How did LHO...
aeffects
moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
justm...@gmail.com
> make one of the most difficult shots in the world to make, that of, a
> moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
He put his finger on the trigger, aimed the rifle and fired. Don't you
know anything?
YoHarvey
> moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
Let's examine this shall we. LHO took three shots. If we believe
each attempt was a head shot to kill, then LHO shot 33%. For those
CT's who believe LHO was a poor shot, he was. For those who believe
based on his military training LHO was a better shot than your average
American, then he was an excellent shot. All depends on perspective
and what you believe the evidence shows. Marine Corps training says
LHO was capable of hitting an 8" target from 200 yards 80% of the
time. The kill shot on JFK was but 88 yards. Since the target was
moving in a downward trajectory, a 33% hit percentage doesn't appear
impossible based on LHO's qualifications. What's the problem?
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> make one of the most difficult shots in the world to make, that of, a
> moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
How did you complete an almost coherent thought?
David Von Pein
>>> "How did you complete an almost coherent thought?" <<<
It's just too bad for Healy-Kook that that thought included these
wholly-incorrect/stupid words:
"How did LHO make one of the most difficult shots in the world
to make...?"
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Mar 2, 7:36 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > make one of the most difficult shots in the world to make, that of, a
> > moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
>
"Let's examine this shall we. LHO took three shots."
Prove it.
"If we believe each attempt was a head shot to kill, then LHO shot
33%."
Prove he shot 3 times at the President on 11/22/63 at 12:30 p.m. using
a M-C 40.2 inch rifle from the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD.
"For those CT's who believe LHO was a poor shot, he was."
The WC said so as well.
"For those who believe based on his military training LHO was a better
shot than your average American, then he was an excellent shot."
This makes no sense as the assassination was a very difficult shooting
sequence and the top marksmen in the world could NOT match it, ever.
So to say, well he is better than the average American doesn't cut it,
as he was way worse than the best shooters in the world and they all
said they couldn't do it.
"All depends on perspective and what you believe the evidence shows."
The evidence shows LHO fired NO shots on 11/22/63.
"Marine Corps training says LHO was capable of hitting an 8" target
from 200 yards 80% of the time."
Sure, and your are capable of independent thought, but we all know you
never do it.
"The kill shot on JFK was but 88 yards. Since the target was moving
in a downward trajectory, a 33% hit percentage doesn't appear
impossible based on LHO's qualifications. What's the problem?"
You are unbelievable. Let's see what Carlos Hathcock, former senior
instructor for the U.S. Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School in
Quantico, VA, has to say about it.
"Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole
thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the
obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times tried it, but we
COULDN'T duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now,
if I can't do it, how in the world could a guy was a NON-QUALIFIED on
the rifle range and later only qualified "marksman" do it?"
Notice he failed to mention the HUGE tree being in the way as well!
Or using a rifle with a loose scope. But wait, there's more!
The Isreali Mossad recreated the shooting as well:
According to Victor Ostrovsky, an Isreali Mossad agent, the Mossad
also reenact the event: "To test their theory, they did a simulation
exercise of the Presidential cavalcade to see if EXPERT marksmen with
far BETTER equipment than Oswald's could hit a moving target from the
recorded distance of 88 yards. They COULDN'T...The Mossad had every
available film of the Dallas assassination. Pictures of the area, the
topography, aerial photographs, everything. Using mannequins, they
duplicated the Presidential cavalcade over and over again.
Professionals will do a job in the same way. If I'm going to use a
high-powered rifle, there are very few places I'd work from, and
ideally I would want a place I held the target for the longest
possible time, where I could get closest to it...we picked a few
likely places, and we had more than one person doing the shooting from
more than one angle...The Mossad, using better, more powerful
equipment, would aim their rifles, they'd say "bang" over loudspeakers
and a laser direction-finder would show where the people in the car
would have been hit and the bullet exits. It was just an exercise
which showed that it was IMPOSSIBLE to do what Oswald was supposed to
have done."
Sure, LHO just got lucky.
bigdog
> moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
Of the three shots, only the first was on a severe downward
trajectory, which made it the most difficult of the three, not the
easiest as CTs usually like to claim. By the time the second and third
shots were fired, JFK was moving almost directly away from LHO and
also moving down hill meaning there was very little movement in
relation to the line of fire. Contrast that with the difficulty a GK
shooter would face. JFK would have been moving across his line of
fire, requiring the shooter to determine how much to lead his target.
Where as LHO could hold his rifle fairly steadily from the SN, the GK
shooter would have to be sweeping his sights from left to right as he
tracked his intended target. Even though it would have been a closer
shot, it would be much more difficult.
robcap...@netscape.com
If LHO acted alone, why not shoot JFK on Houston St.? It was the
easiest shot, sure you would be caught for sure, but you guys have him
dumping evidence everywhere so obviously getting away was NOT a
priority for him. So, again, why not take the easiest shot on Houston?
