Shady Goings ' On The Knoll ' ................?
cdddraftsman
It's one minute after the Assassination of JFK , A DPD Motor
Cycle Officer has dumped his bike at the curb and has rushed up to
the top of the embankment .
He is photographed peering intently not at the grassy knoll but
apparently in the opposite direction :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=40o59jr
Witnesses to the shooting , pedestrians are starting to follow
his trail , some getting off the ground , also run across the street
to see if anything can be seen of a fleeing assassin .
A SS or CIA agent appears and stops the hundred or so people
trying to peer over the grassy knoll fence which spans a good several
dozens of yards .
Whats wrong with this picture ? Is it possible that one person
could hold in check a hundred or more people , who by the photographic
evidence appeared to be doing exactely as they wanted .
Any photo's and there were 500 taken that day , of this
disappearing SS or CIA agent ? I haven't seen any ......have you ?
.........................tl
Baldoni XXV
It could be that they caught a glimpse of Orson Welles when he quickly
exited the scene after the first gunshot. My theory is that Welles
may not have fired the first shot.
Ben Holmes
says...
My theory is that "Baldoni" is as nutty as they come.
aeffects
for a disinfo agent you're pretty damn bad at this -- Mel Ayton should
revise his recruiting practices....
> .........................tl
tomnln
Dallas S S In Charge Forrest Sorrels said S S agebt at rear door od TSBD.
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185900546.2...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
Why would they have to disappear when they can blend, hide, or act as
an authority figure? Do you think it was a big open football field
behind the fence? There were vehicles, lots of them, cars on the
move, tons of railtrack and traincars, parking lots that blended in
with the parking lot behind the fence, and tons of people that could
look like any gunman. How fast do you think it takes to disassemble a
firearm? How long do you think it took for anybody to actually get to
the fence after the shooting? Hint: It took over a minute.
CJ
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's always amusing to read the explainations from the CTs as to why
there is no hard evidence of a shooter on the GK. Did it ever occur to
any of you that there reason there is no hard evidence of a shooter on
the GK is because there was no shooter on the GK.
Ben Holmes
says...
Sadly, it's not what the eyewitnesses say and believe.
LNT'ers must throw *out* virtually *all* of the eyewitnesses that day - because
they don't tell the story that LNT'ers want to hear.
Bud
Bascally, they aren`t good for much except saying how many shots
they heard.
> because
> they don't tell the story that LNT'ers want to hear.
They mostly say the shots originated from one location/direction.
Is that CT theory?
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
My theory is that "Baldoni" is as nutty as they come.
Well, it there's one lying rascal on here who knows about "nuts"
Holmes is that guy!
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why in the world do you NEED hard evidence? Do you ever think that it
is just possible that they might have just got away with it? Why do
you feel compelled to avoid people that said they people toting a
rifle there, saw flashes of light, saw smoke with accompanying
gunfire, saw a rifle under a coat, saw badge flashed to them when the
person had dirty fingernails, saw cars strolling out of the parking
lot, saw people going at a good clip behind the fence after the shots
carrying something, had people ducking between cars in the parking lot
of the GK, a person handing a rifle to another and dismantling it; and
why do you expect most on the police force that had Minuteman
mentality and political leanings who sucked up to their superiors with
the same attitude to even want to look hard for them? Of course, we
do have a little evidence behind the fence where there was no traffic
area. Footprints, hundreds of them in the mud leading to a vehicle
in the parking lot with mudscrapings on the bumper. Then of course
there are just the witnesses who are not wishy washy, but adamant in
hearing shots exactly from there from all over Dealey Plaza.
Your mentality is if they didn't nab them then of course they weren't
there, presto! I am sure I missed a ton of GK descriptions, but I
will let others chime in if they feel the need.
CJ
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's always amusing to read the explainations from the CTs as to why
there is no hard evidence of a shooter on the GK. Did it ever occur
to
any of you that there reason there is no hard evidence of a shooter
on
the GK is because there was no shooter on the GK.
Bigdog, the above quote from you would take logic, something that the
CT's on here don't have.
They would rather defend plastic trees, underground tunnels and people
in sewer drains then admit they are wrong. It's ok, it just makes them
look like even bigger kooks.
justme
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is a fact. Look at Altgens 255. Look on the steps of the TSBD.
