A Question, Submitted With Trepidation
Monoxide Child
it's yet another flame type group, but I'll hazard a chance to ask a
question anyway:
Lee Oswald was supposed to have taken curtain rods to the Book
Depository on November 22. The bag was subsequently found and
photographed. But did the curtain rods ever show up anywhere?
Thanks, and don't hurt me, I'm new here.
Ben Holmes
Child says...
>
>I've been watching this newsgroup for about a week and I greatly fear
>it's yet another flame type group, but I'll hazard a chance to ask a
>question anyway:
You could, of course, go to the censored group - but you might not get the
*entire* and honest facts.
>Lee Oswald was supposed to have taken curtain rods to the Book
>Depository on November 22. The bag was subsequently found and
>photographed. But did the curtain rods ever show up anywhere?
>
>Thanks, and don't hurt me, I'm new here.
Yes... they did. Surprising no-one... the DPD had them.
And a photo taken on *Saturday* shows a handyman hanging curtains in Oswald's
apartment... devastating the long-held LNT'er factoid that Oswald would not have
even needed curtain rods.
black...@aol.com
Monoxide Child wrote:
> I've been watching this newsgroup for about a week and I greatly fear
> it's yet another flame type group,
It is. Many people here think they know all the answers and others are
morons.
but I'll hazard a chance to ask a
> question anyway:
>
> Lee Oswald was supposed to have taken curtain rods to the Book
> Depository on November 22. The bag was subsequently found and
> photographed. But did the curtain rods ever show up anywhere?
Oswald SAID he brought curtain rods. But there is very strong evidence
that at least some of the shots came from a rifle owned by him and
found in the Depository. One has to wonder how it got there.
Monoxide Child
it.
Ben Holmes
Child says...
Believe it or not, most regular posters here are civil and informative. It's
only when dealing with clowns and liars that we turn 'uncivil'. No regular and
serious poster here will 'flame' you for asking questions. Unfortunately,
you'll have to lurk awhile to determine who's serious, and who the trolls are.
lazu...@webtv.net
witnessess-Randle and Frazier said it was absolutely not more than 28
inches and probably 24-26. Frazier said it was two feet give or take an
inch and they both said it was cupped under his arm, so no way it could
be the 35 inches required. Oswald may have been a kook and a strange
dude, but he wasn't a knuckledragger with arms to his knees. When Rather
did the re-enactment cupped under hs arm with a 35 inch package in 1967
for CBS it came up to his chin.It does remain one of the top dozen
mysteries or so how it got in the TSBD. Another of the biggest mysteries
is why there were no records at the Post Office on the rifle, nor any
recollection of LHO picking it up, yet Inspector Holmes was well aware
of Oswald's receiving communist literature.. The former is highly
suspicious, since this is against federal regulations.
cdddraftsman
from Ben Holmes , he being a proven lier . Or did you already hear
exactely what you wanted to hear and closed your mnd to any other
alternatives . The curtain rods showed up exactely where they where
supposed to be , back at LHO rooming house . CBS has films of it that
day , on friday . He brought his MC gun that day to the TSBD , that gun
, fired the shots that killed the President and no one saw LHO during
the shooting . You can figure it out from there . What kind of handle
is Monoxide Child anyway ? Tom Lowry
Monoxide Child
cdddra...@yahoo.com says...
> Take a deep breath and about a pound of salt whenever you hear anything
> from Ben Holmes , he being a proven lier .
I shall sift through the various posts from various people as I spend
some time here lurking, and make up my mind who's fibbing or not. If
anyone is "fibbing" vs. theorizing, speculating, etc.
> Or did you already hear
> exactely what you wanted to hear and closed your mnd to any other
> alternatives .
Having fun with that Label Maker?
> The curtain rods showed up exactely where they where
> supposed to be , back at LHO rooming house . CBS has films of it that
> day , on friday .
Films of THE curtain rods? How can anyone be possibly sure?
> He brought his MC gun that day to the TSBD , that gun
> , fired the shots that killed the President and no one saw LHO during
> the shooting . You can figure it out from there .
I shall as the debates unfold, thanks.
> What kind of handle
> is Monoxide Child anyway ? Tom Lowry
The right people (none in this group) know, and get a snicker out of it.
Thanks for your reply.
Bud
cdddraftsman wrote:
> Take a deep breath and about a pound of salt whenever you hear anything
> from Ben Holmes , he being a proven lier . Or did you already hear
> exactely what you wanted to hear and closed your mnd to any other
> alternatives . The curtain rods showed up exactely where they where
> supposed to be , back at LHO rooming house . CBS has films of it that
> day , on friday . He brought his MC gun that day to the TSBD , that gun
> , fired the shots that killed the President and no one saw LHO during
> the shooting . You can figure it out from there . What kind of handle
> is Monoxide Child anyway ?
Tailpipe smoker.
Bud
black...@aol.com wrote:
> Monoxide Child wrote:
> > I've been watching this newsgroup for about a week and I greatly fear
> > it's yet another flame type group,
>
> It is. Many people here think they know all the answers and others are
> morons.
Two things I know from reading here for a few years. I don`t know
all of the answers. And most of the people who post here are morons.
> >but I'll hazard a chance to ask a
> > question anyway:
> >
> > Lee Oswald was supposed to have taken curtain rods to the Book
> > Depository on November 22. The bag was subsequently found and
> > photographed. But did the curtain rods ever show up anywhere?
>
> Oswald SAID he brought curtain rods. But there is very strong evidence
> that at least some of the shots came from a rifle owned by him and
> found in the Depository. One has to wonder how it got there.
Unless one has the ability to assess information in a reasonable
manner, in which case one has a pretty good idea.
Ben Holmes
Child says...
>
>In article <1155938364....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>cdddra...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> Take a deep breath and about a pound of salt whenever you hear anything
>> from Ben Holmes , he being a proven lier .
>
>I shall sift through the various posts from various people as I spend
>some time here lurking, and make up my mind who's fibbing or not. If
>anyone is "fibbing" vs. theorizing, speculating, etc.
One of the best ways to do that is to ask people to provide a "cite"; citations
to anything they assert. Those who are honest and sincere can generally either
provide the cite outright, or can point you in the right direction. If you
wanted to view the picture I referred to, for example, I can point you to the
book & page number (which is at home right now), or even scan in the photo for
you to judge for yourself.
By asking for a citation, you can be sure that you can review the relevant
testimony or evidence, and *judge for yourself*.
>> Or did you already hear
>> exactely what you wanted to hear and closed your mnd to any other
>> alternatives .
>
>Having fun with that Label Maker?
>
>> The curtain rods showed up exactely where they where
>> supposed to be , back at LHO rooming house . CBS has films of it that
>> day , on friday .
>
>Films of THE curtain rods? How can anyone be possibly sure?
I'll be interested to hear what our favorite LNT'er thinks is the way the
curtain rods got from Ruth Paine's house, via the TSDB, to Oswald's apartment.
Perhaps he can find some testimony from Whaley?
And when did it take a detour to the DPD?
>> He brought his MC gun that day to the TSBD , that gun
>> , fired the shots that killed the President and no one saw LHO during
>> the shooting . You can figure it out from there .
>
>I shall as the debates unfold, thanks.
Of course, there's excellent testimony that he was seen, starting from before
noon, until just 90 seconds *after* the final shots, still on the 1st & 2nd
floor.
In particular, Carolyn Arnold, who reported seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor (or
was it the first? ... can't recall) at 12:15.
12:15 is the same time that *several* eyewitnesses place a man in the sniper's
nest.
Perhaps Oswald was capable of being in two places at once... I discount it.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Well Blackburst- it wasn' brought in by Oswald that day to be sure-both
> witnessess-Randle and Frazier said it was absolutely not more than 28
> inches
Where did either one of them say anything like this?
> and probably 24-26. Frazier said it was two feet give or take an
> inch and they both said it was cupped under his arm,
So far, everything you`ve said is wrong.
> so no way it could
> be the 35 inches required.
No way? Have you ever looked into the context of their observations?
> Oswald may have been a kook and a strange
> dude,
And a political fanatic, a traitor, wifebeater, assassin and
murderer. And he snuck into a theater without paying.
> but he wasn't a knuckledragger with arms to his knees. When Rather
> did the re-enactment cupped under hs arm with a 35 inch package in 1967
> for CBS it came up to his chin.
Take a yardstick, cup your fingers around the bottom, and see how
far it is up under your armpit. It couldn`t be the "probably 24-26"
inches you asert, either.
>It does remain one of the top dozen
> mysteries or so how it got in the TSBD.