YoHarvey
As DVP points out numerous times, Jesus/Robcap WILL SAY ANYTHING to
promote the CT position. Truth be damned.
David Von Pein
>>> "The evidence shows LHO fired NO shots on 11/22/63." <<<
Thank you, Robert.
You've now provided the "KRAZY KOOK KWOTE OF THE MONTH" for March 2008
too (the idiotic one I just quoted above).
Good going.
Rob is still searching for his very first foul tip. He's got the only
bat in the CT dugout that has never been touched by a thrown ball. (At
least Walt's batting .010. But, granted, Walt's average is declining
from its current .010 level.)
YoHarvey
If LHO acted alone, why not shoot JFK on Houston St.? It was the
easiest shot, sure you would be caught for sure, but you guys have
him
dumping evidence everywhere so obviously getting away was NOT a
priority for him. So, again, why not take the easiest shot on
Houston?
Typical CT. Ask a question NOBODY on earth can answer. How typical
is that?
robcap...@netscape.com
"As DVP points out numerous times, Robcap WILL SAY ANYTHING to
promote the CT position. Truth be damned."
Sure, like sighting examples of professionals trying to match the
alleged shooting feat of LHO with better equipement and multiple
chances is just "saying anything" to promote the CT position. You are
the one that damns the truth.
robcap...@netscape.com
This one answer shows me why you believe in the WC and the
government. You lack any ability to think rational as this is a very
sane question. Why not take the easiest shot? Makes sense to most
people that is why you are lumped in the small group of Americans.
aeffects
robocap just cleaned your clock, you fraud you.... LMFAO!
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
WRONG once again you raisin rapin wheat suckin bug fuckin organic bee
hive humper! ONLY LHO could answer than question!! Deal with the
KNOWN evidence. Stop attempting to change it. Damn, isn't 44 years
of futility weighing on that limited thing in your head called a brain?
aeffects
you get your assed kicked and you hide under Von pein skirt, how
typical isthat for a fledgling Lone Nut troll? LMFAO!
aeffects
> On Mar 2, 8:50 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Truth be damned.
typical Neuter troll nonsense
David Von Pein
Yes, Yo. Just like the other unanswerable question a certain kook
asked today, which was:
"Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT
have to?"
Never mind the FACT that the killer on 10th St. (IDed as LHO) DID dump
shells.
And never mind the FACT that the killer in Dealey Plaza (IDed as LHO)
DID only fire his rifle after the limo turned onto Elm Street.
The kooks will ignore these FACTS regarding what actually happened in
order to ask more questions about "Why didn't he do it this way?" and
"Why did he do this?"
I think I'll trot on over to some of the "9/11 For Kooks" forums and
start asking some inane questions, like:
Why didn't the terrorist hijackers use Boeing 747s or Boeing
777s or Airbus A340s as their flying bombs on 9/11/01? After all, why
merely use Boeing 767s and Boeing 757s in the attacks, when 747s,
777s, and A340s carry much more fuel and would cause much more damage
to the buildings?
And don't try using logical answers when dealing with hardline
CTers....answers like, say, this one (in my 9/11 example): "Well,
maybe it was because the hijackers didn't have access to any 747s out
of Boston at just the right time to coordinate the 4 hijackings".
Because logic like that doesn't have any place in a CTer's world.
Just like the bona fide FACT of many, MANY different people SEEING a
winged aircraft of American Airlines flying directly into the Pentagon
(with these witnesses appearing on Live TV within hours of the event)
doesn't mean a damn thing to the "IT WAS A MISSILE, NOT A JETLINER
THAT STRUCK THE PENTAGON" nuts like Fetzer & Company.
In other words, the CTer motto is still alive and well --- "REACH FOR
THE CHAFF, AND DISCARD THE WHEAT FIELD."
Same thing applies with CT-Kooks and the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy, of course.
And any "lurkers" who lurk here in this forum/NG for more than just a
day or two can easily see that the above-referenced CT motto is what
virtually all rabid CTers cling to, day after day.
robcap...@netscape.com
brain."
This from an individual who NEVER discusses the evidence. Probably
doesn't even know what the evidence is in this case. Anger always
shows the LNers have no comeback or leg to stand on.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Typical CT. Ask a question NOBODY on earth can answer." <<<
"Yes, Yo. Just like the other unanswerable question a certain kook
asked today, which was:
'Why would the killer delibrately leave shell casings when he did NOT
have to?'"
And you failed to show the killer=LHO, didn't you?
"Never mind the FACT that the killer on 10th St. (IDed as LHO) DID
dump shells."
IDed by who? I haven't seen anyone that has NO issues. The Davis
sisters could NOT ID the shells shown to them by the WC counsel as
being the ones they turned in. Also, they never saw the face of the
killer and they both said the jacket (CE162) was NOT the jacket/coat
the killer had on. It goes on and on like this.
"And never mind the FACT that the killer in Dealey Plaza (IDed as LHO)
DID only fire his rifle after the limo turned onto Elm Street."
Prove it. Show me who IDed LHO as the shooter as even Brennan didn't
say the clothing matched LHO's.