James Worrell is looking up at the SN with neck stretched completely
back. Don't mind that he heard four shots with a lot of rifle
sighting. The guy next to him is Bill Lovelady. When asked where the
shots came from, he stated from that thing on the Knoll over there.
It's called testimony and not theory.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like one possibility is equal to 'the answer' is equal to 'logic'.
Your justkillingJustUs!
CJ
bigdog
Of course, if no hard evidence is required, that frees one up to
postulate just about anything that seems interensting to them. I'm
going with the theory that a Martian flying saucer swooped down into
Dealey Plaza , blasted JFK, then zoomed off into space. They had their
cloaking shields on so no one on the ground could see them. They got
wind of JFK's grandiose plans for space exploration and the last thing
they wanted was a bunch of Earthlings moving to their planet and
taking down their property values. Prove me wrong. I've got as much
hard evidence for my theory as you do for your boring, worn out tale
of a shooter on the grassy knoll. And mine would make a better movie.
bigdog
> In article <1185919566.345925.27...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Most of the witnesses fall into one of two camps, those that heard 3
shots all coming from the GK and those that heard 3 shots all coming
from the TSBD. Since none of them heard shots from both places, we
know that at least one group must be wrong about where they heard the
shots coming from. In order for both groups to be right about what
they heard, we have to believe there were 6 shots, 3 from each
location, the GK witnesses could not hear the 3 shots from the TSBD,
and the TSBD witnesses could not hear the 3 shots from the GK. Unless
you want to accept that proposition, both groups cannot be right so
the question is not if we are going to throw out one group's
obvservations but. So which group do we accept and which do we dismiss
as being wrong. The testimony of those who heard shots from TSBD is
corroborated by eyewitnesses who actually saw a rifle being fired from
the TSBD and were able to point to the exact window where later 3
spent shells would be found. A rifle also was found on that floor
which was positively matched to both the spent shells and the only two
bullets recovered. The testimony of those who thought they heard shots
coming from the grassy knoll is corroborated by.....ZIP!!!
Ben Holmes
says...
>> > >there is no hard evidence of a shooter on the GK. Did it ever occur to
>> > >any of you that there reason there is no hard evidence of a shooter on
>> > >the GK is because there was no shooter on the GK.
>>
>> > Sadly, it's not what the eyewitnesses say and believe.
>>
>> > LNT'ers must throw *out* virtually *all* of the eyewitnesses that day -
>>
>> Bascally, they aren`t good for much except saying how many shots
>> they heard.
And trolls can't figure out why they're killfiled.
Amusingly, I'm doing to trolls what *they* do to the evidence.
>> > because
>> > they don't tell the story that LNT'ers want to hear.
>>
>> They mostly say the shots originated from one location/direction.
Untrue.
>> Is that CT theory?
>
>Here is a fact. Look at Altgens 255. Look on the steps of the TSBD.
>James Worrell is looking up at the SN with neck stretched completely
>back. Don't mind that he heard four shots with a lot of rifle
>sighting. The guy next to him is Bill Lovelady. When asked where the
>shots came from, he stated from that thing on the Knoll over there.
>It's called testimony and not theory.
>
>CJ
You can't feed the trolls facts... they don't know what they are.
David Von Pein
>>> "David Healy thinks a mysterious Abe Zapruder "double" fake-filmed the whole assassination." <<<
Yes....even though Zapruder HIMSELF told the world on LIVE TELEVISION
within 2 hours of the shooting that he, himself (Abraham Z.), filmed
the motorcade from "one of those concrete blocks they have down there
by the Underpass". (And he confirmed there was a "girl from my office
standing behind me" as he filmed.)
But that's not good enough for Healy, or for Jack "I NEVER SAW A FILM/
PHOTO THAT DIDN'T LOOK FUNNY TO ME" White.
I guess Mr. Zapruder HIMSELF must've been in on the plot re. his
"faked" and "wholly fabricated" (per Fetzer's silly Hoax book) 26-
second motion picture.
