Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

QUESTION # 59

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 6:49:51 AM9/24/08
to
At 1:22pm, the Dallas Police made the following broadcast with regard
to the suspect in the Tippit murder:

"We have a description on the suspect here on Jefferson, last seen on
the 300 block on East Jefferson, a white male, 30, about 5 feet 8,
black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, white shirt and dark
slacks, armed with what he states unknown. Repeat the description."

( testimony of Chief Curry 4 H 185 )

Was Oswald wearing a white shirt when he was arrested ?

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 8:35:23 AM9/24/08
to

Mr. Rankin.
Chief, I put in front of you there as Exhibit 705, now marked as
"Exhibit 705," your radio log that you have just been looking at and
referred to, is that right?
Mr. Curry.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Rankin.
Will you turn to the page there where you find the first broadcast of
the description of the suspect of the assassination of the President?
Is that on your page 6 or thereabouts?
Mr. Curry.
The pages--yes, it is page 6, channel 1.
Mr. Rankin.
Will you tell what time of the day that is recorded as having been
made?
Mr. Curry.
This shows at the end the broadcast to be 12:45 p.m. It would be on
November 22d.
Mr. Rankin.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer Exhibit 705 being this radio log
which covers a great many matters, but in light of the importance of
the time and the description and all, I think the entire log should go
in and then we can refer to different items in it.
Mr. Dulles.
It will be admitted as Commission's Exhibit No. 705.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 705, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. Rankin.
Now, will you read to the Commission a description that was given at
that time of the suspect of the assassination?
Mr. Curry.
The broadcast reads as follows: "Attention all squads. Attention all
squads. At Elm and Houston, reported to be an unknown white male,
approximately 30, slender build, height 5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds.
Reported to be armed with what is believed to be a .30-caliber rifle.
"Attention all squads, the suspect is believed to be white male, 30, 5
feet 10 inches, slender build, 165 pounds, armed with what is thought
to be a .30-.30 rifle. No further description or information at this
time. KKB there 64 Dallas, and the time given as 12:45 p.m."
Mr. Rankin.
You have described Officer Tippit's number?
Mr. Curry.
District 78.
Mr. Rankin.
And that is recorded along the left-hand side when there is any
message either from him or to him, is that right?
Mr. Curry.
That is correct.
Mr. Rankin.
Do you find there a message directed to him about moving to the
central Oak Cliff area?
Mr. Curry.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Rankin.
And what time is that message recorded?
Mr. Curry.
Immediately following this dispatch to him to district squads 87 and
78, EBG 78.
Mr. Rankin.
What time?
Mr. Curry.
The time is given as 12:46.
Mr. Rankin.
What does it say?
Mr. Curry.
The dispatcher asked him "87 and 78" or instructed him "Move into the
central Oak Cliff area."
Mr. Rankin.
Did he respond to that?
Mr. Curry.
A little later he did.
Mr. Rankin.
When?
Mr. Curry.
We have he was asked his location, would be about 1 o'clock.
Mr. Rankin.
Did he say what it was?
Mr. Curry.
He didn't come back in at that time. At 1:08 p.m. they called him
again.
Mr. Rankin.
Did he respond?
Mr. Curry.
It is at 12:54. The dispatcher said, "78" and he responded, he said,
"You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?"
Seventy-eight responded and said, "Lancaster and 8," which would be in
the central section of Oak Cliff.
The dispatcher said, "You will be at large for any emergency that
comes in."
And he responded, "10-4," which means message received. And he would
follow those instructions.
Mr. Rankin.
Do you have an item there of a broadcast of a person who murdered
Tippit?
Mr. Curry.
We have apparently--a citizen came in on the radio and he said,
"Somebody shot a police officer at 404 10th Street." Someone in the
background said 78, squad 78, car No. 10. And the citizen said, "You
get that?" and the dispatcher said, "78."
And there was no response and the citizen said, "Hello, police
operator, did you get that?" Some other unknown voice came in and
said, "510 East Jefferson."
Mr. Rankin.
What time of the day?
Mr. Curry.
This was about 1:15; 1:19 is the next time that shows up on the radio
log. The dispatcher at 1:19 said, "The subject is running west on
Jefferson from the location."
Citizen came back in on the radio and said, "From out here on 10th
street, 500 block, the police officer just shot, I think he is dead."
Mr. Curry.
Dispatcher said, "10-4, we have the information."
The citizen using the radio remained off the radio.
Dispatcher to 15, he was the sergeant, said, "Did you receive the
information of police officer shot?"
And he said, "10-4, but didn't that citizen say first he was on
Jefferson and 10th and then Chesapeake?" And he said, "Yes."
And he said, "Do they relate?"
And he said, "Yes, at Denver, 19 will be there shortly," that is a
sergeant or a lieutenant.
Ninety-one came on and said, "Have a signal 19 involving a police
officer at 400 block East 10th. The suspect last seen running west on
Jefferson, no description at this time."
The dispatcher came in and said, "The suspect just passed 401 East
Jefferson."
Dispatcher then says, "Give us the correct location on it, 85, we have
three different locations."
Eighty-five says, "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet, 10-4,
check, 491 East 10th at Denver."
Dispatcher repeated, "The subject has just passed 401 East Jefferson."
At 1:22 we have a broadcast here that says, "We have a description on


the suspect here on Jefferson, last seen on the 300 block on East
Jefferson, a white male, 30, about 5 feet 8, black hair, slender,
wearing a white jacket, white shirt and dark slacks, armed with what
he states unknown. Repeat the description."

Dispatcher said that to the squad. He says, "Wearing a white Jacket
believed to be a white shirt and dark slacks. What is his direction of
travel on Jefferson?"
He said, "Travel west on Jefferson, last seen in the 401 West
Jefferson, correction, it will be East Jefferson."
The dispatcher then said, "Pick up for investigation of aggravated
assault on a police officer, a white male approximately 30, 5 feet 8,
slender build, has black hair, white jacket, white shirt, dark
trousers. Suspect has been seen running west on Jefferson from the 400
block of East Jefferson at 1:24."
Then they asked about the condition of the officer, and there was
something about--the dispatcher did receive some information that
there was a man pulled in there on West Davis driving a white Pontiac,
a 1961 or 1962 station wagon with a prefix PE, saying he had a rifle
laying in the street.
We have a citizen following in a car address unknown direction.
The dispatcher said, "Any unit near Gaston 3600 block, this is about a
blood bank."
Then 279 comes in and says, "We believe the suspect on shooting this
officer out here got his white Jacket, believed he dumped it in this
parking lot behind the service station at 400 block West Jefferson
across from Dudley House. He had a white jacket we believe this is
it."
"You do not have a suspect, is that correct?"
"No, just the jacket lying on the ground."
There is some more conversation about blood going to Parkland. "What
was the description beside the white jacket?"
"White male, 30, 5-8, black hair, slender build, white shirt, white
jacket, black trousers, going west on Jefferson from the 300 block."
Squad says, "This is Sergeant Jerry Hill." Says, "I am at 12th and
Beckley now, have a man in the car with me that can identify the
suspect if anybody gets One."
Mr. Rankin.
Chief Curry, we were furnished a Commission Document No. 290, dated
December 5, 1963, that purported. to be a radio log for your
department, and it did not have any item in it in regard to
instruction to Officer Tippit to go to the Central Oak Cliff area.
Do you know why that would be true?
Mr. Curry.
I don't know why it wasn't in that log except that these logs, after
they are recorded, they are pretty difficult to try to take everything
off
Mr. Curry.
of them, channel 1 and channel 2 is in on them and they spent many
hours going over these and copying these.
This would be available and I listened to our recording.
Mr. Rankin.
That is Exhibit 705 you are talking about?
Mr. Curry.
That is right.
Mr. Rankin.
So if there is a discrepancy between the two, are you satisfied that
Exhibit 705 is correct?
Mr. Curry.
Is the correct exhibit; yes.
Mr. Rankin.
Commission Document No. 290 does say at the heading that most routine
transmissions were left out for reasons of brevity. Would that be any
explanation?
Mr. Curry.
Perhaps it could be, yes. Because these would have been routine
broadcasts. The fact the squad was moving into this area because this
is more or less normal procedure when we have incidents occurring of
any magnitude, the squads immediately begin moving in to cover
officers of the district.

CURRY STATES THAT EXHIBIT 705 THE FIRST RADIO TRANSMISSION IS THE
CORRECT ONE, NOT THE SECOND ONE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PAWN OFF AS A
DESCRIPTION OF OSWALD.

i posted the entire testimony about it so you can't go back and cut
and past only what you want others to see....once again more
misleading information from Detective Duf-ass....what a shock!

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 8:48:35 AM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 6:49 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:

Mr. Dulles.


It will be admitted as Commission's Exhibit No. 705.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 705, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. Rankin.
Now, will you read to the Commission a description that was given at
that time of the suspect of the assassination?
Mr. Curry.
The broadcast reads as follows: "Attention all squads. Attention all
squads. At Elm and Houston, reported to be an unknown white male,
approximately 30, slender build, height 5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds.
Reported to be armed with what is believed to be a .30-caliber rifle.
"Attention all squads, the suspect is believed to be white male, 30, 5
feet 10 inches, slender build, 165 pounds, armed with what is thought
to be a .30-.30 rifle. No further description or information at this
time. KKB there 64 Dallas, and the time given as 12:45 p.m."

Mr. Curry.


Dispatcher said, "10-4, we have the information."
The citizen using the radio remained off the radio.
Dispatcher to 15, he was the sergeant, said, "Did you receive the
information of police officer shot?"
And he said, "10-4, but didn't that citizen say first he was on
Jefferson and 10th and then Chesapeake?" And he said, "Yes."
And he said, "Do they relate?"
And he said, "Yes, at Denver, 19 will be there shortly," that is a
sergeant or a lieutenant.
Ninety-one came on and said, "Have a signal 19 involving a police
officer at 400 block East 10th. The suspect last seen running west on
Jefferson, no description at this time."
The dispatcher came in and said, "The suspect just passed 401 East
Jefferson."
Dispatcher then says, "Give us the correct location on it, 85, we have
three different locations."
Eighty-five says, "I haven't seen anything on Jefferson yet, 10-4,
check, 491 East 10th at Denver."
Dispatcher repeated, "The subject has just passed 401 East Jefferson."

At 1:22 we have a broadcast here that says, "We have a description on


the suspect here on Jefferson, last seen on the 300 block on East
Jefferson, a white male, 30, about 5 feet 8, black hair, slender,
wearing a white jacket, white shirt and dark slacks, armed with what
he states unknown. Repeat the description."

off of them, channel 1 and channel 2 is in on them and they spent many


hours going over these and copying these.
This would be available and I listened to our recording.
Mr. Rankin.
That is Exhibit 705 you are talking about?
Mr. Curry.
That is right.
Mr. Rankin.
So if there is a discrepancy between the two, are you satisfied that
Exhibit 705 is correct?
Mr. Curry.
Is the correct exhibit; yes.

CURRY STATES THAT EXHIBIT 705 IS THE CORRECT TRANSMISSION OF THE
SUSPECT. YOU NEGLECT TO POST HIS ENTIRE TESTIMONY OVER THE
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SUSPECT AS USUAL.