"The kooks will ignore these FACTS regarding what actually happened in
order to ask more questions about "Why didn't he do it this way?" and
"Why did he do this?""
Facts???? You have presented conjecture, assertions and presumptions,
but NOT facts.
"I think I'll trot on over to some of the "9/11 For Kooks" forums and
start asking some inane questions, like:
"Why didn't the terrorist hijackers use Boeing 747s or Boeing 777s or
Airbus A340s as their flying bombs on 9/11/01? After all, why merely
use Boeing 767s and Boeing 757s in the attacks, when 747s, 777s, and
A340s carry much more fuel and would cause much more damage to the
buildings?
And don't try using the logical answers of: "Well, maybe it was
because the hijackers didn't have access to any 747s out of Boston at
just the right time to coordinate the 4 hijackings". Because logic
like that doesn't have any place in a CTer's world."
Please, go over there and stay there. IF not, and we won't be so
lucky, stay on the JFK case here.
"Just like the bonafide FACT of many, MANY different people SEEING a
winged aircraft of American Airlines flying directly into the Pentagon
(with these witnesses appearing on Live TV within hours of the event)
doesn't mean a damn thing to the "IT WAS A MISSILE, NOT A JETLINER
THAT STRUCK THE PENTAGON" nuts like Fetzer & Company.
In other words, the CTer motto is still alive and well --- REACH FOR
THE CHAFF, AND DISCARD THE WHEAT FIELD."
Each case is different, and in the JFK one it is clear to anyone
beyond the age of 5 or is NOT on the payroll that there was a
conspiracy in this case.
"Same thing applies with CT-Kooks and the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy.
And any "lurkers" who lurk here in this forum/NG for more than just a
day or two can easily see that the above-referenced CT motto is what
virtually all rabid CTers cling to, day after day."
We cling to evidence, and NONE of it matches the fictitious theory the
WC put forth for the assassination of JFK.
David Von Pein
>>> "We {THE CT-KOOKS OF PLANET EARTH} cling to evidence, and NONE of it matches the fictitious theory the WC put forth for the assassination of JFK." <<<
No, you cling to KookThink. Period. That's been blatantly obvious
since you showed up in October 2007.
BTW, how can you say you "cling to evidence", when you, in effect,
have thrown out ALL of the evidence in the JFK case (and the Tippit
case too). You think it's ALL tainted in some way. So, in effect, you
have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL with which to solve this case.
Kind of like trying to make a snowman on an August afternoon. Maybe
you'll just PRETEND there's some kind of "evidence"/(snow) favoring
your make-believe conspiracy, huh?
Makes you wonder, though, how the kooks think they have a "snowball's"
chance in Hades (why waste a good segue?) of "solving" a murder case
involving a rifle and a handgun and bullets, when they (the kooks of
Conspiracyville) have NO RIFLE, HANDGUN, OR BULLETS other than those
in evidence -- which -- Voila! -- belong to Lee Harvey "Patsy For All
1963 Dallas Homicides" Oswaldovich?
Good luck taking that case to court.....
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...um...er...uh...we'd like to
be able to show you folks some bullets, guns, or shells, or
fingerprints...or SOMETHING that doesn't lead to Mr. Oswald, but I'm
afraid we have nothing of that nature to place into evidence in this
case.
"Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we can either dismiss this
"case for conspiracy" now (on the basis, obviously, of a total and
utter lack of evidence), or: I, as the lead defense attorney, can walk
you folks down the murky road of faked and planted and manufactured
evidence.
"But, seeing as how you good folks of the jury are NOT related
in any way to the 12 individuals who served on the jury in the case of
'California v. Orenthal James Simpson' in 1995, I don't think I'll be
able to convince you people that a cast of hundreds--maybe thousands--
plotted to create the incredible FALSE illusion that Lee Harvey Oswald
killed TWO human beings in 1963.
"So, ladies and gentlemen, I throw myself (and my weak-ass case
for conspiracy) on the mercy of this Court. Your Honor, the defense
rests (seeing as how we have zero pieces of evidence to present to
this jury)."
justm...@gmail.com
Robcrap has got to be the dumbest alias Chico has ever created. He has
an answer to everything (their all wrong) and he can't agree with
anyone but himself, LN or CT. Having no friends as a child and
clinging to his mothers apron strings has really messed this idiot up
bad. Reading his posts, (skimming thru them because you know every one
is filled with stupid questions that no one can answer) one has to
wonder how he managed to stay alive this long. It's a wonder he can
bend over and tie his own shoes...their probably velcro!
David Von Pein
>>> "Robcrap has got to be the dumbest alias Chico has ever created." <<<
Robby's a real hoot. That's for sure.
But I still am not sure if he's a "For Real" CT-Kook...or just
pretending to be as stupid-looking as he acts in every single post he
pens. It could just be an "Aha! I gotcha, sucker!" type of act on
Robby's part. I'm truly not sure. But it's sure amazing to me that
ANYONE would desire to be pummelled to mush every time he opens his e-
trap. Remarkable stamina for punishment indeed.