Or: Maybe Zapruder was "replaced" by some alien force on the "concrete
block" in Dealey Plaza. It was possibly a "phony" Abe Zapruder we saw
talking to Jay Watson on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63!
But, then too, the plotters (per many a-CTer) were smart enough to
find a wide assortment of perfect "Oswald Look-alikes" to perform a
variety of jobs on and before November 22nd. So why not "Zapruder
Imposters" too?
Look into that Healy. It's worth investigating. (Especially if you're
a Super-Kook. And Mr. Healy certainly qualifies under that moniker.)
=======================
IS THIS ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER? OR JUST A WANNABE ABE? FIND OUT....ON THE
NEXT "MONTEL"!.....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zap.gif
=======================
Ben Holmes
>
>Most of the witnesses fall into one of two camps, those that heard 3
>shots all coming from the GK and those that heard 3 shots all coming
>from the TSBD. Since none of them heard shots from both places,
Untrue.
>we
>know that at least one group must be wrong about where they heard the
>shots coming from.
Start with a falsehood, you end *up* with silliness.
Will you have the honesty to admit your error?
>In order for both groups to be right about what
>they heard, we have to believe there were 6 shots, 3 from each
>location, the GK witnesses could not hear the 3 shots from the TSBD,
>and the TSBD witnesses could not hear the 3 shots from the GK.
You've never been around much shooting, have you?
>Unless
>you want to accept that proposition,
Why would you want to accept a strawman?
>both groups cannot be right so
>the question is not if we are going to throw out one group's
>obvservations but. So which group do we accept and which do we dismiss
>as being wrong. The testimony of those who heard shots from TSBD is
>corroborated by eyewitnesses who actually saw a rifle being fired
Name and quote them.
>from
>the TSBD and were able to point to the exact window where later 3
>spent shells would be found. A rifle also was found on that floor
>which was positively matched to both the spent shells and the only two
>bullets recovered. The testimony of those who thought they heard shots
>coming from the grassy knoll is corroborated by.....ZIP!!!
Again, untrue.
aeffects
aeffects
>
> Yes....even though Zapruder HIMSELF told the world on LIVE TELEVISION
> within 2 hours of the shooting that he, himself (Abraham Z.), filmed
> the motorcade from "one of those concrete blocks they have down there
> by the Underpass". (And he confirmed there was a "girl from my office
> standing behind me" as he filmed.)
so what -- we have LHO telling the entire world he was a patsy, nobody
believed him! Why should we believe Zapruder? Now if you can
*positively* ID Zapruder as the one shooting film (I can't determine
he's the one shooting film based on the Moorman 5 Polaroid [and other
film/photos]) on 11/22/63 DP pedestal photos, we'll talk. When I asked
Gary Mack he certainly WASN'T stupid enough to say, "yep, I can ID Zap
on that there pedestal....."
> But that's not good enough for Healy, or for Jack "I NEVER SAW A FILM/
> PHOTO THAT DIDN'T LOOK FUNNY TO ME" White.
your whining is getting louder David -- what-the-hell are you talking
about the film and photos for, you don't know jack shit about the
craft, your starting to sound like that moron Bugliosi, you have ghost
writer writing half your bullshit here, too? LMAO
> I guess Mr. Zapruder HIMSELF must've been in on the plot re. his
> "faked" and "wholly fabricated" (per Fetzer's silly Hoax book) 26-
> second motion picture.
maybe so.... we're equal opportunity conspiricists.....
> Or: Maybe Zapruder was "replaced" by some alien force on the "concrete
> block" in Dealey Plaza. It was possibly a "phony" Abe Zapruder we saw
> talking to Jay Watson on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63!
perhaps you should fire up another bowl David..... we don't need
Zapruder to do nothing else but deliver a film to KODAK -- relax,
Champ!
> But, then too, the plotters (per many a-CTer) were smart enough to
> find a wide assortment of perfect "Oswald Look-alikes" to perform a
> variety of jobs on and before November 22nd. So why not "Zapruder
> Imposters" too?
just a willing and able White Russian wanting to do for the US (and
Dallas of course) what was demanded -- root out them commies
> Look into that Healy. It's worth investigating. (Especially if you're
> a Super-Kook. And Mr. Healy certainly qualifies under that moniker.)