<snicker>
> Another of the biggest mysteries
> is why there were no records at the Post Office on the rifle, nor any
> recollection of LHO picking it up, yet Inspector Holmes was well aware
> of Oswald's receiving communist literature.. The former is highly
> suspicious, since this is against federal regulations.
Out come the kook "suspicious things" trading cards.
aeffects
black...@aol.com wrote:
> Monoxide Child wrote:
> > I've been watching this newsgroup for about a week and I greatly fear
> > it's yet another flame type group,
>
> It is. Many people here think they know all the answers and others are
> morons.
David, David, DAVID -- your sync has dropped below -40 -- front porch
is all askew, and vertical interval is whacked out -- we DO know the
answers and they just don't jibe with the Lone Nutter's [for the
obvious reasons].
Now Monoxide asked a civil question, it was answered civilly - The
person was also directed to John McAdams house of ill repute to get the
Lone Nutter viewpoint/take of things. I'd say thats down right
hospitable...
Anyone want to talk/question WCR evidence/testimony... they're always
welcome here....
Bud
Oh, my. Look at all the monkeys throwing shit at each other. I trust
that if I enter the cage, they will throw no shit my way.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <MPG.1f4fc50bc...@news-server.columbus.rr.com>, Monoxide
> Child says...
> >
> >I've been watching this newsgroup for about a week and I greatly fear
> >it's yet another flame type group, but I'll hazard a chance to ask a
> >question anyway:
>
>
> You could, of course, go to the censored group - but you might not get the
> *entire* and honest facts.
<snicker > Like Ben didn`t include th testimony about people saying
Oz appeared Oz was intoxicated when he vcalled the Wc lies over this
issue.
> >Lee Oswald was supposed to have taken curtain rods to the Book
> >Depository on November 22. The bag was subsequently found and
> >photographed. But did the curtain rods ever show up anywhere?
> >
> >Thanks, and don't hurt me, I'm new here.
>
>
> Yes... they did. Surprising no-one... the DPD had them.
Hmmm... is Ben saying he knows those curtain rods were in the bag
found in the 6th floor of the TSBD? They removed them from the bag, and
the building, with news photographers both inside and out? They sneak
them out, but leave them in plain sight at the police station? Does Ben
ever say anything that makes sense? Stupid ass.
> And a photo taken on *Saturday* shows a handyman hanging curtains in Oswald's
> apartment... devastating the long-held LNT'er factoid that Oswald would not have
> even needed curtain rods.
So, you think Oz ordered the hanging of those curtain rods on
Saturday, do you?
cdddraftsman
Tom Lowry
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <MPG.1f4fd8cce...@news-server.columbus.rr.com>, Monoxide
> Child says...
> >
> >In article <ec501...@drn.newsguy.com>, bnho...@rain.org says...
> >> In article <MPG.1f4fc50bc...@news-server.columbus.rr.com>, Monoxide
> >> Child says...
> >> >
> >> >I've been watching this newsgroup for about a week and I greatly fear
> >> >it's yet another flame type group, but I'll hazard a chance to ask a
> >> >question anyway:
> >>
> >>
> >> You could, of course, go to the censored group - but you might not get the
> >> *entire* and honest facts.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Lee Oswald was supposed to have taken curtain rods to the Book
> >> >Depository on November 22. The bag was subsequently found and
> >> >photographed. But did the curtain rods ever show up anywhere?
> >> >
> >> >Thanks, and don't hurt me, I'm new here.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes... they did. Surprising no-one... the DPD had them.
> >>
> >> And a photo taken on *Saturday* shows a handyman hanging curtains in Oswald's
> >>apartment... devastating the long-held LNT'er factoid that Oswald would not have
> >> even needed curtain rods.
> >>
> >>
> >Thank you, Ben, for the very civil and informative reply. Appreciate
> >it.
>
> Believe it or not, most regular posters here are civil and informative. It's
> only when dealing with clowns and liars that we turn 'uncivil'.
<snicker> In other words, when Ben calls people names, it doesn`t
count because he feels it`s justified.
> No regular and
> serious poster here will 'flame' you for asking questions.
Although I wish I had a nickle for every time I`ve seen a "serious"
poster flame someone for asking a question. In fact, I asked Ben the
simple question of how the medical personel at Parkland determined that
Kennedy`s throat wound was a bullet wound. I got what amounted to a
flame response to my honest question.
> Unfortunately,
> you'll have to lurk awhile to determine who's serious, and who the trolls are.
And that determination will be doubtlessly be biased depending on
which side of the argument you fall on.
cdddraftsman
knowing he was going to assassinate the president , so there just
guessing from a hazy memory , of the few seconds they noticed it .
Lazulu ' Lu Lu Bell ' , pull your head out of your ass !
..................HAAAAAAAAAAAAA ..............Tom lowry
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <MPG.1f5004486...@news-server.columbus.rr.com>, Monoxide
> Child says...
> >
> >In article <1155938364....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >cdddra...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >> Take a deep breath and about a pound of salt whenever you hear anything
> >> from Ben Holmes , he being a proven lier .
> >
> >I shall sift through the various posts from various people as I spend
> >some time here lurking, and make up my mind who's fibbing or not. If
> >anyone is "fibbing" vs. theorizing, speculating, etc.
>
>
> One of the best ways to do that is to ask people to provide a "cite"; citations
> to anything they assert.
No, it really isn`t. The CT that are the most profocient citers are
the worst at analyzing the information they are citing.
> Those who are honest and sincere can generally either
> provide the cite outright, or can point you in the right direction.
I generally use my middle finger to point.
> If you
> wanted to view the picture I referred to, for example, I can point you to the
> book & page number (which is at home right now), or even scan in the photo for
> you to judge for yourself.
Or, failing that, he can make you a crude sketch using his crayons.
> By asking for a citation, you can be sure that you can review the relevant
> testimony or evidence, and *judge for yourself*.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
> >> Or did you already hear
> >> exactely what you wanted to hear and closed your mnd to any other
> >> alternatives .
> >
> >Having fun with that Label Maker?
> >
> >> The curtain rods showed up exactely where they where
> >> supposed to be , back at LHO rooming house . CBS has films of it that
> >> day , on friday .
> >
> >Films of THE curtain rods? How can anyone be possibly sure?
>
>
> I'll be interested to hear what our favorite LNT'er
<sniff> That used to be me....
>thinks is the way the
> curtain rods got from Ruth Paine's house, via the TSDB, to Oswald's apartment.
> Perhaps he can find some testimony from Whaley?
>
> And when did it take a detour to the DPD?
Did anyone see Ben explain how it got from the TSBD to the DPD?
> >> He brought his MC gun that day to the TSBD , that gun
> >> , fired the shots that killed the President and no one saw LHO during
> >> the shooting . You can figure it out from there .
> >
> >I shall as the debates unfold, thanks.
>
>
> Of course, there's excellent testimony that he was seen,
...shooting fro the 6th floor of the TSBD by Brennan.
> starting from before
> noon, until just 90 seconds *after* the final shots,
Who held the stopwatch during their assent, Baker or Truly?
> still on the 1st & 2nd
> floor.
Both, at the same time?
> In particular, Carolyn Arnold, who reported seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor (or
> was it the first? ... can't recall) at 12:15.
How many years later? Was Jarman and Norman with him like he
claimed? You`d think through all those interviews, he would have told
the police he was in the second floor lunchroom throughout the lunch
period, instead of telling them he popped up for a pop. Also funny is
that so much effort was put into framing the "patsy" beforehand, yet he
is in the LUNCHROOM at LUNCHTIME. If Oz eats there, and three or four
others decide to forgo seeing the President and eat there, all that
pre-planning is rendered useless.
> 12:15 is the same time that *several* eyewitnesses place a man in the sniper's
> nest.
Ben plays the silly game that if a witness mentions a time, that
time is a carved in stone fact, as accurate as an nuclear clock.
> Perhaps Oswald was capable of being in two places at once... I discount it.
Ben has found some contradiction in the evience. TA-DA! That means
Oz couldn`t have done it (one of dozens of ways the kooks claim Oz
couldn`t have done it, yet every single person who saw a shooter in the
JFK and Tippit murders say it was Oz who was the killer).
David VP
Nah. I doubt that Ben thinks there ever was any "brown paper package"
taken into the TSBD by Oswald or anybody else. (Except for the
"conveniently-created" bag that Montgomery is seen with after the
shooting.)
I think Ben thinks that Wes Frazier was a "conspirator". Right Ben?
After all, Wesley did apparently have a rifle in his house after the
assassination, which is "suspicious" to some CT-Kooks....I think Ben is
among those kooks.