But, either way, real kook or just a "pretender" of some ilk, his
inane blathering is so easy (and fun) to knock down, I'd kind of miss
the kook if he were to ever wise up and smell the It-Was-Oswald java
and stop posting his ridiculous "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT DAY" balderdash.
BTW, Rob's not Gil Jesus. (IMHO anyway.) Two completely-different
styles and kook approaches. He does, however, definitely have INSTANT
access to more than one computer and/or more than one "Google
account".
We can know this for certain because of the way he gives himself all
of the automatic "5 Star" votes on most of his insane posts every day.
It's either him doing it himself from a different computer/account, or
he's got a kooky CT friend who is always right there to immediately
vote "5 Stars" for him on most of his posts.
Matters not, of course. That was just a casual observation.
justm...@gmail.com
Well we know he has another alias as Curious George who posted for
awhile and then disappeared when exposed. Robcrap denied it was him,
but the idiot never changed his profile or email when using the other
name. Therefore when you clicked on Curious Georges profile...viola
there was robcraps email address lol. If the idiots want to learn how
to sneak they better learn the right way. Then they cry and deny it
when the proof is right there in writing for all to see. Robcrap is a
real waste of bandwidth thats for sure. He has enough hot air to keep
3 balloons afloat.
aeffects
wrote:
not enough hot air to breath new life into a dried up old crone, now
does he, dear? LMFAO!
Todd W. Vaughan
> make one of the most difficult shots in the world to make, that of, a
> moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
At the time of the headshot the limousine was moving about 8 mph. And
as viewed from the window, the limo was moving almost straight away.
What's so difficult about that?
Bud
I only meant that the thought was understandable, not that the
concept he was expressing made any sense.
He seems to think it`s significant that Oz shot on a downward
angle, making me wonder so many deerhunters choose to shoot from tree
stands.
justm...@gmail.com
not enough hot air to breath new life into a dried up old crone, now
does he, dear? LMFAO!
I don't know Healy, why don't you try him out on yourself and your
wife and see if the wrinkles vanish. You have the complextion of a
dried up prune. Too many years of picking at that acne as a kid...I
guess they didn't make Clearasil back then, your mommy should have
warned you not to use battery acid.
Ben Holmes
Todd W. Vaughan says...
What do actual shooters say, Toddy? You know, people who earn their living
actually killing other people with a rifle?
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <4cb73c72-b09c-47af-9add-066449f3f...@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
If they admitted how easy it was, they'd be out of a job.
aeffects
LMAO... We know, we know, you cut your teeth on a Daisy Rider BB gun,
you've taken a few 6.5mm pot shots at a stationary sandbag, on the
flat, somewhere out in the great wilds of the north mid-west, ,john
urging you and the other non veterans on.... where are those pictures
again?
Ben has a comment regarding your foolish post below. What do those
that killed for a living say, Todd? Go straight to the source, champ.
Defrocked, Marquette, Poltical Science perfessers nor Dale Myers can
help you out here...
aeffects
dudster how many deerhunters have you seen (or heard about) that shot
a deer moving at 8 miles per hour away from them [at any distance],
from an elevated position, in a tree or otherwise .... pass on this
information...
Todd W. Vaughan
> On Mar 3, 12:52 am, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 7:36 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > make one of the most difficult shots in the world to make, that of, a
> > > moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
>
> > At the time of the headshot the limousine was moving about 8 mph. And
> > as viewed from the window, the limo was moving almost straight away.
> > What's so difficult about that?
>
> LMAO... We know, we know, you cut your teeth on a Daisy Rider BB gun,
LMOL.
You don't know shit about me, turt-boy.
Fact is I "cut my teeth" with firearms at the age of 4 on Dad's .22
magnum Ruger Blackhawk revolver. It was only years later that I had a
Daisy Red-Rider BB gun (not a Daisy Rider BB gun, bone head). That BB
gun is long gone, but the Ruger is still going strong.
> you've taken a few 6.5mm pot shots at a stationary sandbag,
Wrong or just lying again, turt-girl. I've NEVER fired my Carcano at a
sandbag.
>on the
> flat, somewhere out in the great wilds of the north mid-west, ,john
> urging you and the other non veterans on....
I';ve fired it a hell of a lot more than the time where McAdams was
present, turt-girl.
>where are those pictures
> again?
I don't know, they were/are not my pictures. If you're really genuine
in asking for them (which you're not) why don't you ask McAdams, turt-
abort?
>
> Ben has a comment regarding your foolish post below.
You're his little yes-man, I see.
>What do those
> that killed for a living say, Todd? Go straight to the source, champ.
> Defrocked, Marquette, Poltical Science perfessers nor Dale Myers can
> help you out here...
Don't need anyone's help, turt-scum.
The ones I've personally talked to, among them a US Army Vet Lt. Col
who did several tours in SEA, a USMC private fresh out of boot camp,
and a USMC Lance Corporal who assisted in training snipers, think it's
a rather easy shot.