David, your losing it, the pressure is getting to you, bad book sales
and all -- of ocurse that means piss poor commissions, that means a
pissed off author, that means the daBugliosi internet copy & paste
trolls are up for a Bug-bashing..... that about sum it up, David?
> =======================
>
> IS THIS ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER? OR JUST A WANNABE ABE? FIND OUT....ON THE
> NEXT "MONTEL"!.....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zap.gif
>
whose McAdam's? Hey that Amazon Book-Bug link still running? Why not
have those girls you have running interference for you and daBug drop
in here, we need some new Nutter roadkill around here, perhaps they
know a bit about the evidence...... LMFAO!
David Von Pein
rope?)!
>>> "So what -- we have LHO telling the entire world he was a patsy, nobody believed him! Why should we believe Zapruder?" <<<
Somebody lend me the biggest Goddamn "LOL" icon in the universe! It's
needed...right here--->_______
Let me bask in the idiotic nature of that last Healy gem once more.
It's way too good (and stupid) to waste on just a single
performance.....
"WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE ZAPRUDER?"
Ahhhh....kooks! Ya gotta love 'em.
BTW, Healy -- Was Mr. Zapruder ARRESTED FOR MURDERING ANYBODY ON
NOVEMBER 22ND??
Just wondering.
Hint: Therein lies your difference re. 'who to believe'.
Also: You say "nobody believed him" when speaking of Oz's "patsy"
whitewash???
Are you kidding? Or just plain stupid?? Thousands (millions!) of
people BELIEVE JUST THAT (i.e., Oswald was a patsy).....including
virtually all kooks here.
Must be the latest drugs you're taking. They're affecting aeffects'
three surviving brain cells I guess.
>>> "David, your [sic; AS ALWAYS] losing it, the pressure is getting to you, bad book sales and all..." <<<
VB's book sales aren't too bad at all. Why you think they are is
probably because you're [no sic needed] a retarded, conspiracy-thirsty
halfwit (aka: a fucking moron).
Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend "Reclaiming History" is in
the Top 10, or even the Top 100 (based on Amazon's book sales
anyway)...because that would be incorrect.
But, considering the fact that it's such a massive tome (that irks
about 3 out of every 4 people's way of general thinking about this
murder case)....and considering the fact that it had dropped in
Amazon's rank to about #2,500 or so just a few days ago, but is
currently at #710 (as of this writing)....I'd say it's "holding its
own" fairly decently.
And I'd be willing to bet we'll see a further increase in sales in
November, when the proverbial 11/22 anniversary draws nearer.
~Awaiting Healy's Next Moronic Gem Re.: Marilyn "SHE WASN'T REALLY ON
THE PEDESTAL EITHER" Sitzman~
justm...@gmail.com
Absolutely amazing isn't it David? Healy is living his life in the
Twilight Zone. I think this claim about Zapruder from Healy tops the
Jesus coughing up a bullet theory in the list of idiotic ideas.
The scarey part is Healy believes what he's saying.
Personally I enjoy watching Healy make an ass of himself, he does it
with such perfection.
bigdog
> In article <1185929528.909557.9...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, bigdog says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I love the way you label my statements untrue without ever stating why
they are untrue. Typical CT cowardice. Make statement but don't
substantiate.
I have been around lots of gunfire. I live in a rural area. Gunfire is
quite common where I live, particularly in the weeks leading up to the
deer season. Many of my neighbors are sighting in their firearms
through target practice. When I hear the shots, my impression of where
they are coming from is usually wrong. Until I visually spot the
shooter, I don't know which of my neighbors is doing the shooting.
You like to brag about your knowledge of this case but apparently you
don't know that Howard Brennan and Amos Euins both saw the rifle as it
was being fired. Both pointed to the southeast corner window of the
6th floor of the TSBD as the location of the shooter, the same window
where spent shells were later found. In addition, Bob Jackson and
Malcolm Couch both saw the rifle being pulled back in after the
shooting was over.
Ben Holmes
says...
>> >shots all coming from the GK and those that heard 3 shots all coming
>> >from the TSBD. Since none of them heard shots from both places,
>>
>> Untrue.