My first post never showed up for some reason so if this shows up
twice you know why

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 9:32:46 AM9/24/08
to
hey stupid shit:

My description was of the suspect in the Tippit murder that was
broadcast at 1:22pm, not the description of the "suspect" of the
shooting at Elm and Houston.


Now answer the question, dumbass:

Was Oswald wearing a white shirt at the time of his arrest ?

Yes or no.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 11:45:27 AM9/24/08
to

Curry said that description was not correct...or are you just
ignorning that fact as usual? You're an ass wipe if I've ever seen
one.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 1:27:26 PM9/24/08
to

Bud

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 1:45:15 PM9/24/08
to

Yes. He had on a white t-shirt. Much more importantly, when the
witnesses viewed line-ups, Oswald was the man witnesses selected as
the man they saw.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 6:09:56 PM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 11:45�am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Joey:

Why did the Dallas cops confiscate as evidence a light-colored jacket
found not far from the Tippit murder scene ? Because it was part of
the description of the shooter at Houston and Elm ?

Now answer the question Joey. No more dodging, dancing and running.

I know these yes or know questions stretch the intellectual boundaries
of your mind, but please try:

Was Oswald wearing a white shirt at the time of his arrest ?

YES OR NO ?

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 6:12:24 PM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 1:45�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> � Yes. He had on a white t-shirt. Much more importantly, when the


> witnesses viewed line-ups, Oswald was the man witnesses selected as
> the man they saw.


Was Oswald's T-shirt on the outside, dimwit ? Or was it covered by an
overshirt ?

Who the hell describes someone by their underwear ?

MORON

Walt

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 7:41:34 PM9/24/08
to
On 24 Sep, 12:27, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Was Oswald wearing a white shirt at the time of his arrest?" <<<
>
> Definitely:

Well so was his shorts...do you believe witnesses saw the killers
shorts???

>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/046.+LEE+HARVEY+OSWALD...
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/048.+LEE+HARVEY+OSWALD...

Walt

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 7:44:43 PM9/24/08
to
On 24 Sep, 12:45, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 9:32 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > hey stupid shit:
>
> > My description was of the suspect in the Tippit murder that was
> > broadcast at 1:22pm, not the description of the "suspect" of the
> > shooting at Elm and Houston.
>
> > Now answer the question, dumbass:
>
> > Was Oswald wearing a white shirt at the time of his arrest ?
>
> > Yes or no.
>
>   Yes. He had on a white t-shirt.
And he had on white shorts ...do you think the witnesses saw the
killers shorts too??

Much more importantly, when the
> witnesses viewed line-ups, Oswald was the man witnesses selected as
> the man they saw.

I believe if you'll check ....they had seen Oswald on TV before they
went to see the police line ups. Do you think they didn't know who
the suspect was??

Bud

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 7:58:23 PM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 6:12 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes. He had on a white t-shirt. Much more importantly, when the
> > witnesses viewed line-ups, Oswald was the man witnesses selected as
> > the man they saw.
>
> Was Oswald's T-shirt on the outside, dimwit ? Or was it covered by an
> overshirt ?

Why do you say the t-shirt was covered by the overshirt? Let me
explain it to you, since you are an idiot who can`t figure out
anything, and shouldn`t be looking into this case at all. Oz had on a
jacket, which was entirely or mostly unzipped. Oz was wearing the
brown shirt, which was unbuttoned, leaving the t-shirt exposed.
Witnesses, seeing Oswald only briefly, and not making an effort to
note clothing only notice the jacket, and the white of the t-shirt
underneath.

> Who the hell describes someone by their underwear ?

They describe people and details by the impressions they get. Your
question was whether Oz was wearing a white shirt. The answer was
"yes". Again, you need to understand your own questions before you can
understand the answers you get.

> MORON

And you seem to enjoy making sure everyone is aware that you are.

Bud

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 8:02:59 PM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 7:44 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 12:45, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Sep 24, 9:32 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > hey stupid shit:
>
> > > My description was of the suspect in the Tippit murder that was
> > > broadcast at 1:22pm, not the description of the "suspect" of the
> > > shooting at Elm and Houston.
>
> > > Now answer the question, dumbass:
>
> > > Was Oswald wearing a white shirt at the time of his arrest ?
>
> > > Yes or no.
>
> > Yes. He had on a white t-shirt.
>
> And he had on white shorts ...do you think the witnesses saw the
> killers shorts too??

They don`t mention Oswald`s white shorts, so I guess they didn`t see
them, or take note of them. But they did mention Oswald`s white
shirt.

> Much more importantly, when the
>
> > witnesses viewed line-ups, Oswald was the man witnesses selected as
> > the man they saw.
>
> I believe if you'll check ....they had seen Oswald on TV before they
> went to see the police line ups.

I think if you check, you`ll find that not all of them did.

> Do you think they didn't know who
> the suspect was??

Do you think they were asked to point out th man they saw on
television, or the man they saw in Oak Cliff with a gun?

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 9:24:42 PM9/24/08
to
Wrong dipshit.

You don't know Commission Exhibit 705 from Commission Document 290

The difference between the two was that CE 705 had the order for
Tippit to move into Oak Cliff and CD 290 did not. THAT WAS THE
DISCREPANCY YOU JACKASS, NOT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SHOOTER.

You really don't know WTF you're reading, do you ?

Let's go over it again:

THE ENTIRE POLICE LOG WAS COMMISSION EXHIBIT 705

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer Exhibit 705 being this


radio log which covers a great many matters, but in light of the
importance of the time and the description and all, I think the entire
log should go in and then we can refer to different items in it.

Mr. DULLES. It will be admitted as Commission's Exhibit No. 705.


(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 705, and
received in evidence.)

( 4 H 183 )

COMMISSION DOCUMENT 290 WAS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE LOG

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, we were furnished a Commission Document No.


290, dated December 5, 1963, that purported. to be a radio log for
your department, and it did not have any item in it in regard to
instruction to Officer Tippit to go to the Central Oak Cliff area.
Do you know why that would be true?

Mr. CURRY. I don't know why it wasn't in that log except that these


logs, after they are recorded, they are pretty difficult to try to

take everything off of them, channel 1 and channel 2 is in on them and


they spent many hours going over these and copying these.
This would be available and I listened to our recording.

Mr. RANKIN. That is Exhibit 705 you are talking about?

Mr. CURRY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. So if there is a discrepancy between the two, are you


satisfied that Exhibit 705 is correct?

Mr. CURRY. Is the correct exhibit; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Commission Document No. 290 does say at the heading that


most routine transmissions were left out for reasons of brevity.
Would that be any explanation?

Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it could be, yes. Because these would have been
routine broadcasts.

( 4H 185-186 )

THIS HAD N-O-T-H-I-N-G TO DO WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SHOOTER.

NOW SHOW US IN ALL OF THAT TESTIMONY THAT YOU POSTED WHERE THERE WERE
DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE MAN FLEEING THE TIPPIT MURDER SCENE.

You really are an idiot, aren't you ?

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 9:33:04 PM9/24/08
to

The above post was for dumbass justme.

1. show us the conflicting descriptions in the testimony

2. show us the descriptions of the Tippit shooter in the testimony

3. Then answer the question:

Was Oswald wearing a white shirt when he was arrested ?

YES OR NO, JACKASS.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 10:15:41 PM9/24/08
to
> YES OR NO, JACKASS.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LHO was wearing a white undershirt....fuckwad....no matter what you
say you're wrong. He had a white shirt on and someone noticed it and
reported it. Get your head back in your ass Gilly Girl, and stop
thinking everything you type is correct.
DID OSWALD HAVE A WHITE SHIRT ON?????
YES HE DID...NOW PROVE HE DIDN'T AND PROVE WHAT KIND OF WHITE SHIRT
YOU ARE TRYING TO MISLEAD WITH. IT WAS A WHITE SHIRT AND THERE ISN'T
ANYTHING YOU CAN DO OR SAY TO CHANGE THAT.
DETECTIVE DUF-ASS GETS SLAMMED AGAIN, DON'T YOU EVER GET TIRED OF
BEING AN IDIOT.

Walt

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 10:16:26 PM9/24/08
to

Dealing with lying imbeciles is really frustrating is it Gil??...

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 10:19:40 PM9/24/08
to
> Dealing with lying imbeciles is really frustrating is it Gil??...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dealing with hard headed morons is getting to be he norm around
here....All of you stooges together can't add up to an IQ past 5.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:08:11 AM9/25/08
to
Give us an example of another case where a witness described a suspect
by his undershirt rather than his overshirt you retard piece of shit.

This is what happens when you lie, Joey. You have to hold on to that
lie no matter how ridiculously absurd it sounds.

Some people would rather be made a fool of than admit that they can't
answer the question or admit that they were wrong.

It's hard to believe that a cementhead like you is an IT expert with
12 years experience when you can't even comprehend WTF your reading.

You have the brains of a tree stump, Joey.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:21:49 AM9/25/08
to
On Sep 24, 10:16�pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:

>
> Dealing with lying imbeciles is really frustrating is it Gil?

And it's frustrating dealing with people whose IQ is less than a
turnip, also.

Did you see what this mental case tried to pass of as a discrepancy in
the description of the Tippit shooter ?

Curry's testimony about the discrepancy about the order for Tippit to
move into Oak Cliff.

This troll is a complete cementhead.

They grasp on to anything, regardless of how absurd it is, rather than
admit they were wrong or that they can't answer the question.

The retard is trying to make us believe that people would describe a
suspect by his underwear, rather than his obvious outer clothing.

Again, the mental case has no PROOF that the witnesses were describing
the shooter by his underwear, he's just claiming that to hang on to
the lie.

As if this troll had any credibility before, now he has NONE.

Perhaps he should stick to insults.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:33:53 AM9/25/08
to
On Sep 24, 10:16�pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:

>
> Dealing with lying imbeciles is really frustrating is it Gil??...-

I'm still waiting for this P.O.S. to show us the discrepancies in the
broadcasts of the description of the Tippit shooter. All I see in the
testimony is this:

"At 1:22 we have a broadcast here that says, "We have a description on
the suspect here on Jefferson, last seen on the 300 block on East
Jefferson, a white male, 30, about 5 feet 8, black hair, slender,
wearing a white jacket, white shirt and dark slacks, armed with what
he states unknown. Repeat the description." Dispatcher said that to
the squad. He says, "Wearing a white Jacket believed to be a white
shirt and dark slacks."

then this:

"The dispatcher then said, "Pick up for investigation of aggravated
assault on a police officer, a white male approximately 30, 5 feet 8,
slender build, has black hair, white jacket, white shirt, dark
trousers. Suspect has been seen running west on Jefferson from the 400
block of East Jefferson at 1:24."

then this:

There is some more conversation about blood going to Parkland. "What
was the description beside the white jacket?" "White male, 30, 5-8,
black hair, slender build, white shirt, white
jacket, black trousers, going west on Jefferson from the 300 block."

Sounds pretty consistent to me.

This bonehead justme wants us to believe that the witness described
the jacket, bypassed the overshirt and then described the underwear.