Who have you talked to, turt-slut?
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <4cb73c72-b09c-47af-9add-066449f3f...@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
As I said below, the ones I've personally talked to, among them a US
Todd W. Vaughan
>
> > On Mar 2, 7:36 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > make one of the most difficult shots in the world to make, that of, a
> > > moving target on a downward trajectory... Sgt York he wasn't!
>
> > At the time of the headshot the limousine was moving about 8 mph. And
> > as viewed from the window, the limo was moving almost straight away.
> > What's so difficult about that?
>
> LMAO... We know, we know, you cut your teeth on a Daisy Rider BB gun,
It's Daisy RED-Rider BB gun, idiot. That you can't even get that basic
fact correct doesn't exactly do wonders for your opinions on firearms
and shooting.
Most every red-blooded, heterosexual male in the US who has a pair
knows that. I guess yours never dropped out of your shell?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "We {THE CT-KOOKS OF PLANET EARTH} cling to evidence, and NONE of it matches the fictitious theory the WC put forth for the assassination of JFK." <<<
"No, you cling to KookThink. Period. That's been blatantly obvious
since you showed up in October 2007.
BTW, how can you say you "cling to evidence", when you, in effect,
have thrown out ALL of the evidence in the JFK case (and the Tippit
case too). You think it's ALL tainted in some way. So, in effect, you
have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL with which to solve this case."
You couldn't be more wrong (and this is quite common on your part
Dave2) as the "evidence" you put forth is NOT thrown out, it is just
pointed out that it does NOT point to LHO as the shooter. There is a
big difference. True, much of the evidence is questionable, but I'll
let you keep it as NONE of it points to LHO. Again, I have no concern
for LHO being innocent, I'm interested in the truth, and LHO shooting
NO one on 11/22/63 is the truth.
"Kind of like trying to make a snowman on an August afternoon. Maybe
you'll just PRETEND there's some kind of "evidence"/(snow) favoring
your make-believe conspiracy, huh?"
There is much evidence for a conspriacy (which again simply means two
or more people) in the JFK case, but you are paid not to discuss it.
"Makes you wonder, though, how the kooks think they have a
"snowball's" chance in Hades (why waste a good segue?) of "solving" a
murder case involving a rifle and a handgun and bullets, when they
(the kooks of Conspiracyville) have NO RIFLE, HANDGUN, OR BULLETS
other than those in evidence -- which -- Voila! -- belong to Lee
Harvey "Patsy For All 1963 Dallas Homicides" Oswaldovich?"
Why is it so hard to believe more than one person would want a
President dead? Bush is one of the worst Presidents this country has
ever had and no one has been enraged enough to shoot at him (not that
I would condone this as the election process is the way to go), why?
What made LHO so mad that he had to shoot a President? What are the
odds of that same President traveling in a SLOW motorcade right below
the building this one in 100 million man works in so he can act on his
hatred?
"Good luck taking that case to court....."
I would rather have been on the defense side than the prosecution side
with the crappy and phony case the WC built.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...um...er...uh...we'd like to
be able to show you folks some bullets, guns, or shells, or
fingerprints...or SOMETHING that doesn't lead to Mr. Oswald, but I'm
afraid we have nothing of that nature to place into evidence in this
case."
All of it leads to NOT being LHO.
"Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we can either dismiss this
"case for conspiracy" now (on the basis, obviously, of a total and
utter lack of evidence), or: I, as the lead defense attorney, can walk
you folks down the murky road of faked and planted and manufactured
evidence."
Doesn't have to as the official evidence leads to these conclusions on
their own.
"But, seeing as how you good folks of the jury are NOT related
in any way to the 12 individuals who served on the jury in the case of
'California v. Orenthal James Simpson' in 1995, I don't think I'll be
able to convince you people that a cast of hundreds--maybe thousands--
plotted to create the incredible FALSE illusion that Lee Harvey Oswald
killed TWO human beings in 1963."
This is not the defense's concern, just showing you have no evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt, which you don't.
"So, ladies and gentlemen, I throw myself (and my weak-ass case
for conspiracy) on the mercy of this Court. Your Honor, the defense
rests (seeing as how we have zero pieces of evidence to present to
this jury)."
You really don't understand the U.S. judicial process do you?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Robcrap has got to be the dumbest alias Chico has ever created." <<<
"Robby's a real hoot. That's for sure."
And I, Dave Von Pein, really believe the same things Robby does, but
my paycheck requires I write things differently. Wink-wink.
"But I still am not sure if he's a "For Real" CT-Kook...or just
pretending to be as stupid-looking as he acts in every single post he
pens. It could just be an "Aha! I gotcha, sucker!" type of act on
Robby's part. I'm truly not sure. But it's sure amazing to me that
ANYONE would desire to be pummelled to mush every time he opens his e-
trap. Remarkable stamina for punishment indeed."