Bigdog was too dishonest to admit his mistake here - so I'll reassign this as an
outright lie on his part.
Why do people have to lie to support the "truth?"
>> >we
>> >know that at least one group must be wrong about where they heard the
>> >shots coming from.
>>
>> Start with a falsehood, you end *up* with silliness.
Again, dead silence.
>> Will you have the honesty to admit your error?
Evidently not.
>> >In order for both groups to be right about what
>> >they heard, we have to believe there were 6 shots, 3 from each
>> >location, the GK witnesses could not hear the 3 shots from the TSBD,
>> >and the TSBD witnesses could not hear the 3 shots from the GK.
>>
>> You've never been around much shooting, have you?
>>
>> >Unless
>> >you want to accept that proposition,
>>
>> Why would you want to accept a strawman?
>>
>> >both groups cannot be right so
>> >the question is not if we are going to throw out one group's
>> >obvservations but. So which group do we accept and which do we dismiss
>> >as being wrong. The testimony of those who heard shots from TSBD is
>> >corroborated by eyewitnesses who actually saw a rifle being fired
>>
>> Name and quote them.
>>
>> >from
>> >the TSBD and were able to point to the exact window where later 3
>> >spent shells would be found. A rifle also was found on that floor
>> >which was positively matched to both the spent shells and the only two
>> >bullets recovered. The testimony of those who thought they heard shots
>> >coming from the grassy knoll is corroborated by.....ZIP!!!
>>
>> Again, untrue.
>
>
>I love the way you label my statements untrue without ever stating why
>they are untrue.
Unlike you, I'm perfectly capable of *CITING* the evidence that makes your
statements untrue.
You're free to attempt to prove them correct, but since you've already
demonstrated that you're unwilling to support your own words, or debate the
evidence at the level of SPECIFICS - I don't take the time on simple stuff.
For example, I *DID* provide the citations that proved your statement about
fiber direction to be completely wrong - and you've been dead silent ever since.
You'll refuse to discuss it, you'll refuse to admit that you provided a LNT'er
Factoid.
>Typical CT cowardice. Make statement but don't substantiate.
Clearly not.
I'm not obligated to cite for each and every statement I make unless you make an
attempt to refute me. Or at least *ask* for the citation.
(Much like I asked *YOU* for a citation - and *STILL* don't have it...)
But *YOU* are too much the coward to try doing so. That's why you bottom post,
and refuse to answer point by point.
>I have been around lots of gunfire.
Then you know how silly your assertion is.
>I live in a rural area. Gunfire is
>quite common where I live, particularly in the weeks leading up to the
>deer season. Many of my neighbors are sighting in their firearms
>through target practice. When I hear the shots, my impression of where
>they are coming from is usually wrong.
Then you have a problem, don't you?
>Until I visually spot the
>shooter, I don't know which of my neighbors is doing the shooting.
>
>You like to brag about your knowledge of this case but apparently you
>don't know that Howard Brennan and Amos Euins both saw the rifle as it
>was being fired.
Still waiting for you to QUOTE their statements about seeing the rifle as it was
being fired.
>Both pointed to the southeast corner window of the
>6th floor of the TSBD as the location of the shooter, the same window
>where spent shells were later found.
Actually a debatable point.
>In addition, Bob Jackson and
>Malcolm Couch both saw the rifle being pulled back in after the
>shooting was over.
Do you *EVER* plan to respond point by point? Or are you going to keep evading
the evidence?
aeffects
> KOOK ALERT -- HEALY'S OUT OF HIS CONSPIRACY CAGE AGAIN (who's got the
> rope?)!
>
> >>> "So what -- we have LHO telling the entire world he was a patsy, nobody believed him! Why should we believe Zapruder?" <<<
>
> Somebody lend me the biggest Goddamn "LOL" icon in the universe! It's
> needed...right here--->_______
ROTFLMFAO -- okay toot's? Nobody is surprised you're REALLY
nervous.... hell, conspiracy in this case has been known for years and
year and YEARS. Makes for a great script, yes?
Ya know David, you gott'a give up this ghost, RC, thus Bugliosi,
failed and failed MISERABLY. The best shot suffering LN's had and its
gone, GONE! You're gonna need a Oliver Stone type, $200-250 million
buckeroos and a script, a GREAT script if you think you can change the
current national leanings...