Ridiculously absurb and without any proof.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:14:36 AM9/25/08
to

What's the matter Gilly Girl, did you pee your new panties? White
shirt is white shirt....let's see where they specified white button
down shirt....white outter shirt, which it wouldn't be because he had
a jacket on. You can't handle it that we are giving right back to you
what you try to give to us can ya Detective Duf-ass??
Did LHO have a white shirt on???
YES HE DID ....read Buds description earlier how someone could see a
white tshirt ass wipe.
In the meantime drop to your knees and say 3 Our Fathers for showing
what a hypocritical lying Christian you are using that foul
language......what a prick with ears LOL

tims...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:25:49 AM9/25/08
to
BOTTOM POST

Absurb?!! ABSURB!!! LOL! Oh, this is just CLASSIC Gilly. Any last
vestige of *civility* disappears as ol' Gil *Mr Civility* Jesus
appears to go almost incandescent with rage.

Hey Gilly! Read Mike Paine's WC testimony lately?

Keep smilin' Gilly, LOL!!! :-)

Amused Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:27:03 AM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 7:14�am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> language......what a prick with ears LOL- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

We're still waiting for you to give us a case where the witnesses
described the jacket, bypassed the overshirt and described the
undershirt.

We're still waiting for you to give us the discrepancies in the
description of the man fleeing the Tippit murder.

We're still waiting for you to explain why NONE of the witnesses
included the overshirt in their descriptions of the shooter.

The world is waiting, Joey.......will you disappoint them again ?

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:31:12 AM9/25/08
to
Give us the citation that says the jacket was unzipped.

Give us the citation that says the shirt was unbuttoned.

Why would the man put on a jacket if it was warm enough to unbutton
his shirt ?

We want to see the evidence, Bud, not your opinions.

The world is waiting.........

tims...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:36:40 AM9/25/08
to
TOP POST

Er, Gil, civility? Civility, Gil? All out the window now, is it Gil?

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Bud

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:41:48 AM9/25/08
to

They described what they saw, and if they saw white cloth covering
Oswald`s upper body, why wouldn`t they say he was wearing a white
shirt? Here is the shirt Oswald was arrested in, you`ll notice it is
missing the first three or four buttons. Bledsoe mentioned this when
she described the shirt when Oswald boarded the bus.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b7/Photo_naraevid_CE150-1.jpg

This would leave the undershirt visible. If the witnesses could see
this shirt, why does it boggle your tiny mind that they would include
this detail in the information they gave to the police?

> Ridiculously absurb and without any proof.

The proof is that many selected Oswald as the person they saw. The
proof is the white shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. What you
are offering is corroboration that it was Oswald they saw, because
Oswald was indeed wearing a white shirt when he was arrested. If you
position is that it was impossible for the witnesses to see his white
shirt, I`d like to see your proof.

Walt

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:18:57 AM9/25/08
to

You seem to have forgotton that Oswald REMOVED that shirt in his
room........

>
>      http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b7/Photo_naraevid_CE150-1.jpg
>
>    This would leave the undershirt visible. If the witnesses could see
> this shirt, why does it boggle your tiny mind that they would include
> this detail in the information they gave to the police?

What a pathetic liar..... Ya imbecile... Even if a witness were to
notice that a suspect in a crime was wearing white underwear do you
think they would take note of that and think it was something the cops
should know?? I mean how valuable is know that the guy was wearing
white underwear??? It's a safe bet that 99.999% of all the men in
Oakcliff were wearing white under wear. BOY! are you stupid!!.


>
> > Ridiculously absurb and without any proof.
>
>   The proof is that many selected Oswald as the person they saw. The
> proof is the white shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. What you
> are offering is corroboration that it was Oswald they saw, because
> Oswald was indeed wearing a white shirt when he was arrested. If you
> position is that it was impossible for the witnesses to see his white

> shirt, I`d like to see your proof.- Hide quoted text -

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:27:34 AM9/25/08
to
> shirt, I`d like to see your proof.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's up to you to show us a citation that LHO had a jacket on that was
zipped, that LHO had an outter shirt on that was buttoned and the
white tshirt could not be seen. You're question has been answered.
Was Oswald wearing a white shirt.....simple answer....
YES HE WAS!
Curses foiled again Detective Duf-ass!

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:36:57 AM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 7:41�am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

>
> � The proof is that many selected Oswald as the person they saw. The


> proof is the white shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. What you
> are offering is corroboration that it was Oswald they saw, because
> Oswald was indeed wearing a white shirt when he was arrested. If you
> position is that it was impossible for the witnesses to see his white

> shirt, I`d like to see your proof.-

Oswald's shirt was open at the top because of the scuffle with police
in the theater, genius.

On November 22nd not a single person who saw Oswald before, during or
after Tippit's shooting described him as wearing a brown shirt.
Witnesses said the shooter wore a "white T-shirt and a white or light-
colored jacket." There was no mention of a brown shirt by Johnny
Brewer for two weeks; by Sam Guinyard for three months; by Julia
Postal until February 29, 1964.

I've asked you to provide evidence that the jacket was open.

I've asked you to provide evidence that the shirt was open.

You've provided opinion, assumption and assertion, but no evidence.

We're still waiting for you to convince us.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:38:34 AM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 8:27�am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Curses foiled again Detective Duf-ass!- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry dipshit...the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the side of the
accusers.

That's YOU'RE side.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:40:20 AM9/25/08
to
Walt, you mean that the first thing you notice about someone is NOT
their underwear ?


ROFLMAO

------------------
Dud wrote:

The proof is that many selected Oswald as the person they saw.

-----------------------

And we all know that those police lineups were above board, right ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JskQDYovBGs

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:47:12 AM9/25/08
to
Joey:

Walt

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 10:03:57 AM9/25/08
to

Hey Stupid Bitch.... Do you know how idiotically pathetic you're
making yourself appear??

Anybody reading your counterpoints can plainly see the desperation.
Such puny and mendacious counterpoints!
Is this the best you can do??.... I'm embarrassed for you.

Walt

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 10:13:59 AM9/25/08
to
On 25 Sep, 07:40, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Walt, you mean that the first thing you notice about someone is NOT
> their underwear ?
>
> ROFLMAO
>

Riiiiight!.... Only a freakin liar like Just (clueless) Me would
claim that anybody (I mean anybody) would notice a persons underwear
in a time of duress. The witnesses were,.... stunned, shocked,
alarmed, excited, distressed,
and sickened by the coldbooded murder that had just occurred....and
Stupid Bitch thinks that they all noticed that the killer was wearing
white underwear. Ha,ha,ha, hee,hee......ROTFLMAO !!

Do you know what Rubber walled hotel Stupid Bitch is staying at??
I'd like to send her a sympathy card.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 10:40:04 AM9/25/08
to
Walt, there is another possibility that these trolls never considered
nor could they consider:

That Tippit's murderer wore a white jacket over a white T-shirt with
no overshirt between them.

It would make sense then why NONE of the witnesses described a brown
shirt on the day of the killing.

It would make sense why the Dallas Police broadcasts of the
description of Tippit's assailant never mentioned a brown shirt.

It would make sense why Oswald was the only one in the police lineup
to be forced to wear a white T-Shirt ( something that he protested ).

The police were obviously trying to influence the witnesses into
identifying Oswald.

Walt

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 11:02:53 AM9/25/08
to

Makes sense....Good point.

Walt

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 11:27:19 AM9/25/08
to

Ya know Gil, There's somethin strange about the light colored clothing
that is noted throughout the case....

Brennan and others described the gunman in the TSBD as "wearing light
colored clothing" Witnesses near the scene of Tippit's murder
described the killer as "wearing light colored clothing" ( at least
his shirt and jacket)

Brennan said the TSBD gunman had on trousers that were a "shade
lighter, than his dingy white shirt".
Witnesses at the scene of Tippit's murder gave a similar description
except for the trousers. Obviously the guy that Brennan saw was NOT
Lee Oswald, and the BLACK BUSHY hair of Tippit's killer doesn't fit
Oswald...in neither case was the man Oswald. However, White, or
light colored clothing pops up again and again in the case. Many
photos show mysterious men in white or light colored uniforms acting
strangely ( not reacting as normal) immediately following the
shooting. I can't help but think that the light colored clothing
wasn't the "uniform" of the day for the conspirators on 11 /22/63.
What organization is known for wearing white???

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:07:27 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 7:36�am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> TOP POST
>
> Er, Gil, civility? Civility, Gil? All out the window now, is it Gil?

Try pedalling your crap to justme, he started it.

You sound like Steve Barber.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:12:00 PM9/25/08
to
> What organization is known for wearing white???- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Just look at the 2 fucking idiots...Walt the cardboard Dealy Plaza
maker and Detective Duf-ass Gil Jesus patting each other on the back
with more and more of their retarded scenerios. Yep, keep giving each
other those 5 stars ROFLMAO.....

You're question has been answered more then once....Oswald was wearing
a white shirt. I don't give a rats ass if it was an undershirt, tshirt
or dress shirt. You can make up 2000 (your close to that now)
different theories of what you think happened. You have proof for none
of them.

Hey Walt...stupid bastard, make sure you keep kissing Duf-asses ass,
he has to keep repeating himself and it's not working. I'm sure the
junkie will be along shortly to add his incoherent bullshit too. We're
getting under you skin, are we? Both of you with your name calling and
swearing like the big (*rolling eyes*) men you are. You deserve every
name called in this post. Back to the drawing board girls....
you're failing again.

Walt

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:36:22 PM9/25/08
to

Failing are we??...... You stupid bitch. If we were failing an
intelligent person would simply stand back and let us fail.

The fact that you respond and will keep responding to our posts is
because we are SUCCESSFULLY presenting FACTS.

You'll keep responding and attempting to reute those facts with your
puny and mendacious resonses because your a desperate stupid bitch.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 1:01:25 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 12:36�pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:

>
> Failing are we??...... �You stupid bitch.


ROFLMAO....Walt, don't you just love it when they tell you what the
witnesses MEANT instead of what the witnesses SAID ?

It must be nice to be able to read the minds of people who were alive
45 years ago.

As for me, I'll wait for them to produce the EVIDENCE, before I
believe it.

Bud

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 1:56:16 PM9/25/08
to

CE150 was the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested.

> > http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b7/Photo_naraevid_CE150-1.jpg
>
> > This would leave the undershirt visible. If the witnesses could see
> > this shirt, why does it boggle your tiny mind that they would include
> > this detail in the information they gave to the police?
>
> What a pathetic liar..... Ya imbecile... Even if a witness were to
> notice that a suspect in a crime was wearing white underwear do you
> think they would take note of that and think it was something the cops
> should know??

What I think that is if a witness saw Oz`s white shirt, that witness
might report that detail as part of their description.

> I mean how valuable is know that the guy was wearing
> white underwear??? It's a safe bet that 99.999% of all the men in
> Oakcliff were wearing white under wear. BOY! are you stupid!!.

So, If a witness saw white cloth of a t-shirt covering the upper
body of a person seen briefly, that witness could never report the
person seen was wearing a white shirt? I`m afraid you and Gil are too
stupid to be looking into this case, try a different hobby.

Sam McClung

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:09:29 PM9/25/08
to
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:900e537a-33e9-4b87...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

<snippage>


> The witnesses were,.... stunned, shocked,
> alarmed, excited, distressed,
> and sickened by the coldbooded murder that had just occurred....and
> Stupid Bitch thinks that they all noticed that the killer was wearing
> white underwear. Ha,ha,ha, hee,hee......ROTFLMAO !!