Therefore, the whole "paper bag"/"curtain rod" thing was contrived
later on, per the K-people. Which, of course, makes Linnie Randle out
to be a plotter and/or a liar as well. She can't be let off the hook
either. Nor can anybody else within a 2500-square-mile radius of
Dallas, so it seems.
Except one person -- Lee H. Oswald. Kooks are always willing to let
that guy off the hook.
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Hmmm... is Ben saying he knows those curtain rods were in the bag found in the 6th floor of the TSBD?" <<<
>
> taken into the TSBD by Oswald or anybody else. (Except for the
> "conveniently-created" bag that Montgomery is seen with after the
> shooting.)
>
> I think Ben thinks that Wes Frazier was a "conspirator". Right Ben?
>
> After all, Wesley did apparently have a rifle in his house after the
> assassination, which is "suspicious" to some CT-Kooks....I think Ben is
> among those kooks.
>
> Therefore, the whole "paper bag"/"curtain rod" thing was contrived
> later on, per the K-people. Which, of course, makes Linnie Randle out
> to be a plotter and/or a liar as well. She can't be let off the hook
> either. Nor can anybody else within a 2500-square-mile radius of
> Dallas, so it seems.
dealing with the evidence is a drag at times isn't it?
David VP
Yeah, it sometimes must a drag being a certifiable kook too. Right Mr.
Effects?
After all, when you're dealing with nothing but "Oswald's A Guilty
Bastard"-like evidence all day long, it must get frustrating at times
when you try to squeeze ALL of it into an "Oswald's Really Innocent" CT
box.
I wouldn't want to take on that thankless assignment even for a million
dollars.
lazu...@webtv.net
morons? I guess we get two for the price of one with you guys. LET ME
SAY THIS REAL SLOW FOR THE LEARNING IMPAIRED, THE ONLY TWO WITNESSES WHO
SAW OSWALD WITH THE PACKAGE SAID IT WAS 27-28 INCHES MAXIMUM.
lazu...@webtv.net
trolls? A couple of them reared their ugly heads as soon as Ben provided
a civil answer to your question. Regards, Laz
Bud
QUOTE THEM SAYING THAT.
black...@aol.com
aeffects wrote:
> black...@aol.com wrote:
> > Monoxide Child wrote:
Many people here think they know all the answers and others are
morons.
Several people misunderstood this due to my poor phraseology. This is
how I meant it, but left a couple of words out:
"Many people here think they know all the answers and THINK THAT others
are
morons."
I wasn't calling anyone a moron. I was lamenting that others do.
>
> David, David, DAVID -- your sync has dropped below -40 -- front porch
> is all askew, and vertical interval is whacked out --
Gotta LOVE that TV in-talk! My bro!
Let me ingest that answer on my Media Drive and render it (red line).
we DO know the
> answers and they just don't jibe with the Lone Nutter's [for the
> obvious reasons].
Note that I didn't single out any group. I think the combatants on both
sides get excessive in this group.
>
> Now Monoxide asked a civil question, it was answered civilly - The
> person was also directed to John McAdams house of ill repute to get the
> Lone Nutter viewpoint/take of things. I'd say thats down right
> hospitable...
Well, there WAS some smarmy know-it-all language in this thread.
>
> Anyone want to talk/question WCR evidence/testimony... they're always
> welcome here....
You kidding? Even the thread names are insults.
> > Oswald SAID he brought curtain rods. But there is very strong evidence
> > that at least some of the shots came from a rifle owned by him and
> > found in the Depository. One has to wonder how it got there.
Any guesses on this one, David?
David VP
And you've got pictures of Linnie Mae and Buell poring over the package
with a tape measure in each hand...right Mr. Kook?? (I guess those
pictures that prove Randle & Frazier physically MEASURED Oswald's
package are among the convenient "missing" evidence in the case, huh?)
Plus...Linnie Randle (via the 1964 film "Four Days In November") said
the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long"....i.e.,
approx. 30 inches.
That particular 1964 Randle estimate (which was only off by 8 total
inches from the actual bag length of 38 inches) is a fairly-decent one,
given the fact she only saw the package for a very short time and had
no real reason to take note of its dimensions at all on the morning of
November 22nd. Nor did Frazier.
But those common-sense things won't stop the CT-Kooks from insisting
that Frazier and Randle got it exactly right when estimating the bag's
length.
Plus --- I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable "CT"
explanation that will answer the question of why that 38-inch brown
paper sack (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle),
with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found
after the assassination -- the Sniper's Nest -- and yet still NOT have
Oswald present at the SN window on November 22nd, 1963. I, for one,
cannot think of a single "innocent" explanation for that bag being
where it was after the shooting with Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints
on it.
The CT-Kooks have plenty of explanations for it (and all of them keep
Oswald as pure as a new-fallen snow). But, again, I said I hadn't yet
heard the "logical and believable CT explanation" to explain away that
extremely-incriminating hunk of Oswald-Did-It evidence...i.e., a brown
paper bag in the SN with a right-hand palmprint on it in JUST EXACTLY
the place on the bag where you'd expect to find it if Oswald had,
indeed, carried the bag the way Wes Frazier said LHO carried a paper
bag into the building on 11/22/63.
Nice coincidence there, huh? No wonder the CT-Kooks want to make Wesley
Frazier out to be a co-conspirator in the plot to frame poor Lee
Harvey. Because if Frazier was NOT involved in such a scheme, then
Wesley's testimony (when coupled with the paper bag/palmprint evidence)
ALONE would tell any reasonable person who would have been sitting on
the jury at Oswald's trial (had there been one) that Lee Harvey Oswald
was in that Sniper's Nest around noontime on November 22, 1963.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
aeffects
black...@aol.com wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > black...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Monoxide Child wrote:
> Many people here think they know all the answers and others are
> morons.
>
> Several people misunderstood this due to my poor phraseology. This is
> how I meant it, but left a couple of words out:
>
> "Many people here think they know all the answers and THINK THAT others
> are
> morons."
>
> I wasn't calling anyone a moron. I was lamenting that others do.
understood.... :)
> >
> > David, David, DAVID -- your sync has dropped below -40 -- front porch
> > is all askew, and vertical interval is whacked out --
>
> Gotta LOVE that TV in-talk! My bro!
> Let me ingest that answer on my Media Drive and render it (red line).
FCP5.1, 6- 4:1:1 layers NO RT rendering
> we DO know the
> > answers and they just don't jibe with the Lone Nutter's [for the
> > obvious reasons].
>
> Note that I didn't single out any group. I think the combatants on both
> sides get excessive in this group.
in agreement again.... you've always been level headed and even
handed...
> >
> > Now Monoxide asked a civil question, it was answered civilly - The
> > person was also directed to John McAdams house of ill repute to get the
> > Lone Nutter viewpoint/take of things. I'd say thats down right
> > hospitable...
>
> Well, there WAS some smarmy know-it-all language in this thread.
here, in the alleged nut-house? LMAO!
> >
> > Anyone want to talk/question WCR evidence/testimony... they're always
> > welcome here....
>
> You kidding? Even the thread names are insults.
yeah, and look who starts most of the threads, the very ones who run
from WCR evidence and testimony
> > > Oswald SAID he brought curtain rods. But there is very strong evidence
> > > that at least some of the shots came from a rifle owned by him and
> > > found in the Depository. One has to wonder how it got there.
>
> Any guesses on this one, David?
why would LHO order a rifle, makes absolutely no sense (and I don't
care if he's was the shooter or one of multiple shooters
[read:conspiracy]). Jesse Curry can't put him in that window, how the
hell can anyone else?
Here's lookin at 3.58
tomnln
"Monoxide Child" <ch...@cough.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f5004486...@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
tomnln
You just told the New Guy which side is WRONG.b (and Stupid)
I knew what I was doing when I declared YOU the "Spokesman" for the Lone
Assassin side.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1155943681.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1155940585.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Rooms, Social Issues & Politics.
Then select Government & Politics.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155941463....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
YOU are the Source of what they throw.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1155941477.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Pieces of Silver".
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155944964.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
You are disagreeing with the FBI.
The FBI Measured from point A to point B on the back seat of Frazier's car
where he said the package Laid.
The FBI also measured the length of the package Linnie Mae Randall Described
Oswald carrying.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155946396.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "THE ONLY TWO WITNESSES WHO SAW OSWALD WITH THE PACKAGE SAID IT WAS
>>>> 27-28 INCHES MAXIMUM." <<<
>
tomnln
Why do you cite an article that YOU wrote instead of Citing Official
Records?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155947787.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
cdddraftsman
point , HeHeHeHeHe ...Tom Lowry
Phil Ossofee
witness to a three foot bag? Did Oswald have 3 foot arms as he carried
the bag into the TSBD down to his knees Koocksucker? Frazier said it
was" two feet give or take an inch" that's not close t 35 or 38 inches,
try and cup a 38 inch packge under your arm while you walk. Shut the
hell up if all you are going to do is lie and misrepresent. Phil D
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> David;
>
> You are disagreeing with the FBI.