You're back to square one, all Lone Nutter's are lumped back together,
a bunch of out of control ego-overachievers going no where and no
place to hide. I see baseball in your life David, perhaps a
documentary covering Bonds and his home run exploits, I say he ties
the Babe during the upcoming series in LA... Time for you to get on
with the serious things in life....
aeffects
rotflmfao -- you just move in, or WHAT? That's what I love about Lone
Nut wankers, they walk all over the place with golf shoes on (and NO,
I'm not going to explain ask Tom *dufus Lower_y sometimes called
cdddraftsman).....
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your completely out of touch. Witnesses heard both places throughout
Dealey Plaza. Some in between the GK and the TSBD heard from both.
Some inside the TSBD heard it from the west part of the building.
People across the street by the Records Building heard shots from the
GK when the TSBD was off to their right and the GK was to their left.
Even though their is not one good evidence of Oswald firing from the
sixth floor, it still moves people for some inexplicable reason to say
that the TSBD spot is better therefore it must be the ONLY spot. They
don't even care about dented cartridges, trees in the way, no time for
one person to haul all those tons of boxes to build a nest, or the
fact that there were multiple rilfe sightings in the TSBD during the
week. It's not even to say that Oswald couldn't be guilty in some
way, but it doesn't give any right for one to say GK or shots from the
WEST which predominate in peoples testimony to label them 'off'.
CJ
curtjester1
Then take some people who were there and very experienced in gunfire
like A.J. Millican and Sandy Speaker who were Brennan's hard hat
buddies.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/millican.htm
> You like to brag about your knowledge of this case but apparently you
> don't know that Howard Brennan and Amos Euins both saw the rifle as it
> was being fired. Both pointed to the southeast corner window of the
> 6th floor of the TSBD as the location of the shooter, the same window
> where spent shells were later found. In addition, Bob Jackson and
> Malcolm Couch both saw the rifle being pulled back in after the
> shooting was over.- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Speaker plus other GK witnesses.
CJ
bigdog
> In article <1185971808.606087.166...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You really are full of yourself aren't you. Do you ever plan to make a
point? Do you think you can prove something simply by stating it. That
doesn't work for anybody and especially not a pathologically liar such
as yourself. The fibers around the bullet hole in the back of JFK's
jacket were pushed inward. The fibers around the bullet hole in the
back of his shirt were pushed inward. The fibers around the bullet
hole in the front of JFK's collar were pushed outward. You can deny it
all you want but if you do the only you are proving is what a dumbshit
you are, not that anyone really needs to be persuaded of that fact.
You claim you are capable of citing specific evidence so why is it you
never do? And I'm sorry that the logic escapes you that when two
groups of witnesses give mutually exclusive accounts of the same
event, then at least one group is wrong.
And one last thing, the reason I bottom post in my replies to you is
because going through them piecemeal is like sifting through a can of
rotting garbage. It's bad enough trying to hold my nose long enough to
get to the bottom.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That Millican guy sure sounds like a top notch witness. Imagine he
heard 8 shots when most people heard just 3. Damn he must have had
good ears. And somebody got shot in the foot? Gee, I wonder who that
was. Sounds like this Millican fellow stopped somewhere to drink his
lunch.
Ben Holmes
Bigdog *STILL* can't admit he lied here.
>> Why do people have to lie to support the "truth?"
>>
>> >> >we
>> >> >know that at least one group must be wrong about where they heard the
>> >> >shots coming from.
>>
>> >> Start with a falsehood, you end *up* with silliness.
>>
>> Again, dead silence.
>>
>> >> Will you have the honesty to admit your error?
>>
>> Evidently not.
Gutless liar, it seems...
>> >> >In order for both groups to be right about what
>> >> >they heard, we have to believe there were 6 shots, 3 from each
>> >> >location, the GK witnesses could not hear the 3 shots from the TSBD,
>> >> >and the TSBD witnesses could not hear the 3 shots from the GK.
>>
>> >> You've never been around much shooting, have you?
>>
>> >> >Unless
>> >> >you want to accept that proposition,
>>
>> >> Why would you want to accept a strawman?