<snippage>


wouldn't that require the xray vision?

mike robinson did see a guy with a "CLARK KENT" hat in the restroom in the
basement of dallas police department, perhaps verbally reprimanding roscoe
white for killing j.d. tippit

maybe SUPERMAN saw the killer had white underwear


Bud

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:23:26 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 8:36 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 7:41 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The proof is that many selected Oswald as the person they saw. The
> > proof is the white shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. What you
> > are offering is corroboration that it was Oswald they saw, because
> > Oswald was indeed wearing a white shirt when he was arrested. If you
> > position is that it was impossible for the witnesses to see his white
> > shirt, I`d like to see your proof.-
>
> Oswald's shirt was open at the top because of the scuffle with police
> in the theater, genius.

Any support for this, imbecile? Heres what Bledsoe had to say about
the shirt, long before Oswald tried to kill the cops in the Texas
Theater...

BALL: Was the shirt opened or was it buttoned?

BLEDSOE: Yes, all of the buttons torn off.

> On November 22nd not a single person who saw Oswald before, during or
> after Tippit's shooting described him as wearing a brown shirt.

Of course that is not true. Bledsoe did. Baker did. Postal did.
Brewer did.I could find more, if I were to bother to look.

> Witnesses said the shooter wore a "white T-shirt and a white or light-
> colored jacket." There was no mention of a brown shirt by Johnny
> Brewer for two weeks; by Sam Guinyard for three months; by Julia
> Postal until February 29, 1964.

But these witnesses did say a brown shirt, right?

> I've asked you to provide evidence that the jacket was open.

The fact that witnesses said they saw Oz`s white t-shirt is evidence
his jcket was open, idiot.

> I've asked you to provide evidence that the shirt was open.

That fact that it had only one button is evidence it was open. The
fact that witnesses could see Oz`s white t-shirt is evidence it was
open.

> You've provided opinion, assumption and assertion, but no evidence.

It seems to only your opinion that the witnesses could not see and
report Oz`s white t-shirt as a shirt. It seems to be an assumption
that the witnesses could not see that white t-shirt. It is only your
retarded assertion that if the witnesses said the assailant wore a
white shirt, then the man they saw could not be Oswald. The fact is,
it doesn`t matter whether a report went out that the killer had on a
hawiian shirt, it would not rule out that it was Oswald they saw.

> We're still waiting for you to convince us.

How is it possible to dissuade idiots from their stupid beliefs?

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:33:18 PM9/25/08
to
No one is saying that Oswald wasn't wearing a t-shirt and no one is
saying that the witnesses couldn't have seen it.

I'm saying that people don't describe the dress of others based on
their underwear, Bud.

Name one witness out of the many witnesses to the Tippit killing who
admitted seeing Oswald's brown shirt.

You're going to tell us out of ALL of those witnesses who saw the
gunman NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS, either at the crime scene or after he
fled noticed that he was wearing a brown shirt ?

Sam Brown

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 11:36:03 PM9/25/08
to

"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:59374b07-1d5c-4014...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

Big brave Walt calls a woman names. What a hero. And Gilbert and Toothless
complete the despicable retard trifecta. What a bunch of muppets.

Sam Brown

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 11:37:58 PM9/25/08
to

<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:88df5c45-c07f-4706...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Congratulations on so beautifully illustrating these morons stupidity just.
Seems to me the CT's are all self-destructing around here. Its hilarious.

Sam Brown

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 11:40:19 PM9/25/08
to

"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:231e4f0c-1289-48e7...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Walt, I am embarassed for you. You used to behave with more decorum. Once
you start associating with dogs like Gilly the bigot, you inevitably got up
with fleas. Scratch away, old man. Pathetic old follower.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 5:06:57 AM9/26/08
to
On Sep 25, 11:36 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message

I`d include robcap, and make it "The Four Horsemen of Retardation".
They even fallen into arguing amongst themselves. It`s like watching
four blind men argue about what color an orange is. One says green,
another purple, none of them having what it takes to perform the task.

Honorable mention: Curt "I read it in a conspiracy book" Jester, Don
"I found three toothpicks, let me build a house" Willis, Ben "I am
invincible, but I better surrender anyway just to be on the safe side"
Holmes and David "I wrote an unread chapter on a bogus subject in an
irrelevant book, and haven`t uttered a coherent thought since" Healy.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 5:11:13 AM9/26/08
to
On Sep 25, 2:33 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> No one is saying that Oswald wasn't wearing a t-shirt and no one is
> saying that the witnesses couldn't have seen it.
>
> I'm saying that people don't describe the dress of others based on
> their underwear, Bud.

Wasn`t it your contention a litle while back that a witnesses
described a puppet as a dog? Is a puppet a dog, Gil? You seemed real
forgiving of that witness.

And you and the other kooks keep using the word "underwear", as if
this word prevents a witness who saw the white fabric of the t-shirt
covering Oz`s upper body from calling it a "shirt".

> Name one witness out of the many witnesses to the Tippit killing who
> admitted seeing Oswald's brown shirt.
>
> You're going to tell us out of ALL of those witnesses who saw the
> gunman NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS, either at the crime scene or after he
> fled noticed that he was wearing a brown shirt ?

Idiot, if Oswald`s shirt was unbuttoned, the outer jacker could
conceivably conceal the brown shirt nearly entirely. This simple
explanation would explain why the witnesses said the assailant was
wearing a white shirt, and why they said it was Oswald. But, being a
conspiracy retard, you can imagine all kinds of stupid things, but
can`t wrap your tint mind around a simple concept such as this.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 5:21:57 AM9/26/08
to
On Sep 25, 1:01 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 12:36 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Failing are we??...... You stupid bitch.
>
> ROFLMAO....Walt, don't you just love it when they tell you what the
> witnesses MEANT instead of what the witnesses SAID ?

How would you know what the witnesses were trying to say if we
didn`t tell you?

> It must be nice to be able to read the minds of people who were alive
> 45 years ago.

All it takes is the ability to read in context. Another skill you
kooks don`t possess.

> As for me, I'll wait for them to produce the EVIDENCE, before I
> believe it.

You brought up the police description from the Tippit murder to
make a point, idiot. Your question essentially asked "The report said
the assailant was wearing a white shirt, how could this be Oswald?" It
has been explained to you how this could be, but you don`t like the
answer, so you pretend the question hasn`t been addressed.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 6:35:19 AM9/26/08
to
Wrong as usual Bud.

I asked the question to prove a point, but not the one you think.

You think that I brought up the question to debate the COLOR of the
shirt.

Perhaps I should have rephrased the question like this :

Why did NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS to the Tippit murder include the brown
overshirt in their descriptions of the shooter on November 22nd ?

It's obvious in the testimony.

I don't want opinions, Bud. I want testimony.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 6:58:12 AM9/26/08
to

LMAO....Gilly Girl gets blasted, and now decides to change the his
question around.
What a god damn loser you are Jesus. As we have been telling you right
along....
You're a failure Detective Duf-ass....try another hobby.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 7:09:08 AM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 6:58�am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

.
>
> LMAO....Gilly Girl gets blasted, and now decides to change the his
> question around.
> What a god damn loser you are Jesus. As we have been telling you right
> along....
> You're a failure Detective Duf-ass....try another hobby.

We're still waiting for you to give us a case where the witnesses

described the jacket, bypassed the overshirt and described the
undershirt.

We're still waiting for you to show us the conflicting descriptions
YOU SAID were in the testimony of the man fleeing the Tippit murder.

We're still waiting for you to explain why NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS to
the Tippit murder included the overshirt in their descriptions of the
shooter.

RUN JOEY RUN

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 8:08:41 AM9/26/08
to

Don't hold your hand on your ass, it might develop boils like your
face has. You have been proven wrong...I don't need to show you
anything. Now go ahead and start 5 or 6 new threads on the same
subject as you usually do when you have been backed against a wall.
It's your way of trying to get your head out of your ass. ....you're
still a loser Gilly Girl.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 11:40:25 AM9/26/08
to
I don't think I was proven wrong about anything, yet. I haven't even
finished with what I was supposed to be presenting here.

You say that the white shirt was a T-shirt. And you claim that the
witnesses were describing the T-shirt and not the overshirt. You've
failed to give us another example of a witness describing a suspect by
their underwear instead of their outerwear. You've also not been able
to show us why ALL of the witnesses failed to see Oswald's brown
overshirt when it obviously contrasted between the white jacket on the
outside and the white t-shirt on the inside.

Add to this that Oswald's shirt was out of his pants ( rather than
tucked into them ) BEFORE he entered the Texas Theater. Both Johnny
Calvin Brewer and Julia Postal testified that Oswald's BROWN shirt was
out of his pants.

Brewer, on describing the man who came to his store said :

Mr. BREWER. And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His
shirt tail was out.

( 7 H 3 )


Postal was more convincing:

Mr. BALL. All right. I show you an Exhibit 150, a shirt. Does that
look anything like the shirt he had on?

Mrs. POSTAL. Yes, it was something like this shirt. I couldn't say it
is the same except it was brown and it was hanging out.

Mr. BALL. Outside his pants?

Mrs. POSTAL. Uh-huh.

Mr. BALL. Wasn't tucked into his pants?

Mrs. POSTAL. Huh-uh.

Mr. BALL. When he went in was it tucked in his pants when he went in?

Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; because I remember he came flying around the
corner, because his hair
was and shirt was kind of waving.

Mr. BALL. And his shirt was out?

Mrs. POSTAL. Uh-huh

Mr. BALL. You say----

Mrs. POSTAL. It was hanging out.

( 7 H 14 )

So Joey, how is it that the eyewitnesses to the Tippit shooting
couldn't see Oswald's shirt BELOW the Eisenhower jacket if his shirt
was out of his pants ?

Stay with me on this because I still haven't gotten to my final point.
Just answer the questions.

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 12:01:33 PM9/26/08
to
On 26 Sep, 10:40, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't think I was proven wrong about anything, yet. I haven't even
> finished with what I was supposed to be presenting here.

Bingo!..... You're making an excellent point. It's one of my
greatest frustrations.
Some idiot will deflect the crux of the entire post and start spewing
BS. The next thing ya know the point that was intended in the original
post is completely lost. And find yerself in the midst of debating
about the merits of using birth control for chimpanzees. This usually
happens when stupid bastards attempt to defend some bonehead mistake
or a lie they've told.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 12:22:53 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 8:08�am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> fYou have been proven wrong...I don't need to show you
> anything.

Wrong again Joey. You NEED to PROVE your case. The burden of PROOF is
on YOUR side.

Otherwise, it's just BS without proof.

I'm waiting for dumbass justme to explain how someone can be wrong for
asking a question.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 12:30:20 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 6:35 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> Wrong as usual Bud.
>
> I asked the question to prove a point, but not the one you think.
>
> You think that I brought up the question to debate the COLOR of the
> shirt.
>
> Perhaps I should have rephrased the question like this :
>
> Why did NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS to the Tippit murder include the brown
> overshirt in their descriptions of the shooter on November 22nd ?

A plausible explanation has been given. The jacket covered most of
the brown shirt, so it wasn`t noted, but the white t-shirt was noted
by the witness(es).

> It's obvious in the testimony.
>
> I don't want opinions, Bud. I want testimony.