I am "pummelled to mush" in your mind as well. I like debating Davey
as he is the only LNer who at least list the "evidence" in the case so
I can show how invalid it really is. Thanks for your help Dave.
"But, either way, real kook or just a "pretender" of some ilk, his
inane blathering is so easy (and fun) to knock down, I'd kind of miss
the kook if he were to ever wise up and smell the It-Was-Oswald java
and stop posting his ridiculous "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT DAY"
balderdash."
Knock down? When do you knock down what I write? Dream on buddy.
You are supporting a big lie, therefore, you can't win a debate.
"BTW, Rob's not Gil Jesus. (IMHO anyway.) Two completely-different
styles and kook approaches. He does, however, definitely have INSTANT
access to more than one computer and/or more than one "Google
account"."
Dave=squared would know first hand about this, right? I do NOT have
access to more than one account as there is NO need to post as anyone
but me. I want my "kook" awards to be sent to the correct person! :-)
"We can know this for certain because of the way he gives himself all
of the automatic "5 Star" votes on most of his insane posts every day.
It's either him doing it himself from a different computer/account, or
he's got a kooky CT friend who is always right there to immediately
vote "5 Stars" for him on most of his posts.
Matters not, of course. That was just a casual observation."
It is me, I have admitted it. I didn't do this early on, but when a
see a personal attack laced post by a LNer getting 5 stars I figured
why not? I have noticed some of yours being 5 stars too lately Dave,
so I guess you are doing this as well now.
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
Justme, you have an inflated opinion of your computer skills as you
did NOT prove I and Curious George where the same person. You also
have NOT proved Gil and I are the same person. We are not, and like
Dave said, why is this important? You should be debating the JFK
assassination.
Robcrap denied it was him, but the idiot never changed his profile or
email when using the other name."
I am not an idiot and I have been in the software business more years
than you probably, so I know computers quite well. Based on this, I
realize computers make many mistakes, and this was one of them. I
can't explain it and don't care really, but the point is I have never
posted under any name but my own. That is something you can't say as
you HIDE beyond a moniker, why is that?
"Therefore when you clicked on Curious Georges profile...viola there
was robcraps email address lol. If the idiots want to learn how to
sneak they better learn the right way."
Sure only a person who hides behind an alias is honest right? What
company do you do IT work for again?
"Then they cry and deny it when the proof is right there in writing
for all to see. Robcrap is a real waste of bandwidth thats for sure.
He has enough hot air to keep
3 balloons afloat."
I don't cry over this silly stuff and you NEVER provided any proof,
just like the JFK case. I have a copyright on the hot air comment as I
use that with Dave.
robcap...@netscape.com
If there is nothing difficult about it why did arguably our best
sniper ever (Carlos Hathcock) and his buddies NOT duplicate the feat?
Or any other professional shooter in multiple attempts?
Todd W. Vaughan
wrote:
When and where did Hathcock and his buddies try and duplicate the
shooting?
Ever seen the CBS tests in 1967?
YoHarvey
Justme, you have an inflated opinion of your computer skills as you
did NOT prove I and Curious George where the same person. You also
have NOT proved Gil and I are the same person. We are not, and like
Dave said, why is this important? You should be debating the JFK
assassination.
Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Nellie!!! It has been PROVEN that Jesus/Robcap ARE
the same individual. There is NO ambiguity. None. As for debating
the JFK assassination, you just. You idiots debate NOTHING. You
can't. The sheer ignorance and frolic of your ludicrous theories
prohibits serious debate. The mere fact, you don't realize this
show's that very ignorance. 44 years and you pseudo intellectuals ARE
STILL TRYING TO CONVINCE rational people of the same crap. Go sell it
to the 75% of America who believe in conspiracy. You know who I
mean...those incapable of knowing JFK was even elected in 1960.
justm...@gmail.com
Your full of crap robcrap....I copied and pasted YOUR crapper email
address being used under the profile of Curious George, perhaps you
forgot how you tried to explain it as a computer glitch. You're a
lying moron just like your counter part Chico. Apparently you forgot
this...proving Curious George is you!
I would just like to bring it to the attention of the LN's on this
newsgroup what I have just discovered.
Below is posted the header from a post by "Curious George" It
appears
our token idiot Jesus/Robcrap decided to play a few head games with
you all. Curious George is none other then Robcrap using a different
name. Just click on the view profile and see what you get. Also,
below
is a header from his post where he inadvertanly forgot to get rid of
his robcap email address. He has created a gmail account thinking no
one would know it was him. The ip posting host is also the same as
Jesus/robcrap.
Sorry to burst your bubble Georgie, you would think after being
caught
4 or 5 times already you would learn your lesson. I thought there was
something suspicious about your posts, would you like to crawl back
into your hole and hide from embarrassment now? What a loser....