>>
>> >> >both groups cannot be right so
>> >> >the question is not if we are going to throw out one group's
>> >> >obvservations but. So which group do we accept and which do we dismiss
>> >> >as being wrong. The testimony of those who heard shots from TSBD is
>> >> >corroborated by eyewitnesses who actually saw a rifle being fired
>>
>> >> Name and quote them.
*STILL* dead silence, despite repeated requests...
And, as above - STILL dead silence...
>> >Both pointed to the southeast corner window of the
>> >6th floor of the TSBD as the location of the shooter, the same window
>> >where spent shells were later found.
>>
>> Actually a debatable point.
>>
>> >In addition, Bob Jackson and
>> >Malcolm Couch both saw the rifle being pulled back in after the
>> >shooting was over.
>>
>> Do you *EVER* plan to respond point by point? Or are you going to keep
>> evading the evidence?
>
>
>
>You really are full of yourself aren't you.
Yep... full of facts.
Facts that you continually refuse to answer... why is that, Bigdog?
>Do you ever plan to make a point?
Do so in virtually every post. Interestingly, you've ducked 90% of them. Why
is that, do you suppose?
>Do you think you can prove something simply by stating it.
Nope. I can generally cite evidence for most everything I assert.
Such as the evidence I asserted for your falsehood about the fibers... something
that you're STILL RUNNING FROM!
>That doesn't work for anybody and especially not a pathologically liar such
>as yourself.
And yet, you've been unable to quote any such "lie" by me, and the citation that
makes it so.
Something I *have* done for you, Bigdog.
>The fibers around the bullet hole in the back of JFK's
>jacket were pushed inward.
No, they weren't. Merely asserting such with no citation won't get you
anywhere. The original FBI report DID NOT FIND ANY FIBERS PUSHED INWARD.
But you have no explanation for this.
>The fibers around the bullet hole in the
>back of his shirt were pushed inward.
Ditto above.
>The fibers around the bullet
>hole in the front of JFK's collar were pushed outward.
It wasn't a bullet hole.
The lack of copper during spectroanalysis proves it.
Eyeballing the tie, and using the talents that God gave you will reveal it.
>You can deny it all you want
Actually, I'm using the FBI reports of the examination... what are you using?
>but if you do the only you are proving is what a dumbshit
>you are, not that anyone really needs to be persuaded of that fact.
When you don't have the facts, run to ad hominem, right, Bigdog?
>You claim you are capable of citing specific evidence so why is it you
>never do?
On the Fiber evidence, I did *exactly* that. Facts getting you down?
>And I'm sorry that the logic escapes you that when two
>groups of witnesses give mutually exclusive accounts of the same
>event,
Untrue.
>then at least one group is wrong.
>
>And one last thing, the reason I bottom post in my replies to you is
>because going through them piecemeal is like sifting through a can of
>rotting garbage. It's bad enough trying to hold my nose long enough to
>get to the bottom.
Oh, you can splutter what you will, but lurkers simply aren't that stupid.
YoHarvey
> In article <1186006545.332623.323...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, bigdog
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes? In front of this entire newsgroup, you sir, are a fukn
fraud. Live with it.
tomnln
ALL in his own words.
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186013459....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
until March of 64, by Hoover. Dr. Carrico said the wound was "above
the shirt." Obviously one can use anything they want such as the tie
JFK was wearing that had a slight tear on the side/front. An LNTer
would automatically use something other than a bullet for that then.
The frontal parts of the bullet were examined from the limo and none
had any fibers on it's head.
> You claim you are capable of citing specific evidence so why is it you
> never do? And I'm sorry that the logic escapes you that when two
> groups of witnesses give mutually exclusive accounts of the same
> event, then at least one group is wrong.