> The FBI Measured from point A to point B on the back seat of Frazier's car
> where he said the package Laid.
Was the package laying there when they took these measurements?
> The FBI also measured the length of the package Linnie Mae Randall Described
> Oswald carrying.
She indicated her impressions of how the bag was carried, and the FBI
took some measurements of these estimates. These estimates came to
withing 8 inches of the package found in the TSBD, the length of an
ordinary pencil. Not bad at all, considering the context and
circumstances of her observations.
Bud
Yah, look at who starts most of the posts. CT.
> the very ones who run
> from WCR evidence and testimony
CT are the very worst folks imaginable to be looking at the
evidence/testimony. They can`t accomplish even rudimentary feats of
reasoning.
> > > > Oswald SAID he brought curtain rods. But there is very strong evidence
> > > > that at least some of the shots came from a rifle owned by him and
> > > > found in the Depository. One has to wonder how it got there.
> >
> > Any guesses on this one, David?
>
> why would LHO order a rifle, makes absolutely no sense
You think he could advance his visions of politics with spitballs?
> (and I don't
> care if he's was the shooter or one of multiple shooters
> [read:conspiracy]). Jesse Curry can't put him in that window, how the
> hell can anyone else?
And, If Jesse Curry would have concluded that Oz was in that window
shooting, that would have been enough to convince you of that, eh?
Bud
Phil Ossofee wrote:
> Let's cut to the chase,I see here where Von Kooksucker can't produce a
> witness to a three foot bag?
<snicker> Do you mean out of the hundreds of people who saw this
bag? But, there is a witness who did estimate the bag was three feet
long. Linnie Mae Randle told the FBI the day after the assassination
that the bag she saw was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches".
http://mcadams.mu.edu/randle.txt
> Did Oswald have 3 foot arms as he carried
> the bag into the TSBD down to his knees Koocksucker?
Are you saying the witnesses were mistaken?
> Frazier said it
> was" two feet give or take an inch"
I`ve checked his affidavit, his testimony and his Clay Shaw trial
testimony, and I can`t find him saying this. Where are you quoting
from, Phil?
> that's not close t 35 or 38 inches,
> try and cup a 38 inch packge under your arm while you walk.
Try and put his observations in the right context. Frazier glanced
into his backseat while he was turned to back out of his driveway.
When asked in the Clay Shaw trial how long the rifle (an M14) was that
he carried in the infantry, he said "I believe the correct length is 30
some inches long." The correct length of that rifle is 44 inches long,
and he carried it for over a year, so he had what amounted to more than
a glance to gauge it`s length. Interestingly, when Mr Paine was asked
to estimate the size of the cloth covered object in his garage, he said
it was about 2 feet long also. But when asked to hold his hands apart
to the approximate length he thought it was, that distance measured 37
and a half inches.
> Shut the
> hell up if all you are going to do is lie and misrepresent.
Like you did?
Phil D
Bud
Yah, I noticed you kooks welcomed him with open mouths. If you feel
you need to court recruits, go right ahead. If his timid approach
brings out the mothering instincts in you, you can coddle him. If
Monoxide Child (which sound hippyish, which inicates he is a CT anyway)
decides to join your ranks, it`ll only mean one more barb target. I
don`t see you kooks mourning when Ben drives away a Ken Rahn or Jean
Davison with his insults.
> Regards, Laz
Monoxide Child
sirs...@fast.net says...
Courtesy and a legitimate question = "a timid approach"
Chosen screen handle = "Hippyish which indicates a CT"
<<PLONK>>
Sigh.
Bud might have perfectly good points to score in the ongoing debates but
now I'll never get to see them because of his insulting and trollish
presentation.
That's the way it goes. Maybe someone who is less of a lout can present
the same ideas in a more educated manner than insults and name calling.
aeffects
speculation dudster, fact is, Curry couldn't put him in the 6th floor
TSBD window, let alone, put ANY type of rifle in LHO's hands. You can't
get LHO in the window!
Some of what you do have is, a bag (of disputed length) containing
curtain rods or a rifle of unknown type - disassembled, a bunch of
'good ole boy' rifles in the TSBD a day or two preceding the
assassination, please, add to the list...
Bud
Monoxide Child wrote:
> In article <1155995823.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> sirs...@fast.net says...
> >
> > lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Welcome aboard, Monoxide Child. See how easy it is to weed out the
> > > trolls? A couple of them reared their ugly heads as soon as Ben provided
> > > a civil answer to your question.
> >
> > Yah, I noticed you kooks welcomed him with open mouths. If you feel
> > you need to court recruits, go right ahead. If his timid approach
> > brings out the mothering instincts in you, you can coddle him. If
> > Monoxide Child (which sound hippyish, which inicates he is a CT anyway)
> > decides to join your ranks, it`ll only mean one more barb target. I
> > don`t see you kooks mourning when Ben drives away a Ken Rahn or Jean
> > Davison with his insults.
> >
> >
> > > Regards, Laz
> >
>
> Courtesy and a legitimate question = "a timid approach"
Dipping your toe into a hottub is a timid approach. If you lurked
for a week like you claimed, you`ve seen charges of child molestation
and beastiality thrown around here, yet you still choose to enter. Did
you expect this forum to transform itself to meet your desires?
> Chosen screen handle = "Hippyish which indicates a CT"
You "choose" the handle, so it might speak in some way towards your
personality. It sounds like a handle a tree-hugging hippy might choose
to me, and in my experience, those types are keen to believe there was
a conspiracy to kill JFK.
> <<PLONK>>
Oh, no! A person who I didn`t know existed until yesterday has
killfiled me. How shall I survive?
> Sigh.
>
> Bud might have perfectly good points to score in the ongoing debates
And will deliver them in the manner he sees fit. Like Ben suggested,
try the moderated board if you are too fragile to withstand rough
dialog. Ben set the tone of
nastiness on this board, I`ll be damned if I`ll leave it to him to
decide who gets treated civilly. Let the kooks play suitor for your
affections, and handle your fragile sensibilities with kid gloves. You
sound like Caeruleo to me, and have his "quick to plonk" traits also.
> but
> now I'll never get to see them because of his insulting and trollish
> presentation.
Boo-fucking-hoo.
> That's the way it goes.
You`ve noticed that too?
> Maybe someone who is less of a lout can present
> the same ideas in a more educated manner than insults and name calling.
Well, that will be a problem for you here. Since Ben has run off
all the LN who are willing to discuss the evidence without trading
insults, all that are left are LN who are willing to use insults when
the situation calls for it.
aeffects
Monoxide Child wrote:
> In article <1155995823.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> sirs...@fast.net says...
> >
> > lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Welcome aboard, Monoxide Child. See how easy it is to weed out the
> > > trolls? A couple of them reared their ugly heads as soon as Ben provided
> > > a civil answer to your question.
> >
> > Yah, I noticed you kooks welcomed him with open mouths. If you feel
> > you need to court recruits, go right ahead. If his timid approach
> > brings out the mothering instincts in you, you can coddle him. If
> > Monoxide Child (which sound hippyish, which inicates he is a CT anyway)
> > decides to join your ranks, it`ll only mean one more barb target. I
> > don`t see you kooks mourning when Ben drives away a Ken Rahn or Jean
> > Davison with his insults.
> >
> >
> > > Regards, Laz
> >
>
> Courtesy and a legitimate question = "a timid approach"
> Chosen screen handle = "Hippyish which indicates a CT"
>
> <<PLONK>>
>
> Sigh.
>
> Bud might have perfectly good points to score in the ongoing debates but
> now I'll never get to see them because of his insulting and trollish
> presentation.
well the dudster (Bud) strikes again.... LMAO, I chalk the Dudsters
attitude about the 60's and Hippies in general, etc to: he just didn't
get much action (sex,drugs and rock-n-roll) during those years
[something to do with tin-foil beannies, perhaps?] he's got a deep
seated resentment about that. Also, sever guilt complex about draft
avoidance. If Prez Carter forgave them and Prez Clinton took it in the
shorts [amongst other places] atoned for all of 'em, we vets can
forgive 'em...
> That's the way it goes. Maybe someone who is less of a lout can present
> the same ideas in a more educated manner than insults and name calling.
there's a price for NO moderation, at times name calling is the NICE
thing to do.
Keep your eye on BHolmes, Walt, Laz and about 10 more....they keep the
field level. Even regulars from .johns board sneak over here to read -
post opine/debate on occasion -- I suspect all .john moderated board
regulars visit here, more than they're willing to admit. It was this
board [since-1992] after all that spawned the McAdams board...
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155973580.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> David;
>>
>> You are disagreeing with the FBI.
>> The FBI Measured from point A to point B on the back seat of Frazier's
>> car
>> where he said the package Laid.
> Was the package laying there when they took these measurements?
>
>> The FBI also measured the length of the package Linnie Mae Randall
>> Described
>> Oswald carrying.
>
> She indicated her impressions of how the bag was carried, and the FBI
> took some measurements of these estimates. These estimates came to
> withing 8 inches of the package found in the TSBD, the length of an
> ordinary pencil. Not bad at all, considering the context and
> circumstances of her observations.
Haha, NOW the FBI don't know how to read a Ruler?
==========================================================================
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1155989277.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
========================================================================
> CT are the very worst folks imaginable to be looking at the
> evidence/testimony. They can`t accomplish even rudimentary feats of
> reasoning.
http://whokilledjfk.net/
=======================================================================
tomnln
Leaving the EASY cannon fodder like you to be Sacrificed.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1155995823.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Rooms, Social Issues & Politics.
Then select Government & Politics.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
"Monoxide Child" <ch...@cough.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f50e4d31...@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
Jordan
Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Yes... they did. Surprising no-one... the DPD had them.
>
> And a photo taken on *Saturday* shows a handyman hanging curtains in Oswald's
> apartment... devastating the long-held LNT'er factoid that Oswald would not have
> even needed curtain rods.
Right. And Oswald _couldn't_ have hidden a rifle in the curtain rods
bag, because the virtuous curtain rods would no doubt have leaped on
the rifle and beaten it into inaccuracy out of loyalty to America.
- Jordan
Jordan
Monoxide Child wrote:
> In article <1155938364....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> cdddra...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > The curtain rods showed up exactely where they where
> > supposed to be , back at LHO rooming house . CBS has films of it that
> > day , on friday .
>
There were multiple curtain rods. LHO's curtain rods were switched
with curtain rods purchased by Cuban exiles from a Mafia-front home
supply shop. There is a blurry photo taken by someone who might have
heard of Dealey Plaza which shows something shaped suspiciously like a
curtain rod. Trust no one! Watch the skies!
- Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Bud wrote:
> So, you think Oz ordered the hanging of those curtain rods on
> Saturday, do you?
LHO didn't hang any curtain rods. CIA-trained decorators hung the
curtain rods and Cuban exile snipers used the curtains to hide behind
when twenty of them accompanied by a marching band shot JFK, Tippet,
Teddy (he was too drunk to realize he was shot) and a little red-haired
girl (Charlie Brown was very sad).
- Jordan
Bud
Seems to me that you`ve paid too high a price in brain cells for all
that "action".
> [something to do with tin-foil beannies, perhaps?] he's got a deep
> seated resentment about that. Also, sever guilt complex about draft
> avoidance.
Your war ended before I was of age for the draft.
> If Prez Carter forgave them and Prez Clinton took it in the
> shorts [amongst other places] atoned for all of 'em, we vets can
> forgive 'em...
>
> > That's the way it goes. Maybe someone who is less of a lout can present
> > the same ideas in a more educated manner than insults and name calling.
>
> there's a price for NO moderation, at times name calling is the NICE
> thing to do.
>
> Keep your eye on BHolmes, Walt, Laz and about 10 more....they keep the
> field level.
Of course, to Healy a sliding board seems level.
> Even regulars from .johns board sneak over here to read -
> post opine/debate on occasion -- I suspect all .john moderated board
> regulars visit here, more than they're willing to admit. It was this
> board [since-1992]
Slogan: Serving you Paranoid Kook Needs Since `92
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:1155988373.3...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > tomnln wrote:
> >> David;
> >>
> >> You are disagreeing with the FBI.
> >> The FBI Measured from point A to point B on the back seat of Frazier's
> >> car
> >> where he said the package Laid.
> ========================================================================
> > Was the package laying there when they took these measurements?
> >
> >> The FBI also measured the length of the package Linnie Mae Randall
> >> Described
> >> Oswald carrying.
> >
> > She indicated her impressions of how the bag was carried, and the FBI
> > took some measurements of these estimates. These estimates came to
> > withing 8 inches of the package found in the TSBD, the length of an
> > ordinary pencil. Not bad at all, considering the context and
> > circumstances of her observations.
>
> Haha, NOW the FBI don't know how to read a Ruler?
Haha, you think the witnesses had a ruler?
Jordan
cdddraftsman wrote:
> No one was staring at LHO menacing looking curtain rods that day ,
> knowing he was going to assassinate the president , so there just
> guessing from a hazy memory , of the few seconds they noticed it .
Indeed. The thing that utterly amazes me about this whole thread is
that _anyone_ believes that witnesses are going to reliably estimate
the size of a package that they glimpsed someone carrying hours
earlier, at a time when they had absolutely no reason to believe that
the package contained a deadly weapon.
Imagine that you were one of Lee Harvey Oswald's co-workers. You see
him carrying a long package. Now, remember, you don't know that the
guy is a violent homicidal maniac. As far as you know he's this quiet,
slightly weird guy who helps your crew move packages of books in the
warehouse.
Chances are that you don't care enough about the package to even
inquire as to its contents. You certainly aren't going to record its
dimensions in your memory, beyond "long and narrow."
But say that you actually _are_ curious and you ask LHO: "What's that?"
pointing to the package.
"Curtain rods," replies LHO.
Are you honestly telling me that you're going to be suspicous enough
about this that the event will stick in your mind? Say that they _are_
three feet as opposed to two feet long. Why will you care? You don't
know how wide his freaking windows are! You don't CARE how wide his
windows are! You just made casual conversation with a co-worker; you
forget the details over your lunch break.
Was being a pathologically curious and intrusive _interior decorater_ a
requirement for employment at the Texas Book Depository in 1963?
- Jordan
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> The object in amy WAR is to drive away the Generals.
Yah, all the LN generals are in a fortified bunker called
"alt.assassination". Why don`t you kooks go storm the place? All you
need do is refrain from calling anyone cowards and liars, and just
decimate their position. You pussies hide out here, and shake your tiny
fists at the place.
> Leaving the EASY cannon fodder like you to be Sacrificed.
And me without a scratch after all these years.
Bud
that if Curry concluded that Oz was in that window, you would
totally disregard what he had to say. Only that he says something you
agree with makes his statement all you need to know.
> Curry couldn't put him in the 6th floor
> TSBD window, let alone, put ANY type of rifle in LHO's hands. You can't
> get LHO in the window!
You mean besides the witness who saw him there, and his prints all
over that area.
> Some of what you do have is, a bag (of disputed length)
No, they measured the bag.
> containing
> curtain rods or a rifle of unknown type -
Oswald`s work. Oswald`s bag. Oswald`s rifle. Oswald`s prints.
> disassembled, a bunch of
> 'good ole boy' rifles in the TSBD a day or two preceding the
> assassination, please, add to the list...
What do all the rifles in Dallas that weren`t used in the
assassination have to do with anything?
David VP
Wes Frazier, in late 1986, testified (under oath) at the Mock Oswald
Trial, and he said he had hardly paid any attention to the bag or the
way Oswald carried it. Yes, he testified about the "under the armpit"
thing. But when pressed by Vince Bugliosi in 1986......
BUGLIOSI -- "The bag could therefore have very well extended beyond his
{Oswald's} shoulder and you would not have been able to see it or
notice it, is that correct?" (Paraphrased VB quote.)
FRAZIER -- "Yes, that is correct."
~~~~~~~~~~
Still awaiting that logical CT alternate explanation for that bag (with
LHO's palmprint on it) being where it was on 11/22. I doubt that such
an explanation will be arriving at my doorstep (or anybody else's) this
month....or this decade.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
aeffects
even the Dudster makes this place his home away from home...
> > after all that spawned the McAdams board...e
aeffects
Jordan wrote:
> cdddraftsman wrote:
> > No one was staring at LHO menacing looking curtain rods that day ,
> > knowing he was going to assassinate the president , so there just
> > guessing from a hazy memory , of the few seconds they noticed it .
>
> Indeed. The thing that utterly amazes me about this whole thread is
> that _anyone_ believes that witnesses are going to reliably estimate
> the size of a package that they glimpsed someone carrying hours
> earlier, at a time when they had absolutely no reason to believe that
> the package contained a deadly weapon.
Well Jordan -- there you go, now all you have to do, is look it up in
the WC documents. You see champ, in order to shot someone with a rifle
from the 6th floor of the TSBD, FIRST you gotta get the rifle in the
building. Somebody has to see that, those that did are asked certain
specific questions... catch the drift?