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "CuriousGeorge1...@gmail.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Basic Questions
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <b14b9600-
b2a8-41a7-83ce-9d462d330...@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
References: <97175a4a-777a-41a7-
a505-1a272d776...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
<a35318e8-43b8-4dcd-8616-
bf8453130...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.136
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1195669058 18628 127.0.0.1 (21 Nov 2007
18:17:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:17:38 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
Injection-Info: d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=64.12.116.136;
posting-account=iNtT4AoAAAAy6D-AsPy6WUwFvRvvrXOe
User-Agent: G2/1.0
After clicking on View Profile, here are the results:
robcap...@netscape.com
This person has not created a profile.
Name:
Location:
Title:
Industry:
Email address: robcap...@netscape.com
Website or Blog:
Quote:
About me:
Average Rating: (614 ratings)
Recent Activity:
Activity in All 5 Groups -- 715 messages alt.conspiracy.jfk (566)
alt.assassination.jfk (142) alt.conspiracy (3) alt.impeach.bush (2)
soc.history.what-if (2)
Basic Questions alt.conspiracy.jfk 19 hours ago
THREE FACTS THAT are known alt.conspiracy.jfk 20 hours ago
Sad, but true! alt.conspiracy.jfk 3 days ago
Sad, but true! alt.conspiracy.jfk 3 days ago
Sad, but true! alt.conspiracy.jfk 3 days ago
My favorite photo alt.conspiracy.jfk 3 days ago
My favorite photo alt.conspiracy.jfk 3 days ago
Sad, but true! alt.conspiracy.jfk 3 days ago
Sad, but true! alt.conspiracy.jfk 4 days ago
Sad, but true! alt.conspiracy.jfk 4 days ago
For anyone in doubt here is the link to George/robcraps first post.
Just click on view profile on his post and good ole robcrap/jesus
appears.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
Profile listed under the above thread and post by Curious George:
robcap...@netscape.com
This person has not created a profile.
Name:
Location:
Title:
Industry:
Email address: robcap...@netscape.com
Website or Blog:
Quote:
About me:
Average Rating: (1864 ratings)
Recent Activity:
Activity in All 7 Groups -- 1263 messages alt.conspiracy.jfk
(1088) alt.assassination.jfk (165) alt.conspiracy (3) alt.war.world-
war-two (2) alt.impeach.bush (2) soc.history.what-if (2)
alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored (1)
Was Tippit killed as a result of a traffic stop ?
alt.conspiracy.jfk 73 minutes ago
Was Tippit killed as a result of a traffic stop ?
alt.conspiracy.jfk 20 hours ago
How did LHO... alt.conspiracy.jfk 20 hours ago
How did LHO... alt.conspiracy.jfk 20 hours ago
How did LHO... alt.conspiracy.jfk 20 hours ago
How did LHO... alt.conspiracy.jfk 20 hours ago
How did LHO... alt.conspiracy.jfk 21 hours ago
Was Tippit killed as a result of a traffic stop ?
alt.conspiracy.jfk 22 hours ago
Government Intrusion - Operation Shamrock alt.conspiracy.jfk 22
hours ago
Was Tippit killed as a result of a traffic stop ?
alt.conspiracy.jfk 22 hours ago
Show all »
Post Activity
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 433 407 262
2008 141 20
Now crapper go try you lies on someone else because they aren't going
to work with the LN's on this group. You're lying scum....the proof is
right here and you just read it.
robcap...@netscape.com
I guess you did NOT read the earlier posts in this thread as I listed
this, but I'll do it again for you. I'll throw in the Mossad's
reenactments for free. Here is Carlos Hathcock's words:
"Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole
thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the
obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but
we
COULDN'T duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now,
if I can't do it, how in the world could a guy who was a NON-QUALIFIED
on
the rifle range and later only qualified "marksman" do it?"
Notice he failed to mention the HUGE tree being in the way as well!
Or using a rifle with a loose scope. But wait, there's more!
The Isreali Mossad recreated the shooting as well:
According to Victor Ostrovsky, an Isreali Mossad agent, the Mossad
also reenact the event: "To test their theory, they did a simulation
exercise of the Presidential cavalcade to see if EXPERT marksmen with
far BETTER equipment than Oswald's could hit a moving target from the
recorded distance of 88 yards. They COULDN'T...The Mossad had every
available film of the Dallas assassination. Pictures of the area, the
topography, aerial photographs, everything. Using mannequins, they
duplicated the Presidential cavalcade over and over again.
Professionals will do a job in the same way. If I'm going to use a
high-powered rifle, there are very few places I'd work from, and
ideally I would want a place I held the target for the longest
possible time, where I could get closest to it...we picked a few
likely places, and we had more than one person doing the shooting
from
more than one angle...The Mossad, using better, more powerful
equipment, would aim their rifles, they'd say "bang" over
loudspeakers
and a laser direction-finder would show where the people in the car
would have been hit and the bullet exits. It was an exercise
which showed that it was IMPOSSIBLE to do what Oswald was supposed to
have done."
"Ever seen the CBS tests in 1967?"
Of couse but they used stationary targets for one thing. They also
showed a high rate of misfires in these tests as well. Furthermore,
they used 11 EXPERT rifleman when LHO was nowhere near this good.