>
> And one last thing, the reason I bottom post in my replies to you is
> because going through them piecemeal is like sifting through a can of
> rotting garbage. It's bad enough trying to hold my nose long enough to
> get to the bottom.- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe he was but it doesn't help to put all one's cards on an
'anomaly' does it? The fact is that Speaker who was extremely
proficient and decorated who was coming up between the two sites
definitely heard the two distinct firing points. Many witnesses gave
the sound of 'firecrackers' before they heard 'distinctive' shots. Of
the 10 closest witness that weren't called for some apparent 'slipup',
four of them sighted a shot after the head shot. Of course studies
have that .7 of a sec between those if you would want to delve
further. Cheryl McKinnon who was a journalism major and on the GK
definitely without a doubt heard two shots from behind the fence
behind her. People like these just didn't make the 'A Team' for
witnesses. There have been impulse studies where 6 or a possible 7th
shot could be concluded. The fact is that these people have to be
mistaken, all of them; to make a beginning of a LNT possible.
Everything has to be bent so far to even get something going, just
like the Single Bullet Theory. It wasn't even a plausible theory, and
it had to be thought of for lone guilt and a quick closing of the
case.
CJ
bigdog
Because the witness testimony varies so greatly about what actually
happened, the question isn't whether a large group of people were
wrong but which large group of people were wrong. To determine that,
you turn to the hard physical evidence. That ALL supports a shooter
from the TSBD. The rifle was there. The spent shells were there. The
recovered bullets matched the rifle. The medical evidence clearly
shows both of JFK's wounds entered from behind him. Every forensic
expert who reviewed the autopsy evidence concurs. None found any
medical evidence of a frontal or side shot. Contrary to Ben Holmes's
lies, the shirt and jacket fibers were pushed inward in the back. The
fibers in the front of the shirt were pushed outward.
What physical evidence is there of a GK shooter or a shooter from
anywhere other than the TSBD. No shells. No rifle. No bullets. No
medical evidence. Nothing.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you are doing is claiming correctness in being an unbiased
Umpire. The witnesses don't have to be wrong. None of them. They
heard what they heard and reported.
You only go with the fibers out of desire instead of compelling
evidence.
There were no forensics done on JFK. It would have been a two or
three day autopsy then. The people that handled JFK from Parkland
from doctors to nurses claim of a blowout wound in JFK's head in the
lower right region. The funeral guy that came in to the autopsy area
plastered the head and said the same for the area he covered over.
It's obvious in the medical observations that being four or five
inches off was not just a mere mistake. One must pick a side there.
People could not mistake shots from the GK when they were so close to
it. The SN of the sixth floor is not even close to the GK fence. If
one stood on Zapruder's pedestal it would be well in front of him and
to the left. And one is looking for cartridges? Why not just pick
them up? Actually having cartridges 'left' at the SN bespeaks of
coverup when one supposedly took the time to wipe of a rilfe and pile
books to hide the rifle (which would not have allowed enough time for
Oswald to get downstairs to boot), and just leave the cartridges. Of
course ATF agent Ellsworth blew the whistle on the 'crew' when the
rifle was ditched on the fourth floor and brought up to the sixth and
he couldn't have been mistaken about the floor because he stated that
they were definitely different floors. Actually all descriptions of
gunmen on the sixth floor weren't very close to Oswald at all either.
And then the dented cartridge...the stacking of the boxes in the SN
would have taken quite a long time too...the list is endless, but yet
you want to 'fit' the evidence in such a small but 'concise' way.
CJ
Ben Holmes
says...
No, it doesn't.
>The rifle was there. The spent shells were there. The
>recovered bullets matched the rifle. The medical evidence clearly
>shows both of JFK's wounds entered from behind him.
Oh? Which medical evidence is that? Can you *QUOTE* it?
I predict in advance that no matter *what* you quote or cite, you can't believe
all of it.
>Every forensic
>expert who reviewed the autopsy evidence concurs.
Untrue.
>None found any
>medical evidence of a frontal or side shot.
Untrue.
>Contrary to Ben Holmes's
>lies, the shirt and jacket fibers were pushed inward in the back.
I lied about the FBI report???
Can you *QUOTE* me doing so? Can you QUOTE where the initial FBI report said
other than what I reported?
>The
>fibers in the front of the shirt were pushed outward.
>What physical evidence is there of a GK shooter or a shooter from
>anywhere other than the TSBD. No shells. No rifle. No bullets. No
>medical evidence. Nothing.
How sad that you can't answer my refutations of your silly faith!!
aeffects
this fool drink?
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186120389....@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...