> Imagine that you were one of Lee Harvey Oswald's co-workers. You see
> him carrying a long package. Now, remember, you don't know that the
> guy is a violent homicidal maniac. As far as you know he's this quiet,
> slightly weird guy who helps your crew move packages of books in the
> warehouse.
Imagine you drove the guy to work that morning... he dropped the
package in the backseat of your car, arriving at work and parking the
car you both head to the office together, he carrying the package...
> Chances are that you don't care enough about the package to even
> inquire as to its contents. You certainly aren't going to record its
> dimensions in your memory, beyond "long and narrow."
>
> But say that you actually _are_ curious and you ask LHO: "What's that?"
> pointing to the package.
>
> "Curtain rods," replies LHO.
>
> Are you honestly telling me that you're going to be suspicous enough
> about this that the event will stick in your mind?
After the President of the United States is murdered form a window in
the building you work in, somebody is going to ask the question,
"anyone see a rifle in the building...?" No rifle, but, that Oswald
guy, he brought in a package said to be curtain rods this morning --
that help?" ...
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > No one was staring at LHO menacing looking curtain rods that day ,
> > > knowing he was going to assassinate the president , so there just
> > > guessing from a hazy memory , of the few seconds they noticed it .
> >
> > Indeed. The thing that utterly amazes me about this whole thread is
> > that _anyone_ believes that witnesses are going to reliably estimate
> > the size of a package that they glimpsed someone carrying hours
> > earlier, at a time when they had absolutely no reason to believe that
> > the package contained a deadly weapon.
>
> Well Jordan -- there you go, now all you have to do, is look it up in
> the WC documents. You see champ, in order to shot someone with a rifle
> from the 6th floor of the TSBD, FIRST you gotta get the rifle in the
> building.
Luckily, we have witnesses to his carrying a long, paper covered
object into work that very day.
> Somebody has to see that, those that did are asked certain
> specific questions... catch the drift?
And then kooks read this information, and take it out of context,
misrepresent it, and otherwise mangle it beyong recognition.
> > Imagine that you were one of Lee Harvey Oswald's co-workers. You see
> > him carrying a long package. Now, remember, you don't know that the
> > guy is a violent homicidal maniac. As far as you know he's this quiet,
> > slightly weird guy who helps your crew move packages of books in the
> > warehouse.
>
>
> Imagine you drove the guy to work that morning... he dropped the
> package in the backseat of your car,
Frazier didn`t see this. Are you sure you read those "WC documents"?
> arriving at work and parking the
> car you both head to the office together,
Did they really walk together? Better check those "WC documents"
again.
> he carrying the package...
Oz is carrying the package in front of him, while Frazier walks
some distance behind him. Oz`s body blocks almost all of the package
from Frazier`s sight. Check those documents.
> > Chances are that you don't care enough about the package to even
> > inquire as to its contents. You certainly aren't going to record its
> > dimensions in your memory, beyond "long and narrow."
> >
> > But say that you actually _are_ curious and you ask LHO: "What's that?"
> > pointing to the package.
> >
> > "Curtain rods," replies LHO.
> >
> > Are you honestly telling me that you're going to be suspicous enough
> > about this that the event will stick in your mind?
>
> After the President of the United States is murdered form a window in
> the building you work in, somebody is going to ask the question,
> "anyone see a rifle in the building...?" No rifle, but, that Oswald
> guy, he brought in a package said to be curtain rods this morning --
> that help?" ...
Will this realization necessarily sharpen the details of the event?
Or, will trying hard to bring to mind these specific details actually
skew information? By the witness trying to be helpful, and bringing
forth impressions instead of clearly recalled observations.
Bud
>
>
> even the Dudster makes this place his home away from home...
<snicker> It is, after all, The House of Bud.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>> Yes... they did. Surprising no-one... the DPD had them.
>>
>> And a photo taken on *Saturday* shows a handyman hanging curtains in
>> Oswald's apartment... devastating the long-held LNT'er factoid that
>> Oswald would not have even needed curtain rods.
>
>Right.
Good of you to admit it.
>And Oswald _couldn't_ have hidden a rifle in the curtain rods
>bag, because the virtuous curtain rods would no doubt have leaped on
>the rifle and beaten it into inaccuracy out of loyalty to America.
>
>- Jordan
Ah! Another clown... plonk!
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>Monoxide Child wrote:
>> In article <1155995823.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> sirs...@fast.net says...
>> >
>> > lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> > > Welcome aboard, Monoxide Child. See how easy it is to weed out the
>> > > trolls? A couple of them reared their ugly heads as soon as Ben provided
>> > > a civil answer to your question.
>> >
>> > Yah, I noticed you kooks welcomed him with open mouths. If you feel
>> > you need to court recruits, go right ahead. If his timid approach
>> > brings out the mothering instincts in you, you can coddle him. If
>> > Monoxide Child (which sound hippyish, which inicates he is a CT anyway)
>> > decides to join your ranks, it`ll only mean one more barb target. I
>> > don`t see you kooks mourning when Ben drives away a Ken Rahn or Jean
>> > Davison with his insults.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Regards, Laz
>> >
>>
>> Courtesy and a legitimate question = "a timid approach"
>> Chosen screen handle = "Hippyish which indicates a CT"
>>
>> <<PLONK>>
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Bud might have perfectly good points to score in the ongoing debates but
>> now I'll never get to see them because of his insulting and trollish
>> presentation.
Yep... Bud actually occasionally presents good arguments. Unfortunately, his
non-serious and clownish aspects overshadow what good he could do for the LNT'er
side. He's a sort of "Tom Lowry Lite".
>well the dudster (Bud) strikes again.... LMAO, I chalk the Dudsters
>attitude about the 60's and Hippies in general, etc to: he just didn't
>get much action (sex,drugs and rock-n-roll) during those years
>[something to do with tin-foil beannies, perhaps?] he's got a deep
>seated resentment about that. Also, sever guilt complex about draft
>avoidance. If Prez Carter forgave them and Prez Clinton took it in the
>shorts [amongst other places] atoned for all of 'em, we vets can
>forgive 'em...
>
>> That's the way it goes. Maybe someone who is less of a lout can present
>> the same ideas in a more educated manner than insults and name calling.
>
>there's a price for NO moderation, at times name calling is the NICE
>thing to do.
I confess to doing it often. I will *immediately* label a liar for being a
liar, and a coward for those who refuse to support their own words.
>Keep your eye on BHolmes, Walt, Laz and about 10 more....they keep the
>field level.
I *always* read Don Willis, he always has good material. Robert Harris, Vincent
Palamera (posting as 'SecretServiceguy'), and Gary Aguilar immediately come to
mind... I'm sure I'm missing several others...
>Even regulars from .johns board sneak over here to read -
>post opine/debate on occasion -- I suspect all .john moderated board
>regulars visit here, more than they're willing to admit. It was this
>board [since-1992] after all that spawned the McAdams board...
They usually can't stick around... since in order to discuss the evidence they
end up on the short end of the stick.
tomnln
I sald the FBI measured it .
Pay the $2.00 Stupid.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1156012002.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
That's WHY McAdams refuses to come into my Live audio Chat Room along with
yourself.
That's Why McAdams sent me a VIRUS. Proven here>>>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1156012735....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156011338.4...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bud
<snicker> The kooks think that the ridiculous things they believe
shouldn`t be ridiculed.
Bud
I don`t suppose the reality of this event changes much with my
approach to it. And I really don`t expect to do the LNT "side" any good
here regardless. Every investigation into this event has found Oswald
solely responsible for the wounds sustained by the occupants of the
limo. It is really of no consequence if kooks in newsgroups find fault
with those findings.
> He's a sort of "Tom Lowry Lite".
>
>
> >well the dudster (Bud) strikes again.... LMAO, I chalk the Dudsters
> >attitude about the 60's and Hippies in general, etc to: he just didn't
> >get much action (sex,drugs and rock-n-roll) during those years
> >[something to do with tin-foil beannies, perhaps?] he's got a deep
> >seated resentment about that. Also, sever guilt complex about draft
> >avoidance. If Prez Carter forgave them and Prez Clinton took it in the
> >shorts [amongst other places] atoned for all of 'em, we vets can
> >forgive 'em...
> >
> >> That's the way it goes. Maybe someone who is less of a lout can present
> >> the same ideas in a more educated manner than insults and name calling.
> >
> >there's a price for NO moderation, at times name calling is the NICE
> >thing to do.
>
>
> I confess to doing it often. I will *immediately* label a liar for being a
> liar, and a coward for those who refuse to support their own words.
And I`ll call kooks "kooks". They identify themselves by their
idiotic beliefs.