<snicker> Where is your position without opinion, idiot? Produce
testimony from one person who said the doctored the BY photo(s).
Produce one witness to the Tippit murder who testified that they
selected Oswald because they had seen him on TV. And isn`t it only
your opinion that if Oswald had the brown shirt on, the witnesses must
include that detail in their descriptions?

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 12:42:31 PM9/26/08
to
if >

> So Joey, how is it that the eyewitnesses to the Tippit shooting
> couldn't see Oswald's shirt BELOW the Eisenhower jacket
> was out of his pants ?

Gil, I'm sure that you've considered the possibility that a shirt
could come untucked while a man is running, that's just commonsense,
so eventhough I believe you're presenting an excellent point that NONE
of the witnesses near the Tippit shooting said anything about a BROWN
shirt, I have to believe that you have some motive for asking .... "
How is it that the eyewitnesses to the Tippit shooting couldn't see
Oswald's shirt BELOW the Eisenhower jacket was out of his pants ?"

I don't want to divert the discussion ....but you presented something
in Julia Postal's testimony that I'd like to talk about later.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 12:45:49 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 11:40 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't think I was proven wrong about anything, yet.

How would you know? You were insinuating that Oz was not wearing a
white shirt. You were wrong about that.

>I haven't even
> finished with what I was supposed to be presenting here.

I thought you were asking questions, now you are making a
presentation.

> You say that the white shirt was a T-shirt.

The white t-shirt was a white shirt that would have been visible to
the witness(es) if the jacket wasn`t zippered.

> And you claim that the
> witnesses were describing the T-shirt and not the overshirt. You've
> failed to give us another example of a witness describing a suspect by
> their underwear instead of their outerwear.

Where is this database? Witnesses relates details they see (or
sometimes what they think they see). This witness(es) apparently saw
and reported the white t-shirt.

> You've also not been able
> to show us why ALL of the witnesses failed to see Oswald's brown
> overshirt when it obviously contrasted between the white jacket on the
> outside and the white t-shirt on the inside.

Of course, I did provide a plausible explanation. The jacket
covered most of the brown shirt.

The description that went out over the air could have been given by
one single witness. Chance are, that witness only saw Oswald briefly.
So, isn`t it only your OPINION that if they saw Oswald, that person
must take note of Oswald shirt sticking out from under his jacket.

Also there is a long period of time between Tippit`s murder and when
Brewer and Postal saw him, so you don`t know whether Oz`s shirt was
out when he committed the murder. He may have pulled the shirt tail to
cover the gun people said he had in is waistband, which would be
visible when he shed the jacket.

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 2:02:55 PM9/26/08
to

If the killer had been wearing a brown shirt over a T shirt and under
a light colored jacket, then commonsense would dictate that witnesses
eyes would have been drawn to the sharply contrasting color of the
dark brown shirt between the withe undershirt and the light colored
jacket. Argue as you will Dud, IF the killer had been wearing a
brown shirt at least ONE of the witnesses would have noticed
that.....but not a single one of the witnesses near the murder scene
who saw the fleeing man reported that he had on a brown shirt beneath
a light colored jacket. This is strong evidence that the man did NOT
in fact have on a brown shirt.

I believe the witnesses were unanimous that the killer wore only white
or light colored clothing on his upper body.


Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 2:33:17 PM9/26/08
to

What you are offering here is opinion, and I`m afraid Gil will
require that you cite some testimony to support this conjecture of
yours.

> Argue as you will Dud, IF the killer had been wearing a
> brown shirt at least ONE of the witnesses would have noticed
> that.....but not a single one of the witnesses near the murder scene
> who saw the fleeing man reported that he had on a brown shirt beneath
> a light colored jacket. This is strong evidence that the man did NOT
> in fact have on a brown shirt.

No, it is strong evidence that they took no note of a brown shirt.
At the time of the killing it is quite possible that very little of
that shirt could be seen. If it isn`t seen and noted, then how can it
be reported?

> I believe the witnesses were unanimous that the killer wore only white
> or light colored clothing on his upper body.

I assume they reported what they took note of. Not surprising they
would miss the brown shirt if little of it was visible at the time.

As a visual aid, here is the jacket Oswald was wearing when he
killed Tippit...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/35/Photo_naraevid_CE162-1.jpg

Now, there is a simple, plausible explanation how Oz could be
wearing this jacket, and witnesses neglected to take note of his brown
shirt. The jacket was unzipped, the shirt was unbuttoned, the jacket
covered almost all of the brown shirt, but the white t-shirt, not
being covered by the jacket was noted. Why do you kooks continue to
pretend this is some great mystery when a simple, plausible
explanation is available?

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 2:55:07 PM9/26/08
to

Dud.... Do you HONESTLY believe what you wrote???? Don't you realize
that your words are being recorded, and if not at the present time,
then sometime in the not to distant future, you will be a
laughingstock.

Why do you kooks continue to
> pretend this is some great mystery when a simple, plausible

> explanation is available?- Hide quoted text -

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 3:03:54 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 25, 8:40 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message

I guess this is supposed to provide "cover" for who Walt is, huh?
Nice try, but we know he is now!

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 3:04:17 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 2:33�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> > If the killer had been wearing a brown shirt over a T shirt and under
> > a light colored jacket, then commonsense would dictate that witnesses
> > eyes would have been drawn to the sharply contrasting color of the
> > dark brown shirt between the withe undershirt and the light colored
> > jacket.
>
> � �What you are offering here is opinion, and I`m afraid Gil will
> require that you cite some testimony to support this conjecture of
> yours.
>
> > �Argue as you will Dud, IF the killer had been wearing a
> > brown shirt at least ONE of the witnesses would have noticed
> > that.....but not a single one of the witnesses near the murder scene
> > who saw the fleeing man reported that he had on a brown shirt beneath
> > a light colored jacket. � This is strong evidence that the man did NOT
> > in fact have on a brown shirt.
>
> � �No, it is strong evidence that they took no note of a brown shirt.
> At the time of the killing it is quite possible that very little of
> that shirt could be seen. If it isn`t seen and noted, then how can it
> be reported?


NOT ONE WITNESS TOOK NOTE OF THE SHIRT......ROFLMAO


> � Now, there is a simple, plausible explanation how Oz could be


> wearing this jacket, and witnesses neglected to take note of his brown
> shirt. The jacket was unzipped, the shirt was unbuttoned, the jacket
> covered almost all of the brown shirt, but the white t-shirt, not
> being covered by the jacket was noted. Why do you kooks continue to
> pretend this is some great mystery when a simple, plausible

> explanation is available?-

NOW WHO'S OFFERING OPINION, BUD ?

We're still waiting for you to give us a case where the witnesses
described the jacket, bypassed the overshirt and described the
undershirt.

We're still waiting for you to show us the conflicting descriptions

were in the testimony of the man fleeing the Tippit murder.

We're still waiting for you to show us why NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS to
the Tippit murder included the overshirt in their descriptions of the
shooter.

Conjecture, opinion, assumption.....where's the evidence ?

Now HERE'S a MORE plausible explanation than your OPINION that the
jacket and shirt were opened.

THE TIPPIT SHOOTER WASN'T WEARING AN OVERSHIRT, BUD. HE WAS WEARING A
WHITE JACKET OVER A T-SHIRT. THAT'S WHY NONE OF THE WITNESSES SAW THE
BROWN SHIRT. THAT'S WHY NONE OF THE WITNESSES MENTIONED THE BROWN
SHIRT. THAT'S WHY THE DALLAS POLICE BROADCASTS NEVER MENTIONED THE
BROWN SHIRT. THAT'S WHY SCOGGINS WOULDN''T COMMENT ON THE BROWN SHIRT.
THAT'S WHY CALLAWAY SAID IN HIS TESTIMONY:

"When I saw him, he didn't have----"

Callaway caught himself, he was going to say: "He didn't have that
shirt", Bud.

OSWALD DID. OSWALD WASN'T THE SHOOTER. AND THAT'S MY FINAL POINT OF
ASKING ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE SHIRT. THE SHOOTER DIDN'T HAVE A BROWN
SHIRT. OSWALD DID. THEY ARRESTED THE WRONG GUY.

Now name a witness who said on November 22nd that the Tippit shooter
had a brown shirt.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 3:33:09 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 2:02�pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>not a single one of the witnesses near the murder scene
> who saw the fleeing man reported that he had on a brown shirt beneath
> a light colored jacket. � This is strong evidence that the man did NOT
> in fact have on a brown shirt.

BINGO....Nice one Walt. I was trying to lead them in that direction.
They say that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him
drink."

Apparently, it's impossible to lead a jackass to water.

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 3:56:04 PM9/26/08
to
> had a brown shirt.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Excellent step by step presentation, Gil..... Now I'd like to back up


to something Julia Postal said:

Mr. BALL. All right. I show you an Exhibit 150, a shirt. Does that
look anything like the shirt he had on?


Mrs. POSTAL. Yes, it was something like this shirt. I couldn't say
it
is the same except it was brown and it was hanging out.


CE 150 is the rusty, reddish brown, colored shirt with A LARGE HOLE
in the elbow, that the Warren Commission said Oswald was wearing when
he was arrested. It is also the same shirt that Mrs Bledsoe said she
saw Oswald wearing on the bus just minutes after the murder of JFK.

I have long argued that Oswald changed his shirt at the rooming house
a couple of minutes after 1:00 O'clock. The weight of the evidence
supports this contention. Because the testimonies of the cops, reveal
that Oswald told them he changed his shirt, and put it in the dresser
drawer. There are several independent memos of the cops who were at
Oswald's interrogations who write that Oswald changed his clothes and
put them in a dresser drawer . There are memos of the cops who
searched Oswald's room and said that found that shirt in the drawer
just as Oswald had told them.
Then there is the B&W photo that was taken by Bill Winfrey which shows
Oswald holding up his handcuffed arms that shows that his arrest shirt
had NO HOLE in the right elbow.

Clearly Oswald changed his shirt in his room at about 1:00pm.

When Julia Postal was shown CE 150 she said:..."Yes, it was something


like this shirt. I couldn't say it

is the same.... except it was brown"

I've long argued that the colored pictures that were taken outside of
the Texas theater at the time of Oswald's arrest show that he was
wearing a grayish brown shirt ( It looks more gray than brown to me
but I'll have to concede that it could be more brown than gray) The
shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested is NOT the dark
colored rusty reddish brown shirt ( CE 150) that the authorities
insisted was his arrest shirt.

The reason that the authorities insisted that CE 150 was the arrest
shirt is because the FBI claimed that they had found fibers on the
butt of the rifle that matched the shirt that Oswald was wearing AT
THE TIME of his arrest. They planned to use those fibers as evidence
that Oswald had had the rifle to his shoulder and against that shirt
at the time President Kennedy was murdered. Of course if Oswald had
changed his shirt ( and he had) then the fibers on the butt of the
rifle should have matched the Rusty red colored shirt (CE 150) that he
had left in his dresser drawer and NOT the shirt he was wearing when
he was arrested.