Additionally, not one of the expert CBS shooters managed to score at
least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds on his
first attempt, yet Oswald would have had only one attempt. Seven of
the CBS riflemen failed to score two hits on ANY of their attempts.
Also, the CBS test assumed the correctness of the single-bullet
theory. Therefore, the shooters were not required to load and fire
their second shot, or any shot, in approximately one second. They
should have been asked to do so since numerous witnesses from all over
Dealey Plaza said two of the shots came so closely together that they
were nearly simultaneous. Some of these witnesses said the two shots
were so close together that they almost sounded like a single burst of
two bullets from an automatic weapon. No gunman, no matter how
skilled, could have fired the Carcano with that kind of speed, and,
obviously, the CBS shooters were not required to do so.
David Von Pein
>>> "They {CBS in 1967} used stationary targets for one thing." <<<
Dead wrong (as per the kook norm). CBS built a moving track/scale mock-
up, with a moving target.
Still batting triple-zero, Robby.
Todd W. Vaughan
Yes, I know he claimed this, but where is the documentation for the
test? Where are the films of the test?
>
> Notice he failed to mention the HUGE tree being in the way as well!
> Or using a rifle with a loose scope. But wait, there's more!
The tree was not "HUGE".
The scope was not loose when the rifle was recovered.
>
> The Isreali Mossad recreated the shooting as well:
>
> According to Victor Ostrovsky, an Isreali Mossad agent, the Mossad
> also reenact the event: "To test their theory, they did a simulation
> exercise of the Presidential cavalcade to see if EXPERT marksmen with
> far BETTER equipment than Oswald's could hit a moving target from the
> recorded distance of 88 yards. They COULDN'T...The Mossad had every
> available film of the Dallas assassination. Pictures of the area, the
> topography, aerial photographs, everything. Using mannequins, they
> duplicated the Presidential cavalcade over and over again.
> Professionals will do a job in the same way. If I'm going to use a
> high-powered rifle, there are very few places I'd work from, and
> ideally I would want a place I held the target for the longest
> possible time, where I could get closest to it...we picked a few
> likely places, and we had more than one person doing the shooting
> from
> more than one angle...The Mossad, using better, more powerful
> equipment, would aim their rifles, they'd say "bang" over
> loudspeakers
> and a laser direction-finder would show where the people in the car
> would have been hit and the bullet exits. It was an exercise
> which showed that it was IMPOSSIBLE to do what Oswald was supposed to
> have done."
>
> "Ever seen the CBS tests in 1967?"
>
> Of couse but they used stationary targets for one thing.
Uh, no, they did not.
>They also
> showed a high rate of misfires in these tests as well.
What was the rate of misfires?
>Furthermore,
> they used 11 EXPERT rifleman when LHO was nowhere near this good.
> Additionally, not one of the expert CBS shooters managed to score at
> least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds on his
> first attempt, yet Oswald would have had only one attempt. Seven of
> the CBS riflemen failed to score two hits on ANY of their attempts.
>
> Also, the CBS test assumed the correctness of the single-bullet
> theory. Therefore, the shooters were not required to load and fire
> their second shot, or any shot, in approximately one second. They
> should have been asked to do so since numerous witnesses from all over
> Dealey Plaza said two of the shots came so closely together that they
> were nearly simultaneous. Some of these witnesses said the two shots
> were so close together that they almost sounded like a single burst of
> two bullets from an automatic weapon. No gunman, no matter how
> skilled, could have fired the Carcano with that kind of speed, and,
> obviously, the CBS shooters were not required to do so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Says who, you? It was large and prevented a clear shot until frame
210 of the Z-film.
"The scope was not loose when the rifle was recovered."
You obviously did NOT read FBI Agent Frazier's testimony then as he
said he had to fix the scope and permanently attach it before tests
could be done.
You're right, my bad. I know several of the reenactments did, but
this one did not.
> >They also
> > showed a high rate of misfires in these tests as well.
>
"What was the rate of misfires?"
17 out of 33 (11 x 3) shots fired, misfired.
>Furthermore,
> > they used 11 EXPERT rifleman when LHO was nowhere near this good.
> > Additionally, not one of the expert CBS shooters managed to score at
> > least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds on his
> > first attempt, yet Oswald would have had only one attempt. Seven of
> > the CBS riflemen failed to score two hits on ANY of their attempts.
>
> > Also, the CBS test assumed the correctness of the single-bullet
> > theory. Therefore, the shooters were not required to load and fire
> > their second shot, or any shot, in approximately one second. They
> > should have been asked to do so since numerous witnesses from all over
> > Dealey Plaza said two of the shots came so closely together that they
> > were nearly simultaneous. Some of these witnesses said the two shots
> > were so close together that they almost sounded like a single burst of
> > two bullets from an automatic weapon. No gunman, no matter how
> > skilled, could have fired the Carcano with that kind of speed, and,
> > obviously, the CBS shooters were not required to do so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Why go up in treestands at all if shooting downward makes for such
difficult shooting?