> >Keep your eye on BHolmes, Walt, Laz and about 10 more....they keep the
> >field level.
>
> I *always* read Don Willis, he always has good material.
Weaving common hay into conspiracy gold.
> Robert Harris, Vincent
> Palamera (posting as 'SecretServiceguy'), and Gary Aguilar immediately come to
> mind... I'm sure I'm missing several others...
Tomnln, Sam, Charles Wallace, Curt Jester. The lunatic fringe of the
lunatic fringe.
> >Even regulars from .johns board sneak over here to read -
> >post opine/debate on occasion -- I suspect all .john moderated board
> >regulars visit here, more than they're willing to admit. It was this
> >board [since-1992] after all that spawned the McAdams board...
>
> They usually can't stick around... since in order to discuss the evidence they
> end up on the short end of the stick.
Or they realize that no benefit can be had from holding discussions
with kooks.
Jordan
aeffects wrote:
> Jordan wrote:
> > Chances are that you don't care enough about the package to even
> > inquire as to its contents. You certainly aren't going to record its
> > dimensions in your memory, beyond "long and narrow."
> >
> > But say that you actually _are_ curious and you ask LHO: "What's that?"
> > pointing to the package.
> >
> > "Curtain rods," replies LHO.
> >
> > Are you honestly telling me that you're going to be suspicous enough
> > about this that the event will stick in your mind?
>
> After the President of the United States is murdered form a window in
> the building you work in, somebody is going to ask the question,
> "anyone see a rifle in the building...?" No rifle, but, that Oswald
> guy, he brought in a package said to be curtain rods this morning --
> that help?" ...
Ah, but human memory doesn't work like this. You only memorize
something accurately if you pay close attention to it, and you only pay
close attention to it if you have some warning that it is going to be
important.
When you try to remember something that you didn't memorize accurately
in the first place, your mind will try to "fill in" the missing details
and will present you with a _false_ memory of the events. The degree
of falsity depens upon the extent to which you lacked warning that the
events you were witnessing would be important ones.
Unless the witness had _eidetic_ memory (look that one up!) the chance
that he or she would remember the _exact length of the bag which
contained "curtain rods"_ is very, very unlikely. And I don't care how
many times the witness was asked the question, or how many copies were
made of his or her answers. Someone can't remember something they
never memorized in the first place.
No matter how important the detail might turn out to be in retrospect.
- Jordan
Jordan
Bud wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
>
> > After the President of the United States is murdered form a window in
> > the building you work in, somebody is going to ask the question,
> > "anyone see a rifle in the building...?" No rifle, but, that Oswald
> > guy, he brought in a package said to be curtain rods this morning --
> > that help?" ...
>
> Will this realization necessarily sharpen the details of the event?
> Or, will trying hard to bring to mind these specific details actually
> skew information? By the witness trying to be helpful, and bringing
> forth impressions instead of clearly recalled observations.
That's exactly my point. Being questioned by determined interrogators
regarding a matter that you _wish_ you could remember better (because
you sympathize with the goals of the interrogators) is a near-perfect
prescription for creating a false memory. Your mind will make up the
details that you don't really know.
_In hindsight_ the detailed actions of Lee Harvey Oswald on November
23rd, 1963 and the days leading up to the assassination were of great
significances. But the people who witnessed them, _before_ the
assassination, did not realize what they were seeing. So they paid
little attention to them, and hence had only vague recollections of
them later on.
That's simply how memory works. And it makes the obsessive concern of
the Conspiracy Theorists on each and every detail absurd. You could
"disprove" any historical event you wanted, by being selective about
which eyewitness reports you chose to credit or discredit.
- Jordan
aeffects
you think one'd remember a bag length if one end of the package was
tucked in ones armpit, the other end cupped in the hand of a fully
extended arm...?
I think what we have here, is another one of those knuckle dragg'in,
Lone Neuter, poor eyewitness memory wuzz theorist...
I yearn for the good ole days, you know, before Dave Reitzes got
interested in Music and Bob Vernon...
Monoxide Child
aeff...@hotmail.com says...
BOTTOM POST (because most others are doing this and it's not a bad idea)
My poor topic. All I asked was if the curtain rods, like the paper bag
they were reputedly transported in, ever showed up. Never meant to
start a fight. :) Although there are at least three posters on this
board who are taking umbrage with my very existence, and I'm still not
sure why. *looks in the mirror and doesn't see a "liberal dope-fiend"
anywhere*
I have a few questions about the Zapruder film's authenticity, but I may
hold up on those for a while until my queries are not so controversial.
:)
Walt
black...@aol.com wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > black...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Monoxide Child wrote:
> Many people here think they know all the answers and others are
> morons.
>
> Several people misunderstood this due to my poor phraseology. This is
> how I meant it, but left a couple of words out:
>
> "Many people here think they know all the answers and THINK THAT others
> are
> morons."
>
> I wasn't calling anyone a moron. I was lamenting that others do.
>
> >
> > is all askew, and vertical interval is whacked out --
>
> Gotta LOVE that TV in-talk! My bro!
> Let me ingest that answer on my Media Drive and render it (red line).
>
> > answers and they just don't jibe with the Lone Nutter's [for the
> > obvious reasons].
>
> Note that I didn't single out any group. I think the combatants on both
> sides get excessive in this group.
>
> >
> > person was also directed to John McAdams house of ill repute to get the
> > Lone Nutter viewpoint/take of things. I'd say thats down right
> > hospitable...
>
> Well, there WAS some smarmy know-it-all language in this thread.
>
> >
> > welcome here....
>
> You kidding? Even the thread names are insults.
>
> > > that at least some of the shots came from a rifle owned by him and
> > > found in the Depository. One has to wonder how it got there.
But there is very strong evidence that at least some of the shots came
from a rifle owned by him and found in the Depository.
Very well.... State the VERIFIABLE evidence that Oswald OWNED the
rifle that was found in the TSBD.
State the VERIFIABLE evidence that PROVES that the TSBD rifle was fired
that day.
Walt
black...@aol.com
Walt wrote:
> black...@aol.com wrote:
> But there is very strong evidence that at least some of the shots came
> from a rifle owned by him and found in the Depository.
>
> Very well.... State the VERIFIABLE evidence that Oswald OWNED the
> rifle that was found in the TSBD.
>
> State the VERIFIABLE evidence that PROVES that the TSBD rifle was fired
> that day.
How about that he owned a rifle of that type, and the serial number
(although possibly not unique) matched?
What other option is there? That somebody planted a rifle with the same
serial number as the one Oswald ordered? How likely is that?
Ben Holmes
Child says...
Let's see... "liberal dope-fiend"... that must be Grizzlie. I've plonked the
clowns, but I still remember their characteristics...
>I have a few questions about the Zapruder film's authenticity, but I may
>hold up on those for a while until my queries are not so controversial.
>:)
A newsgroup dedicated to exploring the conspiracy that took the life of a
president will always attract those who can't examine the evidence.
This newsgroup *does* examine the evidence. Feel free to jump in with questions
anytime, and CT'ers will answer it, and point you to evidence and citations, and
LNT'ers .... well, you be the judge.
curtj...@webtv.net
It's like all topics here as rehashed as they are, you lift the rug to
shake it a little and the dust flies everywhere! It's important to me
to just realize above all that it's a murder case, a very interesting
one, and one should go about it as that and leave as much personality
out of it as possible. Everyone that has been around here awhile knows
that the LNT mindset is one of that can't get a real job, so they have
to sell their soul to their CIA gods, so they can get a stipend to
parasite these types of groups...-). Other than that, it's just a
typical newgroup.
> I have a few questions about the Zapruder film's authenticity, but I may
> hold up on those for a while until my queries are not so controversial.
> :)
That's good, just pick something that interests you. I don't like too
much camera technology or guns or medical jargon for that matter, so I
pick on more entertaining and logic-orientated stuff. There is a lot
of free reading if you know where to go on the internet.
CJ
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
"Monoxide Child" <ch...@cough.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f53a823b...@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
tomnln
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156178967.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Monoxide Child
Haven't met that gentleman yet. The one I am thinking of was busy
trying to psychoanalyze my screen name while reading me the gospel of
missing curtain rods, none of which was cited. It read more like a
scolding lecture. When he started jumping to conclusions about me ...
all stunningly wrong ... I pulled the plug on him.
>
> >I have a few questions about the Zapruder film's authenticity, but I may
> >hold up on those for a while until my queries are not so controversial.
> >:)
>
> A newsgroup dedicated to exploring the conspiracy that took the life of a
> president will always attract those who can't examine the evidence.