Julia Postal confirms that the rusty, reddish brown, colored shirt
that they were showing her was NOT the same shirt that she saw Oswald
wearing when he entered the theater.( Without regard to WHEN he
entered the theater) Postal saw the grayish brown shirt and KNEW it
was NOT the one they were displaying before her.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 4:11:33 PM9/26/08
to
> was NOT the one they were displaying before her.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Bud, we have wasted enough time with these two idiots. It makes no
difference that the brown shirt was under a jacket and not in plain
sight until the jacket was disposed of. It makes no difference that
the brown shirt was unbuttoned enough for the white tshirt to show in
the front of the body rather then the brown shirt. It makes no
difference to these assholes because they think they have trumped the
case over a shirt that was covered up with a jacket. Even the stupid
bastard Walt told Gilly Girl that the shirt could have been tucked in
therefore making it even more invisible. They have no common sense,
they have heads that could be used as wrecking balls....every
plausible explanation has been given to them yet Jesus still wants
another witness describing someones underwear. A tshirt is a tshirt.
He thinks that by calling it underwear it's going to make a big
impact. Let them keep arguing and posting between themselves. Jesus
wouldn't see common sense in this case if it came up and spit in his
face....pretty much like all the women that hes ever met face to face.

aeffects

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 4:40:00 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 1:11 pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

you're whining at fever pitch again, troll... ROTFLMFAO! BTW, what
would a tattooed freako like yourself know about women anyway... LMFAO

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 4:43:26 PM9/26/08
to
> would a tattooed freako like yourself know about women anyway... LMFAO- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Go shoot up again junkie only this time double the dose....you fail to
see you are NOT missed around here unless we need a good laugh.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 5:42:13 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 4:11�pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> face....pretty much like all the women that hes ever met face to face.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

First you said the jacket was open and the shirt was open.

Now you're saying that the jacket was closed and the shirt was open,
exposing the t-shirt.

Where's that in the testimony ?

You don't know your ass from your elbow, it's obvious that you're
making this crap up as you go along.


I asked you to cite a precedent where the witnesses described the
jacket, omitted the shirt and described the underwear of a suspect.

You could not

I asked you to give us the testimony that supports your foollish
assertion that there was a discrepancy in the description of the
Tippit shooter.

You could not.

I asked you to provide the name of a witness who on November 22nd,
said that the Tippit shooter was wearing a brown shirt.

You could not.

Every time you made a point, I asked you to back it up and you could
not.

It's obvious to anyone who's been following this thread who the "two
idiots" are.

All you've defended your position with is opinion, assumption and
conjecture.

Maybe you should have stuck to insults.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 5:51:43 PM9/26/08
to

Whats the matter, not enough ninjas in the story for your infantile
imagination?

> Don't you realize
> that your words are being recorded, and if not at the present time,
> then sometime in the not to distant future, you will be a
> laughingstock.

If you have nothing to offer against what I proposed, why respond
at all?

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 6:25:59 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 3:04 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2:33 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > If the killer had been wearing a brown shirt over a T shirt and under
> > > a light colored jacket, then commonsense would dictate that witnesses
> > > eyes would have been drawn to the sharply contrasting color of the
> > > dark brown shirt between the withe undershirt and the light colored
> > > jacket.
>
> > What you are offering here is opinion, and I`m afraid Gil will
> > require that you cite some testimony to support this conjecture of
> > yours.
>
> > > Argue as you will Dud, IF the killer had been wearing a
> > > brown shirt at least ONE of the witnesses would have noticed
> > > that.....but not a single one of the witnesses near the murder scene
> > > who saw the fleeing man reported that he had on a brown shirt beneath
> > > a light colored jacket. This is strong evidence that the man did NOT
> > > in fact have on a brown shirt.
>
> > No, it is strong evidence that they took no note of a brown shirt.
> > At the time of the killing it is quite possible that very little of
> > that shirt could be seen. If it isn`t seen and noted, then how can it
> > be reported?
>
> NOT ONE WITNESS TOOK NOTE OF THE SHIRT......ROFLMAO

IT WAS UNDER THE JACKET.

> > Now, there is a simple, plausible explanation how Oz could be
> > wearing this jacket, and witnesses neglected to take note of his brown
> > shirt. The jacket was unzipped, the shirt was unbuttoned, the jacket
> > covered almost all of the brown shirt, but the white t-shirt, not
> > being covered by the jacket was noted. Why do you kooks continue to
> > pretend this is some great mystery when a simple, plausible
> > explanation is available?-
>
> NOW WHO'S OFFERING OPINION, BUD ?

DO YOU THINK THERE IS FILM OF THE SHOOTING AVAILABLE, IDIOT?

> We're still waiting for you to give us a case where the witnesses
> described the jacket, bypassed the overshirt and described the
> undershirt.

Thats a retard`s criteria. As I pointed out to you, the witnesses
relate what they see (sometimes imperfectly). If they saw the white t-
shirt, there is nothing to stop them from noting and reporting it. If
they don`t take note of the outer shirt, than they would no report
that detail. Have you done any real study on the accuracy of witness
supplied information? Do you have any idea what to expect, do you know
what the norm is?

> We're still waiting for you to show us the conflicting descriptions
> were in the testimony of the man fleeing the Tippit murder.

Why were you waiting for that? Did I give an indication I was going
to supply it?

> We're still waiting for you to show us why NOT ONE SINGLE WITNESS to
> the Tippit murder included the overshirt in their descriptions of the
> shooter.

Given in my last three posts. Do you need it translated into idiot
for you?

> Conjecture, opinion, assumption.....where's the evidence ?

Where is your evidence that the witnesses who selected Oswald as the
man they saw did so because they saw him on TV?

I presented a simple, plausible explanation how the witnesses could
not take note of Oswald`s brown shirt. Nowhere do I see you offering
anything to knock that explanation out of consideration.

> Now HERE'S a MORE plausible explanation than your OPINION that the
> jacket and shirt were opened.
>
> THE TIPPIT SHOOTER WASN'T WEARING AN OVERSHIRT, BUD. HE WAS WEARING A
> WHITE JACKET OVER A T-SHIRT. THAT'S WHY NONE OF THE WITNESSES SAW THE
> BROWN SHIRT. THAT'S WHY NONE OF THE WITNESSES MENTIONED THE BROWN
> SHIRT. THAT'S WHY THE DALLAS POLICE BROADCASTS NEVER MENTIONED THE
> BROWN SHIRT. THAT'S WHY SCOGGINS WOULDN''T COMMENT ON THE BROWN SHIRT.
> THAT'S WHY CALLAWAY SAID IN HIS TESTIMONY:

GETTING A LITTLE SHRILL, GIL, AM I ROCKING YOUR TINY WORLD WITH ALL
THIS THINKING STUFF?

The problem with what you suggest is we are still left needing an
explanation for Oswald pulling a gun on the cops, for Oswald being
identified by all those folks in Oak Cliff, of what happened to the
jacket Mrs Roberts said he was putting on when he left the
boardinghouse, ect. You see, by avoiding a simple reasonable
explanation, that it was Oswald the folks saw, but they failed to take
note of his brown shirt, now you are left contriving wild CONJECTURE,
ASSUMPTION and OPINION try to explain the other things. That is why
the LN position is so much more superior. Oswald shot Tippit, because
he shot Kennedy, and was on his way to try to kill Walker. That is why
people said they saw him there, because he was. See, simple. Brewer
saw him ducking into his store because he wanted to avoid capture.
See, simple, it fits. He ducked into the Texas Theater for the same
reason. See? Simple. When the cops tried to arrest him, he tried to
shoot it out because he was guilty. See? Simple. I know you and the
other kooks try to throw sand on the wheels, trying in invent
complexity, but you are only confounding yourself. This case is fairly
simple, providing you aren`t an idiot.

> "When I saw him, he didn't have----"
>
> Callaway caught himself, he was going to say: "He didn't have that
> shirt", Bud.

Who knows what he was going to say? But so what if he didn`t see
the brown shirt under the jacket? He still identified Oswald as the
man he saw. So the brown shirt walks, and Oswald frys.

> OSWALD DID. OSWALD WASN'T THE SHOOTER. AND THAT'S MY FINAL POINT OF
> ASKING ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE SHIRT. THE SHOOTER DIDN'T HAVE A BROWN
> SHIRT. OSWALD DID. THEY ARRESTED THE WRONG GUY.

Wow, like it was some secret where you were heading with this.
Typical kook, this must mean this, which must mean this, which must
mean this. But, Gil, isn`t it only your OPINION that if it was Oswald
they saw, they MUST take note of the brown shirt. I mean, you can`t
cite any testimony supporting this, can you?

> Now name a witness who said on November 22nd that the Tippit shooter
> had a brown shirt.

I`d say Markham is the only clear witness to see Tippit shot. She
said it was Oswald who did it.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 6:30:41 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 4:11 pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snicker> Hell, I wasted enough time on them my first visit here,
many years ago.

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 6:46:28 PM9/26/08
to

Oh you wanted me to offer something.....Well why didn't you say so??

OK..... I offer this to you for your consideration and await your
reply.

According to the timeline of events from police radio log that is
printed on page 385 of With Malice, at 1:23pm 11 /22/63 There is this
entery:

1:23----- Officers Poe, Jez, hill and assistant Bill Alexander arrive
at the shooting scene.

An unidentified citizen informs police at the shooting scene that the
suspect discarded his jacket in the parking lot behind Ballew's Texaco
station.

In order for the citizen to know that he had to have seen the suspect
take off his jacket. So what happens next....

Well the logical thing is the cops would know immediately that the
suspect has altered his appearance, so they'd ask the citizen....
"OK... you saw the guy shed his jacket now can you give us a
description of how the guy is dressed? Is he wearing a shirt? What
color is that shirt?

If the killer had been wearing a brown shirt the citizen would have
known that and informed the cops....he had seen the guy shed his
jacket only minutes earlier so he would know if the guy was wearing a
brown shirt. If the citizen had told them that the guy was wearing a
Brown shirt they would immediately reported that change of description
to headquarters who in turn would have notified all units that the
suspect had shed his jacket and was now wearing a brown shirt.

Now Dud.... Can you direct me to a police radio broadcast that
notifies all units in Oak Cliff that the suspect was now wearing a
brown shirt??? Why aren't there any such broadcasts??? Is it
because even after the guy shed his jacket his description didn't
change dradtically?...The Cops knew that he was still wearing a light
colored upprt garment and therefore simply allowed the earlier
description to remain as broadcast. Since the guy was srill wearing
a white shirt he was NOT Lee Oswald who everybody knows was wearing a
brown shirt at that time.

>
>
>
> >  Why do you kooks continue to
>
> > > pretend this is some great mystery when a simple, plausible
> > > explanation is available?- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 7:14:40 PM9/26/08
to

Well, I`m waiting. Do you have evidence they did this?

> If the killer had been wearing a brown shirt the citizen would have
> known that and informed the cops....

By all means, identify this witness who said he saw Oswald take off
the jacket, and produce what that person told the police.

>he had seen the guy shed his
> jacket only minutes earlier so he would know if the guy was wearing a
> brown shirt. If the citizen had told them that the guy was wearing a
> Brown shirt they would immediately reported that change of description
> to headquarters who in turn would have notified all units that the
> suspect had shed his jacket and was now wearing a brown shirt.

> Now Dud.... Can you direct me to a police radio broadcast that
> notifies all units in Oak Cliff that the suspect was now wearing a
> brown shirt??? Why aren't there any such broadcasts???

Likely because there was no man who saw Oz take off the jacket.
Since the man did not exist, the exchange you imagine between him and
the police did not take place.

