS NO MINOX CAMERA. And you can't prove there was.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Benji,
>
>I was wondering what took you so long to reply.
Newsguy was down for a week, moving their servers...
>Apparently you were
>trying to go for the ibg lie, which you did with your renaming the
>thread,
Bugs you that I point out the truth, doesn't it?
>You proved beyond all doubt you nothing but a cheap liar and
>an ytter disgrace to the Marines, that is if you ever were one,
>cringing in fear when asked to name a unit you served with.
But, of course, yet again you demonstrate your cowardice by refusing to respond
to the evidence in this case.
I didn't... it's what *you* asserted.
>As I wrote, I have a life.
Yet you provably *weren't*.
>> But this doesn't explain why you were posting on *OTHER* threads in the
>> meantime. You see, I didn't post this until I *KNEW* that you'd had the
>> opportunity to respond, . . .
>
>A Quick commnt doesn't mean that I had the opportinity to respond to
>your junk and lies.
It does, however, prove that your implication that you were too busy was just
that... an excuse.
>> . . . and was merely ducking again, as you have many times before.
>
>Agaib yiou prove you are the consummate LIAR.
Reposting threads where you've simply disappeared rather than answer the
evidence would be a trivial excercise. And meaningless for all but the newest
lurkers - who already know that you refuse to debate or face the evidence.
Indeed, appear to be rather ignorant of much of it.
>> >> Ed Dolan is still running from this one, it looks like.
>> >
>> >LIAR!
>>
>> Ah! But you *were*, until I pointed it out. Even now, you won't address the
>> evidence.
>
>LIAR . What evidence?
You see?
>I seen a lot thatYOU call evidence, but is
>relevancy is in doubt, mant timed uncorroborated.
The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray "uncorroborated?"
How silly!
Oh? You have 'documents' that prove that you're not a liar and a coward?
How silly! Lurkers here can *see* your cowardice.
>One of the things they would show how I voluntarily became an atomic
>veteran, if you know what anything about suck, and woul also prove you
>a comman LIAR when you call me coward.
You demonstrate it quite often, Eddie.
Your virtual refusal to debate the evidence, for example.
Or to put your money where your mouth is.
>> >> >Denials simply aren't good enough.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>>> >>> Such a simple thing as the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray
>>>>>>> can trip them up so badly that they never want to discuss it, or explain
>>it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>HOw about showing what it is, other than an artifact?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>>>>Ah! An "artifact"... one that wasn't seen on the night of the assassination.
>>>>>Calling it an "artifact" is silly. You are now contradicted by *ALL* medical
>> >> >experts who sat in at the Clark Panel and HSCA.
>> >> >
>>>>>Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there
>>on
>> >> >the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is probably why Ed Dolan doesn't want to respond.
>> >
>> >Proof your are a cheap, sleazy liar, coward.
>>
>>
>> Not responding to the evidence, again.
>
>What evidence? That supposedly indicates conspiracy? You have none
>unless you spin it.
Perhaps I should account for your age. After all, the memory goes first, so
I've heard. Here it is again:
Nor does calling it an "artifact" eliminate your problem... it wasn't there on
the night of the assassination... your "artifact" was *ADDED*.
>> > He's been shown up to be a fool on a simple issue.
>> >
>> >LIAR!
>>
>>
>> Any lurker can make up their own mind.
>
>And if their honest and intelligent, and read your stuff, they would
>know you lack intelligent reasoning.
Ad hominem won't make your cowardice go away.
>>>> Calling the 6.5mm virtually round object an "artifact" doesn't solve *any* of
>> >> the problems, indeed, it even makes it worse.
>> >
>> >Suppose you show your brilliance by explaing it IN DETAIL! Dare you?
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that. Once again, you duck the issue. Scared and ignorant,
>> aren't you?
>
>So you claim, but I have never seen it, I've seen some of your
>desperate attempts, but nothimg close to an ntelligent presentation,
>Unlike you, scared tio name a Marine unit you served with, I am not
>scared. You havr never posted an intelligent, coherent poffering, with
>documentation.
My! Illiteracy on top of cowardice!
>>Why not do some basic research on this topic before you make even more ignorant
>> statements?
>
>After you! I done mush, things you have never looked at although in
>the pub;lic domain. I've interviewed people that you never ha, and
>many avoided by the conspirinuts.
Then you should certainly be able to explain the 6.5mm virtually round object in
the AP X-ray.
You may begin anytime:
>> >> For now you have to explain how the 'bumblers' that conducted the
>>>> autopsy evidently ignored what they must have recognized was an "artifact",
>> >> yet the medical experts who came after - the Clark Panel, the HSCA; all
>> >> got it wrong. I thought the LNT'er handbook's position was
>> >> that the prosectors were idiots and bumblers.
>> >
>> >What handbook? Where can it be found? Are you coing to duk that
>> >again. Which of yiur positions is true? That itwas missed the night
>> >of the assassination? Oradded later?
>>
>> Spit it out, Ed. Tell us what you're trying to say.
>
>Having trouble with English.
Yes... I know you were. That's why I told you to "spit it out, Eddie"
>Or are you just plain ducking the
>questions? Or is your mind so bad (Altzheimes?) that youcan't
>remember what you write? What Handbook you cited?
The LNT'ers Handbook. You mean that Prof. McAdams doesn't trust you with a
copy?
>Where can it be
>found? Or is that proof you lied?
>
>> >> It's no wonder that Ed decided to run away from this.
>> >
>> > From what? You have never provided an explantion, have more than one
>> > position, And provode evidence for any view to discuss.
>>
>>
>> How sad that Ed proves my point virtually every time he opens his mouth.
>
>Liar, again. What evidence? Corroborated, snd verified as true,
>incontrovertible? Let's see it.
How sad that Eddie proves my point virtually every time he opens his mouth.
>> >> >>Do you dare? I doubt it, you are too afraid.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >How silly! It's simple. The object wasn't there on the night of the
>> >> >assassination... it appeared there by the time of the Clark Panel. It
>> >> >was added to the X-ray. Tis that simple.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But... does Ed Dolan "dare" to respond???
>> >
>> >I;m here. Why were you afraid to come to Quantico where I could show
>> >you records that makes you a big f------ liar when you claim I am a
>> >coward.
>>
>> Ah! But you *ARE*.
>
>Again, abolute proo, incontrovertibe, you are a LIAR.
Learned that game in Kindergarden, did you?
>I can't answer because the graf is one of theversions you havr posted.
>E.g. You claimed Oswald put it there,
It's the only theory that you have, isn't it?
>but the x-ray was taken at Bethesda
Bravo! One of the few facts in this case that I've ever seen you mention (or
get right)
>and Oswald never left Texas alive.
Sorta stuck then, aren't ya, Eddie?
>Try clarifying ywhat
>you want answered,
It's really quite simple - they were looking for a bullet on the night of the
autopsy. They were quite frantic about that search.
Yet they never saw this 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray.
Why not?
What's *your* theory to explain it?
Calling it an "artifact" isn't going to do the trick, as I've pointed out (and
you've been running from ever since... rather cowardly, isn't it?)
>starting with your Oswald story and how he did it.
This, of course, is *your* only recourse. For otherwise, you have to admit that
four medically trained people were virtually blind.
Or that the government participated in a frameup of LHO.
Any other ideas, Eddie?
>Then I can't follow up if you dare.
Your illiteracy is showing again. Then again, the Marine Corps never did have
very strict policies about recruit intelligence.
>I dared you to respond to my paragraph above, and you didn'.t.
Ooooh! Dare me again! *DOUBLE-dare* me!
(Why is it that memories of elementary school jump in my mind when talking to
Eddie?)
>It is confusing. If youeceb present a clear question, saying
>everything else you wrote, e.g., the Oswald story, I will, and I would
>expect you to explain,
And yet, strangely enough, you can't figure out that others might want to hear
*YOUR* explanation.
'Artifact' isn't going to get the job done, coward. You're going to have to do
better than that.
>> I've dared you to put your money where your mouth is, and you *still*
>> haven't
>
>For what?
Unwilling to put your body or your money in hock to your mouth? Rather
cowardly, wouldn't you say?
>To see something that is questionable? I realize you are in
>need of money, desperately. But I don't see doing so for something you
>have rather than go to the Marine Corps records. All you would have
>to tell me, is a ubit you served with and when and I can verify you
>were in it by lookingat the unit diaries, if you werer, but you are too
>much the coward to do so.
>..
Anytime Eddie, you want to be proven the fool that you are - just offer to put
up the money.
>> You're a coward, Ed Dolan.
>
>Againg you prove beyond all doubt, you are the complete LIAR.
How can that be? The evidence for that fact is contained in this very post.
>BTW, I
>will be in Quantico on Thursday for a graduation at the FBI academy st
>1000. I will be indroduced by the CO, a Marine Colonel, anf you could
>shout out that I am a coward, in front of s lot of Msarines and
>families. You would show you have guts.
Sorry... Thursday I'll be at Judo practice.
But since you'll be there at Quantico, simply look up the records of the Staff
Academy for 1983, as I recall. You'll discover that I went through the course.
You won't... of course.
>> >And we could verify if you were ever in the Corps since you
>> >are deathly afraid to mention any organizaion in which you may have
>> >served,
>>
>> How silly! Put up the money, Ed; and I'll prove beyond any reasonable doubt
>> that I served in the Corps. Honorably.
>
>You can only do that by going with me to the archives to see official
>records. Or, provide a citation I could look up independent of you.
I can do that in any number of ways. But you won't offer to put up the money,
so the question is academic.
>I would trust NOTHING oming from you since you lie so much. BTW,
>fanother public source about me are the Frederiick, MD, newspapers in
>the period of 1952-55 when I was stationed at the Army's BW Center.
Who cares? Unless it mentions your lack of cowardice or dishonesty, it wouldn't
contradict anything that *I've* ever stated about you.
>> >I have provided citations for my being in the Corps, but you
>> >don't accept them, that's why you should have come to Quantico. BTW, I
>> >didn't aiuthor the cites I gave,
>>
>> Unlike you, I understand perfectly that you've served in the Corps.
>>
>> You're simply a coward.
>
>Yet again, utter proof of your being th LIAR. If you knew I served in
>the Corps you would kno you are lying.
Why? Do you suppose that cowards have never been found among our ranks?
>>>> >For more detailed information - lurkers can do a search on "6.5mm object" in
>> >> >past posts... posts that are strangely lacking any response by Ed Dolan.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>> Or FBI intimidation...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>What intimidation? DOcument it!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>>>>Already have. Do a search on "FBI Intimidation" as a subject line. If
>>you're
>>>> >really interested in trying to rebut it, I'll be happy to repost it just for
>> >> >you, Ed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dead silence.
>> >
>> >Another in that I had other things to do before tking time to respond
>> >to your crap.
>>
>>
>> And now that you've had the opportunity... STILL dead silence.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Do you suppose that Ed knew that he was lying when he tried to
>>>>imply that I'd never previously documented the FBI intimidation of
>>eyewitnesses?
>> >
>> >A cheap trick, obviously made in desperation. Typical of a
>> >conspiranut.
>>
>>
>> FBI intimidation, Ed. That's the topic.
>
>What intimidation. What you put the spin on to justify you vclaim for
>which you have no verification?
The post has been reposted. Did I miss where you responded to it, Eddie?
Or is it merely your cowardly nature to demand evidence for which you'll never
attempt to refute?
>>>> >But I *have* posted it dozens of times... Toddy keeps ducking it, as well as
>>>> >others. Certainly *you* have been quite silent on the topic - as you will
>> >> >again should I repost it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>>>>>>Or the many fingerprints of intelligence surrounding LHO... as you point
>>out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>There aren't anay. And you certainly can't show any.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>>> >Entire books have been written on the topic. One simple bit of evidence is
>>>> >the efforts made by the FBI to erase the Minox camera from the listings of
>> >> >evidence made by the DPD.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorta makes your statement that there aren't "anay" silly, doesn't it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Better yet, Ed... just run away so you don't have to answer this.
>> >
>> >You'd like that, wouldn't you. A mental midget deathly afraid ro
>> >provide info on supposed USMC service, and unwilling to come to
>> >Quantico where there is a repository of recorfds like unit diaries.
>> >Don't want that, do you.
>>
>>
>>Once again, ducked the issue. Why does the evidence seem so frightening to you,
>> Ed?
>
>You lie. I.m not afraid,
And yet, you prove so on virtually every post. Why is that, do you suppose
Eddie?
>> Minox camera, FBI Attempts to erase from the record is the topic. Can you
>> answer it, Ed? Or are you going to duck and run again?
>
>THERE WAS NO MINOX CAMERA. And you can't prove there was.
Then surely you can explain the Minox camera that is held at NARA in the JFK
case, right?
Just remember Eddie, ignorance can be fixed, cowardice and dishonesty can't.