>
> This newsgroup *does* examine the evidence. Feel free to jump in with questions
> anytime, and CT'ers will answer it, and point you to evidence and citations, and
> LNT'ers .... well, you be the judge.
Sadly, my negative run-ins have all been with "LN" folks and I'm not
sure why, I've only asked two questions...were curtain rods ever found,
and are we sure we can time events from the Zapruder film. Evidently
this slam-dunks me into the "CT kook" category. The only reason I
killfiled those folk was not because of their logic or beliefs, but that
all of them were incredibly rude or sarcastic. Not a good way at all to
be persuasive in a debate.
But then again, this is an alt group, so I guess anything goes. Thanks
for the reply.
Monoxide Child
curtj...@webtv.net says...
Thank you. I'm learning, and all those links whether pro-CT or pro-LN
are helpful in their own ways.
I homed in on the camera topics because I'm more at home with that. Far
less secure with medical jargon myself. And I do like following logic
oriented discussion, at least up to the point just before it explodes in
a big hailstorm of flames which goes nowhere.
Monoxide Child
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Monoxide Child
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> Top Post
>
> you think one'd remember a bag length
You would think. You are a kook. Your thinking capabilities are
taxed trying to properly capitalize sentences.
> if one end of the package was
> tucked in ones armpit, the other end cupped in the hand of a fully
> extended arm...?
Have you read his testimony? Any idea of the context of his
observations? Frazier took a glance in the backseat as he backed down
his driveway. When they reached the TSBD, he sat in his car running the
engine a while, as Oz waited. As soon as Frazier exitted his car, Oz
turned and headed towards the TSBD with the package in front of him.
That is the extent of his observations. He said many times he didn`t
pay attention to the bag. He didn`t give it any thought, didn`t pay
attention to it, and only caught glimpses of it. And Fraziers said that
he assumed the package ended under his armpit because he couldn`t
imagine it any other way. Obviously, this is a not an actual
observation.
> I think what we have here, is another one of those knuckle dragg'in,
> Lone Neuter, poor eyewitness memory wuzz theorist...
Look into the context of both Frazier and Randle`s observations.
That might give you some insight into their reliability, but I wouldn`t
expect it.
> I yearn for the good ole days, you know, before Dave Reitzes got
> interested in Music and Bob Vernon...
Did they leave reality out when weighing of information? Does
Jordan`s viewing the information available in a realistic manner
distress you?
Walt
black...@aol.com wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > black...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > But there is very strong evidence that at least some of the shots came
> > from a rifle owned by him and found in the Depository.
> >
> > Very well.... State the VERIFIABLE evidence that Oswald OWNED the
> > rifle that was found in the TSBD.
> >
> > State the VERIFIABLE evidence that PROVES that the TSBD rifle was fired
> > that day.
>
> How about that he owned a rifle of that type, and the serial number
> (although possibly not unique) matched?
That's not true.... He "MAY??" have ordered a rifle from Kleins but
I'm not convinced that he "OWNED" that rifle. There simply isn't any
proof that he "OWNED" the Carcano with the serial # C2766. On the
other hand there IS photographic evidence that the Carcano # C2766 is
NOT ...NOT the rifle he is holding in CE 133A.
The sling swivels are mounted differently on the two rifles. The model
91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifles were manufactured with two types
of sling mounts. One version had the sling on the SIDE of the rifle (
European military style) while the other ( rarer ) version had a dual
swivel which allowed the user to mount the sling either on the side or
the BOTTOM of the rifle. The rifle Oswald is holding in CE 133A has
the rare dual sling mounts, while the rifle that was found in the TSBD
has the single side mount.
CE 133B & c are fakes so it is impossible to compare the rifles between
the photos.
C2766 was mailed to a P.O. Box in Dallas, but there is no record of
it's delivery.
>
> What other option is there? That somebody planted a rifle with the same
> serial number as the one Oswald ordered? How likely is that?
The people who planned to murder JFK were ruthless.... They had the
motive ,means and opportunity.... They also knew that they could
control any investigation. So what's so difficult to believe about
planting evidence?? We KNOW... KNOW...they fabricated evidence where
necessary and destoyed evidence as necessary....so do you think
planting evidence was a big hurtle for them??
Walt
Bud
GA hasn`t posted to this thread. That was Lowry, I believe.
> >I have a few questions about the Zapruder film's authenticity, but I may
> >hold up on those for a while until my queries are not so controversial.
> >:)
>
> A newsgroup dedicated to exploring the conspiracy that took the life of a
> president will always attract those who can't examine the evidence.
Otherwise known as CT.
> This newsgroup *does* examine the evidence.
These kooks shouldn`t be trusted examining navel lint.
> Feel free to jump in with questions
> anytime, and CT'ers will answer it, and point you to evidence and citations,
Ask him for cites of all the testimony of people who said they saw Oz
shooting people that day. I`m sure they`ll be glad to point you to them
without attempting to put kook spin on such testimony.
> and
> LNT'ers .... well, you be the judge.
If conspiracy is the truth, why do the CT tell so many lies to
support it?
lazu...@webtv.net
allegedly owned by LHO, with three shell cases found on the floor of the
SN (after Capt. Fritz had picked up some hulls and pocketed them
briefly, retaining one for "study"). So, the basic ballistic evidence is
tainted right from the start.
There is no proof that any bullets were fired from the MC that day. They
didn't even test the rifle to see if it had been fired that day. What's
more, the DPD, upon discovering said rifle didn't even conduct the basic
"smell test" to see if the rifle had been fired recently. The gunpowder
smell should have lingered long past the time of its discovery.
Is this jst incredibly incompetent police work, or something else?
As a result, some other rifle could have done whatever limited shooting
took place from the TSBD, and no one would be the wiser.
Bud
The pictures of him holding it that his wife took.
> State the VERIFIABLE evidence that PROVES that the TSBD rifle was fired
> that day.
That bullet fragments fired from it where found where wounds started
appearing on previously unwounded people.
black...@aol.com
The evidence that the MC was used in the assassination is stronger than
the evidence that another rifle was used in that building. Maybe not
conclusive, but there is no counter theory with equal or greater
evidence.
David VP
But CE133A is NOT a "fake" of some sort. Right, Mr. Kook?
This kind of logic has always fascinated me --- i.e., Marina took ONE
picture that IS "real", per even the kooks .... and yet (for some
reason known only to the plotters, and maybe a Super-Kook) these
Patsy-Framers feel the need to start faking ADDITIONAL pictures showing
exactly the same thing!
Why?? Just....why??
Kook Logic at its finest there.
Bud
We`re a surly bunch who don`t suffer fools gladly. Why do you think
we`re here, instead of some place where reasonable people think
reasonable thoughts?
> I've only asked two questions...were curtain rods ever found,
What did you conclude? Ben says they were found, is that good enough
for you?
> and are we sure we can time events from the Zapruder film. Evidently
> this slam-dunks me into the "CT kook" category. The only reason I
> killfiled those folk was not because of their logic or beliefs, but that
> all of them were incredibly rude or sarcastic. Not a good way at all to
> be persuasive in a debate.
I wasn`t trying to be persausive, I was trying to be insulting. I
hate the jerkoffs that come here looking to be courted. The kooks can
care about what you think, I don`t. The answers to those two questions
can be found in seconds with a google search, without subjecting
yourself to the risk of rudeness or sarcasm.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Well, we have a rifle found on the 6th floor of dubious origin,
> allegedly owned by LHO, with three shell cases found on the floor of the
> SN (after Capt. Fritz had picked up some hulls and pocketed them
> briefly, retaining one for "study"). So, the basic ballistic evidence is
> tainted right from the start.
<snicker> For people who claim to be trying to honestly get to the
bottom of this, they sure are eager to throw out evidence. Why is there
any reason to believe that a Dallas Police captain did anything
underhanded regarding this evidence. This is an extraordinary
possibility, you must have extraordinary reasons to consider this a
possibility. What are they?
> There is no proof that any bullets were fired from the MC that day.
Other than the fragments that were shown to have been fired from
that rifle. Throw out all the evidence, kooks, then claim to be after
the truth.
> They
> didn't even test the rifle to see if it had been fired that day. What's
> more, the DPD, upon discovering said rifle didn't even conduct the basic
> "smell test" to see if the rifle had been fired recently. The gunpowder
> smell should have lingered long past the time of its discovery.
> Is this jst incredibly incompetent police work, or something else?
Could they tell a rifle that was fired 15 minutes ago from a rifle
fired an hour ago this way?
> As a result, some other rifle could have done whatever limited shooting
> took place from the TSBD, and no one would be the wiser.
Why imagine another rifle? What`s wrong with the one in evidence?
Tied to your beloved patsy, perhaps?