> Is it
> because even after the guy shed his jacket his description didn't
> change dradtically?...The Cops knew that he was still wearing a light
> colored upprt garment and therefore simply allowed the earlier
> description to remain as broadcast. Since the guy was srill wearing
> a white shirt he was NOT Lee Oswald who everybody knows was wearing a
> brown shirt at that time.

But according to witnesses, he was wearing Oswald`s face.

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 7:30:32 PM9/26/08
to

What!!....are you calling your hero, Dale Myers a liar??? He printed
that time line on page 385 of his book "With Malice"... Myers wouldn't
lie ....would he??

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 8:04:20 PM9/26/08
to

Oh, there was probably a man who directed police to the discarded
jacket. But that he saw Oswald take it off, and all the dialog you
claimed must take place between his man and police are all just
products of your feverish kook imagination.

Sam Brown

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 8:27:12 PM9/26/08
to

"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:da190126-245c-4424...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Whatever floats your boat, kook.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 8:28:49 PM9/26/08
to

The jacket doesn`t have to be closed to cover the open shirt.

> Where's that in the testimony ?

Callaway: Sir, when I sam he didn`t have-- I couldnt see this
shirt. I saw-- he had it open, and I could see the white t-shirt
underneath.

Ball: He has a white t-shirt on underneath?

Callaway: Yes. That is the shirt he had on at the line-up that
night.

> You don't know your ass from your elbow, it's obvious that you're
> making this crap up as you go along.

You demanded testimony. Above is testimony. Callaway not only
identied Oswald, he also identified the t-shirt Oswald was wearing at
the line-up as the one he saw Oz wearing when he was fleeing the
murder scene.

> I asked you to cite a precedent where the witnesses described the
> jacket, omitted the shirt and described the underwear of a suspect.
>
> You could not

So you admit Kennedy wasn`t killed by a conspiracy, since you can
show no conspiracy like this ever taking place before.

> I asked you to give us the testimony that supports your foollish
> assertion that there was a discrepancy in the description of the
> Tippit shooter.
>
> You could not.
>
> I asked you to provide the name of a witness who on November 22nd,
> said that the Tippit shooter was wearing a brown shirt.
>
> You could not.

Only one person saw Oswald actually shoot Tippit, and that was
Markham. When show the brown shirt (CE150), she said she thought the
shirt she saw Oswald wearing was lighter. This does not mean that
CE150 was not the shirt she saw Oswald wearing, only that her
impression was that it was a lighter shirt.

> Every time you made a point, I asked you to back it up and you could
> not.

You raised this issue, idiot. Let us see you support your assumption
that if Oswald had on the brown shirt, the witnesses must note it, and
tell the cops about it.

> It's obvious to anyone who's been following this thread who the "two
> idiots" are.

Yah. Painfully obvious.

> All you've defended your position with is opinion, assumption and
> conjecture.

It is only your opinion that the witnesses must note and report
Oswald`s brown shirt.

Bud

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 8:33:28 PM9/26/08
to
Callaway: Sir, when I saw him he didn`t have-- I couldnt see this

shirt. I saw-- he had it open, and I could see the white t-shirt
underneath.

Fixed the testimony above.

> impression was that it was ...
>
> read more »

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 9:06:17 PM9/26/08
to

Feverish imagination?? I think if you were rational you'd recognize
that my imagination is quite logical.

Walt

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 9:19:21 PM9/26/08
to

WOW!!.... It's a good thing that you're too damned dumb too know ho
to read.....Because Callaway says the killer had on a T-shirt ONLY
under the jacket.... He's talkin about a T-shirt ONLY because he
specifically says "Yes. That is the shirt he had on at the line-up
that night."

Thank you for being S-T-U-P-I-D.....

> impression was that it was ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 7:33:55 AM9/27/08
to
On Sep 26, 8:28�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

>
> � �You demanded testimony. Above is testimony. Callaway not only


> identied Oswald, he also identified the t-shirt Oswald was wearing at
> the line-up as the one he saw Oz wearing when he was fleeing the
> murder scene.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

BUD:

HOW DOES ONE "IDENTIFY" A T-SHIRT "AS THE ONE" IN COMPARISON TO OTHER
T-SHIRTS ?

Callaway identified him by the t-shirt ONLY.

How many of the other participants were dressed in t-shirts ?

How many of the other participants showed signs of a beating ?

Was Oswald in a lineup with police officers ?

Was Oswald in a lineup with two teenagers and a Mexican ?

You think it was diffcult for the witnesses to "pick him out " ?

ROFLMAO


The Tippit killer was wearing a t-shirt under a white jacket.

Callaway identified the t-shirt. The killer wasn't wearing any brown
shirt and he almost slips and says it. He couldn't possibly know the
shirt was open if he didn't see it. All he knows is that he's being
shown a shirt that he didn't see. Now he tries to please the
Commission by explaining WHY he didn't see the brown shirt. Notice the
hesitation in his answer:

Mr. BALL. I show you a shirt, 150. Does it look anything like the
shirt he had on under the jacket?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Sir, when I saw him he didn't have--I couldn't see this
shirt. I saw--he had it open. That shirt was open, and I could see his
white T-shirt underneath.

Mr. BALL. He had a white T-shirt underneath?

Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes. That is the shirt he had on in the lineup that
night.

( 3 H 356 )


HOW DID CALLAWAY KNOW THE BROWN SHIRT WAS OPEN IF HE COULDN'T SEE
IT ?

HOW DID HE KNOW IF IT WAS EVEN THERE ?

ALL HE KNOWS IS THAT HE'S BEING SHOWN A SHIRT THAT HE DIDN'T SEE. SO
HE PROCEEDS TO SEARCH FOR AN EXCUSE WHY HE DIDN'T SEE IT.


Barbara Davis was 20 or 25 feet from the shooter. She said he had a
"light colored shirt " ( 3 H 349 )


WILLIAM SCOGGINS WAS AFRAID TO ADMIT THAT THE BROWN SHIRT WAS NOT WORN
BY THE KILLER:

Mr. SCOGGINS. ....he had on a light shirt.

Mr. BELIN. A light shirt?

Mr. SCOGGINS. I wouldn't say it was white, but--

Mr. BELIN. Would the shirt be lighter than Exhibit 150 or about the
same color or darker or would Exhibit 150 look
anything like the shirt you thought he was wearing, if you know?

Mr. SCOGGINS. No, I don't, so I couldn't answer that.

Mr. BELIN. And you say you don't know, or you think this is different
than what he was wearing?

Mr. SCOGGINS. I couldn't say about the shirt.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mr. SCOGGINS. I just couldn't.

( 3 H 328 )

The witness is obviously under a tremendous amount of stress to swear
under oath to something that he knows is not true, so he takes the
only way out and says that he "doesn't know". He says the killer had a
"light shirt" but in comparison to CE 150, he has no idea if it was
lighter or not.

YEAH RIGHT.

Then when asked directly if he thought that "this is different than
what he was wearing?", he begs off answering the question by
responding, "I couldn't say about the shirt.....I just couldn't".

Some people just can't lie under oath.


justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 8:01:51 AM9/27/08
to

You seem to be a pro at lying and interpeting what witnesses say to
fit your way of thinking. If they didn't see the brown shirt, they
didn't see the brown shirt. Stop putting words into their mouths like
you always do....this is your specialty with your scarfed witness
videos that you edit also. You and Walt make up your stories as you go
along. You're nothing more then an idiot Detective Duf-ass....back to
the drawing board.
You haven't convinced anyone of anything yet....and your lies are seen
through just like a piece of glass.
Don't bother to post your same usual garbage again...I'm done talking
to a moron with the IQ and reasoning of dirt. I'll just be here to
humiliate you like I have in the past, pointing out your stupidity.

Walt

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 8:21:08 AM9/27/08
to

MAKE UP STORIES..???

You stupid bitch.....WHAT the hell do you think the Warren Report
is??????????

Have you read it...dumb bitch??? The WR report is simply the Warren
Commission's THEORY ( made up story) about how Oswald murdered John
Kennedy..... THAT is a FACT.

AND.... I merely use the Warren Commission's own tactics and offer
possible explanations for events....But when the WC offers made up
stories they are "the truth" but when I offera theory it is a "made up
story"

What a Dumb bitch!!

You're nothing more then an idiot Detective Duf-ass....back to
> the drawing board.
> You haven't convinced anyone of anything yet....and your lies are seen
> through just like a piece of glass.
> Don't bother to post your same usual garbage again...I'm done talking
> to a moron with the IQ and reasoning of dirt. I'll just be here to

> humiliate you like I have in the past, pointing out your stupidity.- Hide quoted text -

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 8:27:19 AM9/27/08
to
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey Walt? Did you build that cardboard replica of the asylum you
belong in yet? You're a fruitcake Walt.
You make up your own stories which are worthless. The WR is an
official document, when your fairy tales become and official document
then you can toot your own horn....STUPID BASTARD!

Walt

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 8:45:41 AM9/27/08
to

Wothless are they??....Then why do they bother you??? Dumb bitch!


The WR is an official document,

Ha. ha, ha, ha, ROTFLMAO........ What a stupid bitch!!!


when your fairy tales become and official document

> then you can toot your own horn....STUPID BASTARD!-

Bud

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 9:16:36 AM9/27/08
to

It says that only if you are a retard, and insert the word "only".
What he is saying is that he didn`t take of the shirt, because it was
open, and he only noted the t-shirt under it.

>He's talkin about a T-shirt ONLY because he
> specifically says "Yes. That is the shirt he had on at the line-up
> that night."

Yah, that is the shirt he got a good look at, the t-shirt. The same
shirt other witnesses said they saw when they said "white shirt".

> Thank you for being S-T-U-P-I-D.....

How do you suppose Callawy got such a good look at that t-shirt,
Walt? Could it be both the jacket and shirt were open like we`ve been
saying all along? If the jacket and shirt are both open, what happens
to the shirt? Couldn`t it very easily get lost under the jacket to
people making a brief observation? Isn`t it really you and Gil being
stupid on this issue?

> Ball: He has a white t-shirt on underneath?
>
> Callaway: Yes. That is the shirt he had on at the line-up that
> night.
>
> Callaway: Sir, when I sam he didn`t have-- I couldnt see this
> shirt. I saw-- he had it open, and I could see the white t-shirt
> underneath.
>
> Ball: He has a white t-shirt on underneath?
>
> Callaway: Yes. That is the shirt he had on at the line-up that
> night.
>
>
>
> > > You don't know your ass from your elbow, it's obvious that you're
> > > making this crap up as you go along.
>
> > You demanded testimony. Above is testimony. Callaway not only
> > identied Oswald, he also identified the t-shirt Oswald was wearing at
> > the line-up as the one he
>

> ...
>
> read more »

Bud

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:06:07 AM9/27/08
to
On Sep 27, 7:33 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 8:28 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You demanded testimony. Above is testimony. Callaway not only
> > identied Oswald, he also identified the t-shirt Oswald was wearing at
> > the line-up as the one he saw Oz wearing when he was fleeing the
> > murder scene.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> BUD:
>
> HOW DOES ONE "IDENTIFY" A T-SHIRT "AS THE ONE" IN COMPARISON TO OTHER
> T-SHIRTS ?

Possibly by fairly unique chraracteristics, like a stretched out
collar. Possibly because it looked identacle to the one he saw Oswald
wearing previously, when he saw Oswald running from the murder Oswald
committed. But, did you notice Walt made a big deal because Postal
declined to make a positive identification of the brown shirt Oz was
wearing? How could she positively say CE150 was the shirt she saw?

> Callaway identified him by the t-shirt ONLY.

Isn`t this just your idiot opinion, Gil? Or can you quote Callaway`s
testimony saying that he identified Oswald only by his t-shirt?

> How many of the other participants were dressed in t-shirts ?

What "participants"? There was only one person who killed Tippit,
that was Oswald. I think you`re cracking, Gil.

> How many of the other participants showed signs of a beating ?

Probably only the one that was beat, Oswald. You do know he was in a
scuffle with the cops, right?

> Was Oswald in a lineup with police officers ?

Yah, I think so.

> Was Oswald in a lineup with two teenagers and a Mexican ?

Thats sound like your idea of a good time.

> You think it was diffcult for the witnesses to "pick him out " ?

No, I think it was fairly easy for the people who saw Oswald well
enough to make an identification to select him as the man they saw.
Others who didn`t see him so well declined to make a selection. The
witneses were allowed to say they didn`t see the man they saw in the
line-up.

> ROFLMAO
>
> The Tippit killer was wearing a t-shirt under a white jacket.

That is what you demanded, isnt it? Testimony?

> Callaway identified the t-shirt. The killer wasn't wearing any brown
> shirt and he almost slips and says it.

So you say. But how it reads is, he started to say something,
realized it wasn`t coming out how he wanted it to, and started over,
rephrasing his response. People so this all the time.

What he actually does end up saying is that he didn`t see the shirt
Ball is showing him (CE150), because the shirt was open.

The reason for this is simple, explained many times. The jacket
covered it. He could see the jacket. He could see the t-shirt. He
didn`t take note of the shirt (because it was open, and covered by the
jacket).

> He couldn't possibly know the
> shirt was open if he didn't see it.

The power of assumption. When it later comes to Callaway`s attention
(hearing it somewhere) that Oswald had on a brown shirt, he does what
you can`t seem to do, comes up with a plausible explanation why he
missed it. "because it was open". The same conclusion I came to,
before I ever became aware of this testimony from Callaway. It is
obvious, and your reason for rejecting it (it means more evidence your
precious patsy was guilty) is obvious also.

>All he knows is that he's being
> shown a shirt that he didn't see.

He also explains why he didn`t see it. "it was open".

> Now he tries to please the
> Commission by explaining WHY he didn't see the brown shirt. Notice the
> hesitation in his answer:

Notice that it is only your OPINION what this hesitation means.

> Mr. BALL. I show you a shirt, 150. Does it look anything like the
> shirt he had on under the jacket?
>
> Mr. CALLAWAY. Sir, when I saw him he didn't have--I couldn't see this
> shirt. I saw--he had it open. That shirt was open, and I could see his
> white T-shirt underneath.
>
> Mr. BALL. He had a white T-shirt underneath?
>
> Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes. That is the shirt he had on in the lineup that
> night.
>
> ( 3 H 356 )
>
> HOW DID CALLAWAY KNOW THE BROWN SHIRT WAS OPEN IF HE COULDN'T SEE
> IT ?

How do you know he didn`t see it? He doesn`t say he didn`t. He says
it was open. Even if he saw the brown shirt (and if it was his
description that went out over the air), why would he mention it if it
was not a noticible detail? Putting "brown shirt" out over the air
isn`t a useful bit of information to make an identification with if
the brown shirt if open and can hardly be seen.

> HOW DID HE KNOW IF IT WAS EVEN THERE ?

Yah, here we go. First the moron demands testimony, and when it is
provided, he attacks the person for saying something that goes against
what he wants to believe.

> ALL HE KNOWS IS THAT HE'S BEING SHOWN A SHIRT THAT HE DIDN'T SEE. SO
> HE PROCEEDS TO SEARCH FOR AN EXCUSE WHY HE DIDN'T SEE IT.

If he knows it was oswal he saw, there would have to be a reason he
missed the shirt, right. Why wouldn`t he give some thought as to what
that reason could be?

> Barbara Davis was 20 or 25 feet from the shooter. She said he had a
> "light colored shirt " ( 3 H 349 )

Could be the t-shirt Callaway saw.

> WILLIAM SCOGGINS WAS AFRAID TO ADMIT THAT THE BROWN SHIRT WAS NOT WORN
> BY THE KILLER:

Isn`t this just your IDIOT OPINION, Gil?

> Mr. SCOGGINS. ....he had on a light shirt.
>
> Mr. BELIN. A light shirt?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. I wouldn't say it was white, but--
>
> Mr. BELIN. Would the shirt be lighter than Exhibit 150 or about the
> same color or darker or would Exhibit 150 look
> anything like the shirt you thought he was wearing, if you know?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. No, I don't, so I couldn't answer that.
>
> Mr. BELIN. And you say you don't know, or you think this is different
> than what he was wearing?
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. I couldn't say about the shirt.
>
> Mr. BELIN. All right.
>
> Mr. SCOGGINS. I just couldn't.
>
> ( 3 H 328 )
>
> The witness is obviously under a tremendous amount of stress to swear
> under oath to something that he knows is not true, so he takes the
> only way out and says that he "doesn't know". He says the killer had a
> "light shirt" but in comparison to CE 150, he has no idea if it was
> lighter or not.
>
> YEAH RIGHT.
>
> Then when asked directly if he thought that "this is different than
> what he was wearing?", he begs off answering the question by
> responding, "I couldn't say about the shirt.....I just couldn't".

Perhaps he felt that since he didn`t have a clear idea about the
shirt, he best not say anything at all. His impressions about the
shirt being light or dark have no impact on whether it was Oswald he
saw.

> Some people just can't lie under oath.

So you accept it when he says "I couldn`t say about the shirt" being
a truthful answer, right? So do I, I think he had no firm recollection
on of the shirt. Looks like when he started, he offered his
impression, but when he considered it, he had no confidence in his
ability to recall the shirt, so decided to say nothing at all about
it.

Walt

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:24:28 AM9/27/08
to
> it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -


Pssssst Dud....don't look right now ....but yer getting yer ass handed
to ya.


Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:27:46 AM9/27/08
to
On Sep 27, 8:01�am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> You seem to be a pro at lying and interpeting what witnesses say to
> fit your way of thinking. If they didn't see the brown shirt, they
> didn't see the brown shirt. Stop putting words into their mouths like
> you always do....this is your specialty with your scarfed witness
> videos that you edit also. You and Walt make up your stories as you go
> along.

ROFLMAO....

JOEY, LET'S TALK ABOUT MAKING UP STORIES:

1. You claimed that the witnesses described the jacket, omitted the
brown shirt and described the t-shirt.

I asked you to cite a precedent where the witnesses described the
jacket, omitted the shirt and described the underwear of a suspect.

You could not

2. Then you said that CE 705 and CD 290 were discrepancies in the
description of the man seen fleeing the Tippit murder scene.

I asked you to give us the testimony that supported that.

You could not.

3. In addition, I asked you to provide the name of ONE witness who on


November 22nd, said that the Tippit shooter was wearing a brown
shirt.

You could not.


Then, when you finally find a witness who says that the shirt was
open, not as a matter of fact, but as an afterthought, you claim I'm
putting words in his mouth.

How do I do that when I'm citing testimony ?

And yet, every question I have, you are completely unable to answer to
any degree of satisfaction.

How did Callaway possibly know for certain that the brown shirt was
open if he never saw it ? HOW COULD HE EVEN KNOW FOR SURE THAT IT WAS
BEING WORN ?

I noticed that you ignored these questions.

The answer, of course is obvious to anyone not in a state of denial.
He doesn't know for a FACT that the brown shirt was open because he
never saw it. All he knows is that he is being shown a shirt by
Commission Counsel that he didn't see on the killer.

Mr. CALLAWAY. Sir, when I saw him he didn't have--

So he proceeds to search for an excuse WHY he didn't see it.

Mr. CALLAWAY. --I couldn't see this shirt. I saw--he had it open. That


shirt was open, and I could see his white T-shirt underneath.

( 3 H 356 )

Callaway ASSUMED that the shirt was open because he could see the t-
shirt and never saw the brown shirt.

But since he and ALL of the other witnesses NEVER SAW THE BROWN SHIRT,
there is no EVIDENCE that the shirt was open, only opinion, ASSUMPTION
and conjecture.

Now, if someone SAW the brown shirt and saw that it was open, THAT
would be evidence.

The other alternative is that the shooter had NO overshirt, brown or
otherwise, and was wearing a white t-shirt under the white jacket.

Meaning that the Tippit killer WASN'T Oswald.

That's my point, Joey. And it makes a helluva lot MORE sense than the
fairy tales you tried to pass off above and were unable to support.

Once again, we've ripped the shreds out of another of your "star"
witnesses as we did with Brennan and Markham.

You better run and get the professer. You need help.


justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 10:33:25 AM9/27/08
to

head back up ass Detective Duf-ass...and by the way it was Bud who
just tore you a new asshole, not me. I told you I'm not wasting my
time talking to an IQ of dirt like yourself other then to show what a
stupid liar you are. As the junkie says "Carry on" slimeball

Gil Jesus

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 12:20:25 PM9/27/08
to
Twenty posts ago, you were claiming victory on this issue, even before
I was able to get to the end of my point.

Five posts ago, you were snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Now, having exhausted your argument and once again having been made
the fool of, you seek to slither back under the rock from whence you
came.

A little more wounded and a little less credible ( if there's a level
below 0 for credibility ).

You still haven't answered any questions.

You still haven't provided any evidence.

You still can't back up you foolish assertions.


One thing this thread HAS proven.

1. That you have NO CLUE as to WTF you're reading or any ability to
understand what the witnesses were TRYING to say.

2. You have NO UNDERSTANDING of this case at all.

3. You have NO KNOWLEDGE of police tactics.

4. You have NO SENSE OF HISTORY in which those police tactics were
used.

5. That you don't own a copy of the 26 Volumes that you so
passionately defend.

6. You could do nothing more than to provide opinion, assumption and
conjecture to bolster your arguments with.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 12:38:58 PM9/27/08
to

I claimed my victory and I'm done with it and you. You on the other
hand are still trying to convince anyone that will read this that you
are right. So continue to talk to yourself all you want. BTW you
didn't change your story until you were proven to be an idiot. Then
all of a sudden you come back with you didn't finish making your
point....Here's my last comment on that line of crap....BULLSHIT!

Bud

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 1:00:59 PM9/27/08
to

I think that is your best option... claim victory and run away.

Walt

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 1:17:13 PM9/27/08
to

You can FORGET THAT....... I'm here ta keep kickin yer ass.......

Bud

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 1:27:05 PM9/27/08
to

You can start by addressing the points I made in that posting you
dismissed.

And while you at it, why don`t you explain what it is that is so
cosmically unlikely that Oswald`s jacket was open, his shirt was open,
his white t-shirt was visible, and his brown shirt was covered by the
jacket? You, who entertains the most ludicrous scenarios imaginable,
finds this simple explanation impossible. Why, exactly?

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages