Re: JFK's Assassination: As It Happened
Robert Harris
<c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
Really?
How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
Are you clairvoyant??
Robert Harris
bigdog
> In article
> <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
>
> Really?
>
> How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
>
> You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
>
> Are you clairvoyant??
>
> Robert Harris
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years, no one has
produced any credible evidence of a second gunman. Theoretically, it is
possible such evidence exists but has not yet been discovered.
Realistically, the odds of such evidence surfacing after so long a time
becomes increasingly remote with each passing year.
davidemerling
> In article
> <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
>
> Really?
>
> How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
>
> You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
>
> Are you clairvoyant??
>
> Robert Harris
It's not an issue of clairvoyance. What the heck does that have to do with
anything?
Don't pull you arm out of its socket patting yourself on the back, Bob. I
have read/viewed better conspiratorial arguments than those presented by
you. You're hardly at the tip of the conspiratorial spear. I find your
videos interesting and I respect your efforts, but I have never found them
compelling. And the reason I don't is because of the MOUNTAIN of evidence
that tells us what happened. You just nitpick away at minutia that never
seems to add up to anything or go anywhere. There's a lot of speculation
in your work - things you accept as facts.
Yet, I guess the real issue is that you and I have a different world view.
I confess to being biased toward the notion that things are generally just
as they seem to be. Oh sure, time and again, I'm a bit surprised how
things take an unexpected turn -or- they end up NOT being as I originally
thought. But those are usually isolated instances. The case for Oswald's
guilt does not hinge on any isolated piece of evidence. There are MANY
things that point toward his guilt and I have NEVER heard/read a
compelling argument that Oswald was being manipulated by dark forces. I
have NEVER heard/read a compelling argument for a second gunman.
Oh, believe me, I used to believe in a lot of that crap a long time ago.
But I continued reading, did some of my own research, listened to people
much smarter than myself on certain issues, and I'm now convinced that
Oswald acted alone. I've been convinced of that for quite a while now. I
found it within me to look myself in the mirror one day and say three
simple words, "I am wrong."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
aeffects
> On Sep 12, 10:44 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
>
> > > > Robert Harris
>
> > > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
>
> > Really?
>
> > How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
>
> > You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
>
> > Are you clairvoyant??
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> It's not an issue of clairvoyance. What the heck does that have to do with
> anything?
>
> Don't pull you arm out of its socket patting yourself on the back, Bob. I
> have read/viewed better conspiratorial arguments than those presented by
> you. You're hardly at the tip of the conspiratorial spear. I find your
> videos interesting and I respect your efforts, but I have never found them
> compelling.
what the hell does compelling have to do with evidence, moron? Does a
prosecutors case have to be "compelling" to gain a conviction? What
the hell do they feed you moronic lone nutter-trolls these day's
And the reason I don't is because of the MOUNTAIN of evidence
> that tells us what happened. You just nitpick away at minutia that never
> seems to add up to anything or go anywhere. There's a lot of speculation
> in your work - things you accept as facts.
>
> Yet, I guess the real issue is that you and I have a different world view.
> I confess to being biased toward the notion that things are generally just
> as they seem to be. Oh sure, time and again, I'm a bit surprised how
> things take an unexpected turn -or- they end up NOT being as I originally
> thought. But those are usually isolated instances. The case for Oswald's
> guilt does not hinge on any isolated piece of evidence. There are MANY
> things that point toward his guilt and I have NEVER heard/read a
> compelling argument that Oswald was being manipulated by dark forces. I
> have NEVER heard/read a compelling argument for a second gunman.
there you go shithead, "compelling" again and AGAIN. Get a grip
moron.....
> Oh, believe me, I used to believe in a lot of that crap a long time ago.
> But I continued reading, did some of my own research, listened to people
> much smarter than myself on certain issues, and I'm now convinced that
> Oswald acted alone. I've been convinced of that for quite a while now. I
> found it within me to look myself in the mirror one day and say three
> simple words, "I am wrong."
compellingly I suspect? ROTFLMFAO Get lost shithead.....
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
<b5bba800-1f18-4f53...@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 10:44?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ?davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
> >
> > You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
> >
> > Are you clairvoyant??
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> It's not an issue of clairvoyance. What the heck does that have to do with
> anything?
Let me answer that question for you in detail, David. You stated,
"The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman."
The fact that you deleted that statement before asking me what this has to
do with anything, suggests that you already knew the answer, but I will
elaborate for you.
I would like to know how you confirmed that there was no such evidence,
especially since you have refused to examine evidence which proves exactly
that.
Before we address your insults, why don't you answer this very simple
question?
Please be very specific.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<3484dce5-0baf-4d6f...@o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:44�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c34a3fe4-cdf7-4a2a-b071-cc13d4f1d...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 12, 10:07?am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Why don't you go ahead and show us some of the best evidence you have
> > > > seen, that proves Oswald acted alone?
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > How did you discover that no such thing exists, David?
> >
> > You have flatly refused to examine evidence I presented to you.
> >
> > Are you clairvoyant??
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years, no one has
> produced any credible evidence of a second gunman.
Really?
I have posted videos which prove exactly that and after 1.5 million
viewers, they have gotten an average of almost 100% approval.
Now, I am sure that you will be eager to tell us that all those people
were gullible fools, whom I conned, but will you explain to us why you
and your partners are totally unable to post rebuttals, proving me
wrong??
Can you explain why you cannot even try??
Robert Harris
Robert
BigCon, the BODY showed there was a second gunmAn, and YOU FORGOT TO
MENTION YOU NEVER PROVED LHO WAS THE FIRST GUNMAN!
davidemerling
> I would like to know how you confirmed that there was no such evidence,
> especially since you have refused to examine evidence which proves exactly
> that.
You're asking me how I KNOW, for sure, that something does NOT exist?
I'm a rational person. I have examined the evidence in this case - even
the evidence/testimony that seems out of place and does not fit neatly
into the lone gunman viewpoint. But, being a rational person, I understand
that everything does not always fit together neatly and that there will
always be things that can never be known with certainty; nonetheless,
rational conclusions can still be drawn. Instead of hyper-focusing on the
outlying oddities of the case (which are inevitable), I take a step back
and query my own common sense. What happened? What is all this telling me?
It tells me that Lee Oswald shot his rifle at our 35th president and
killed him.
Were there other shooters? I don't see any compelling evidence of it. The
medical evidence does not support it. The physical evidence does not
support it. And the bulk of the witness testimony does not support it.
> Before we address your insults, why don't you answer this very simple
> question?
It seems you feel personally insulted whenever anybody simply disagrees
with your conclusions and the methods you use to draw your conclusions. To
YOU, that's the equivalent to name-calling. You're going to have to
develop some thicker skin.
> Please be very specific.
You want me to be specific about the evidence that I think does NOT
exist?
Am I the only one who thinks that this is a silly question?
The better approach is for you to tell me the evidence that you think DOES
exist and THEN we could have a discussion. But my confidence is low that
any new revelations or breakthroughs will emerge from that. I all
likelihood, we're just going to disagree what is valid and compelling.
What you think is evidence - I will probably disagree with. Haven't you
been doing this long enough to understand why there are two camps in this
debate? It really comes down to different standards of what we find
compelling. You'll probably come up with somebody who said, "such and
such" and then I'll say that he is wrong because there is so much that
contradicts those observations. I might even say, "Then why did he wait
15-yrs to say that?" And then you'll say that he feared for his life. And
we go 'round and 'round in circles.
Or, you might show me a photograph that you interpret in a certain way.
I'll challenge your interpretation by stating that countless experts have
seen that photograph and did NOT draw that conclusion. Then, maybe, you'll
cite a few "experts" who have challenged their conclusions. I'll say my
experts are better than yours. You'll probably claim that "my" experts
were participating in a cover-up. And here we go again ...
On the other hand, I can tell you the evidence that EXISTS that indicates
Oswald DID it. But I doubt you really want to hear that because you've
heard it all before. If I recall, I think we would probably agree with
much of that.
I don't know where to begin with regards to evidence that does NOT exist
with regards to the lack of a 2nd gunman.
I also cannot prove that aliens did not kill Kennedy. I'm very confident
they did not. But I wouldn't know how to begin to PROVE it to someone who
insists that aliens DID kill Kennedy. I would be more interested in
hearing THEIR evidence.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
aeffects
someone send this guy a medical voucher he surely needs medical
attention soonest!
bigdog
>
> > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in over 45 years, no one has
> > produced any credible evidence of a second gunman.
>
> Really?
>
> I have posted videos which prove exactly that and after 1.5 million
> viewers, they have gotten an average of almost 100% approval.
>
Nothing like preaching to the choir.
yeuhd
> BigCon, the BODY showed there was a second gunmAn, and YOU FORGOT TO
> MENTION YOU NEVER PROVED LHO WAS THE FIRST GUNMAN!
Vincent Bugliosi spelled it out well, giving 53 pieces of evidence of
Oswald's guilt. Among them:
35. A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766, was found on the
sixth floor of the Book Depository Building shortly after the shooting in
Dealey Plaza. Handwriting experts determined that the writing on the
purchase order and money order for the rifle was Oswald's. And the seller
shipped the rifle to Oswald's post office box in Dallas. So Oswald owned
the Carcano. Also, photographs taken by Oswald's wife, Marina, in April of
1963 show Oswald holding the Carcano, and Oswald's right palm print was
found on the underside of the rifle barrel following the assassination.
So, we know that Oswald not only owned but possessed the subject rifle.
In the same vein, a tuft of several fresh, dark blue, gray-black, and
orange-yellow cotton fibers was found in a crevice between the butt plate
of the Carcano and the wooden stock. The FBI laboratory found that the
colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the
shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers
could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the
prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt.
34. Firearms identification experts from the Warren Commission and the
HSCA concluded that two large bullet fragments found in the presidential
limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Likewise, the firearms experts found that
the whole bullet recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, believed
to be the stretcher Governor Connally was on, was fired from Oswald's
rifle to the exclusion of all others.
35. Firearms experts determined that the three expended cartridge shells
found on the floor beneath the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository Building were fired in and ejected from Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
So we know, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, that
Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon, the weapon that fired the bullets
that struck down the thirty-fifth president of the United States. If there
were no other evidence against Oswald, the fact that the murder weapon
belonged to him, and that there was no evidence or even likelihood that
anyone else had come into possession of the weapon, would be devastating
evidence of his guilt.
Robert Harris
<d6da4a61-0608-4eab...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 8:36?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to know how you confirmed that there was no such evidence,
> > especially since you have refused to examine evidence which proves exactly
> > that.
>
> You're asking me how I KNOW, for sure, that something does NOT exist?
Yes, David. And why do you continually, delete your own statement?
"The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman."
>
> I'm a rational person.
David, would you mind answering the question?
> I have examined the evidence in this case - even
> the evidence/testimony that seems out of place and does not fit neatly
> into the lone gunman viewpoint. But, being a rational person, I understand
> that everything does not always fit together neatly and that there will
> always be things that can never be known with certainty; nonetheless,
> rational conclusions can still be drawn. Instead of hyper-focusing on the
> outlying oddities of the case (which are inevitable), I take a step back
> and query my own common sense. What happened? What is all this telling me?
That's nice, David. Here is what you said,
"The proof is that there is no evidence of a second gunman."
Please explain how you confirmed that there is no evidence of a second
gunman.
>
> It tells me that Lee Oswald shot his rifle at our 35th president and
> killed him.
David, I am please that the evidence is telling you things, because in
the last dozen messages you have addressed to me, you have failed to
cite a single piece of evidence. You only present vague, sweeping
generalizations.
>
> Were there other shooters? I don't see any compelling evidence of it.
Of course not, especially since you usually refuse to examine evidence
that contradicts your theory.
But David, when do you intend to answer my question?
Please tell us how you confirmed that Oswald acted alone.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Ok, David, I don't want to embarass you[,] so let's lower the bar even more. Can you produce just ONE piece of evidence that proves Oswald acted alone??" <<<
You're acting like an idiot now, Bob. And you're turning logic on its
head (as all CTers always do).
I.E.,
Robert Harris is implying that since all of the evidence points to ONE
single individual named Oswald -- and, of course, it does -- this
somehow indicates that it's likely that MORE than just the one
individual named Oswald was involved in President Kennedy's murder.
That is the (il)logic of the CT world (at least here at the aaj/acj
fora/asylums).
So, to answer your very, very silly inquiry, Bob:
EVERY single piece of evidence in the whole case is evidence that
indicates that Oswald acted ALONE.
Why?
Because every one of those pieces of evidence leads straight to only
ONE person--Oswald.
(Why does this even need to be uttered, Bob? Isn't this the most basic
of elementary stuff here?)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f3123b96d5f2f76c
>>> "What do you [Anthony Marsh] find faulty with the trajectory depicted in CE903?" <<<
Oh Lord, David! Don't get Tony Marsh started on CE903 again! It's a
downright howl when he starts in on that!
Tony evidently thinks that Arlen Specter should have impaled the JFK
stand-in with the metal rod that is seen in CE903, so that the rod
could then have been placed THROUGH the MIDDLE part of the stand-in's
back.
This, of course, WOULD have been the ideal thing to do for Mr. Specter
and the Warren Commission in CE903.
But, since Specter didn't feel like murdering a human being by driving
a metal rod through his body, then Specter had to settle for the next
best thing, which is just what we find in CE903, which is a WC exhibit
that provides excellent support (of a demonstrative and photographic
nature) that the Single-Bullet Theory WORKS.
If Specter's rod were to be moved a little to the LEFT of where we see
it in CE903 (to the "left", that is, from Specter's POV), it would
place the bullet entry wound in the middle portion of the UPPER BACK
of the JFK stand-in (not the "neck" of the stand-in), proving that the
WC did not require the entry wound in Kennedy's upper back to be
"moved" up into the "neck" in order for the SBT to work.
Many/most conspiracy theorists do think, however, that the Warren
Commission HAD to have the wound located in the "NECK" of President
Kennedy in order for the SBT angles to work out properly. But, as we
can easily see via CE903, that's simply not the case at all.
No "IN THE NECK" entry wound is needed at all. In fact, if the entry
wound had been as high as the "neck" of JFK, the SBT angle would be
destroyed. Anti-SBT conspiracy kooks, though, never seem to realize
this fact, even after gazing upon the excellent Warren Commission
exhibit known as CE903.
timstter
Hey, does anyone remember the time that tomnln referred to David
Emerling as Davis [sic] Emberling [sic] and appeared to think that
that was the correct way to spell David's name?
Absolutely CLASSIC tomnln! Another day, another tomnln posting howler,
LOL!
KUTGW, tomnln, while your [sic] blundering about there in
cyberspace! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tomnln
Do y'all remember when rob/tim/Azcue/justme/HUGO believed that Oswald
was.........
5 foot 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds
Spoke Broken Russian
He/she was SO Embarrassed that he tried to attribute Duran's testimony to
me.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2920f434-dc9c-4453...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Robert
> On Sep 14, 3:47 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > BigCon, the BODY showed there was a second gunmAn, and YOU FORGOT TO
> > MENTION YOU NEVER PROVED LHO WAS THE FIRST GUNMAN!
>
> Vincent Bugliosi spelled it out well, giving 53 pieces of evidence of
> Oswald's guilt. Among them:
Oh boy, we can't ever discuss this case WITHOUT MENTIONING Bugliosi!
> 35. A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766, was found on the
> sixth floor of the Book Depository Building shortly after the shooting in
> Dealey Plaza. Handwriting experts determined that the writing on the
> purchase order and money order for the rifle was Oswald's.
Show us how this is common with such a SMALL sample. The note to
"Hunt" had a much larger sample and you LNers deny it was LHO's hand.
> And the seller
> shipped the rifle to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.
They did?? Where is your evidence for this? I ask because the WC
failed to give it to us. Also, what type of rifle was shipped
allegedly? I mean ALL the evidence the WC gave us points to a 36"
Carbine, NOT a 40" Carcano short rifle.
> So Oswald owned
> the Carcano.
He did??? Where is the evidence for this? And, WHICH rifle are we
discussing?
> Also, photographs taken by Oswald's wife, Marina, in April of
> 1963 show Oswald holding the Carcano, and Oswald's right palm print was
> found on the underside of the rifle barrel following the assassination.
First of all, the rifle in those supposed BY photos is NOT the same
one found in the TSBD. Secondly, there are numerous issues showing
the photos are probably faked and none jumps out more for me than the
chin -- it simply was NOT the type of chin he had.
Show us the chain of custody for the palmprint. Then explain how
Latona said the rifle was NEVER processed and he saw NO indication of
a lift.
> So, we know that Oswald not only owned but possessed the subject rifle.
We do??? ALL I see are bunch of claims, but NO evidence supporting
them.
> In the same vein, a tuft of several fresh, dark blue, gray-black, and
> orange-yellow cotton fibers was found in a crevice between the butt plate
> of the Carcano and the wooden stock.
And those could NOT be matched to the alleged blanket in the Paine's
garage so all you have is a claim again.
> The FBI laboratory found that the
> colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the
> shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest.
But he was NOT wearing that shirt at the TSBD at the time of the
shooting, so explain for us how the shirt fibers got on the alleged
murder weapon when HE LEFT IT BACK AT THE TSBD!
> Though such fibers
> could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the
> prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald's shirt.
The probablity it did NOT come from his shirt is just as equal, and
the point is -- he was NOT wearing that shirt at the time of the
assassination anyway.
> 34. Firearms identification experts from the Warren Commission and the
> HSCA concluded that two large bullet fragments found in the presidential
> limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle to the
> exclusion of all other weapons.
So? What does this prove? Where they linked to either victim in the
limo? What is the chain of custody for these two limo fragments
anyway? Also, the rifle found in the TSBD was NEVER linked to LHO in
any way, so to say it was linked to the rifle found, thus it was
linked to LHO, is NOT true.
> Likewise, the firearms experts found that
> the whole bullet recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, believed
> to be the stretcher Governor Connally was on, was fired from Oswald's
> rifle to the exclusion of all others.
Ditto.
> 35. Firearms experts determined that the three expended cartridge shells
> found on the floor beneath the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor
> of the Book Depository Building were fired in and ejected from Oswald's
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
YOU again or applying ownership when NONE has been proven. Also, who
is your witness for LHO firing from there again?
> So we know, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, that
> Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon, the weapon that fired the bullets
> that struck down the thirty-fifth president of the United States.
We know NO such thing as all you gave us, as ALL LNers give us, is a
bunch of claims, speculaton and assertions with NO evidence supporting
it.
> If there
> were no other evidence against Oswald, the fact that the murder weapon
> belonged to him, and that there was no evidence or even likelihood that
> anyone else had come into possession of the weapon, would be devastating
> evidence of his guilt.
LOL!! Even if you proved he owned it, and you can't, how does that
prove he took it to work on 11/22/63 and fired three shots at JFK at
12:30 PM CST?????
Robert Harris
<75401709-64a4-4a75...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Ok, David, I don't want to embarass you[,] so let's lower the bar even
> >>> more. Can you produce just ONE piece of evidence that proves Oswald acted
> >>> alone??" <<<
>
> You're acting like an idiot now, Bob.
David, you always seem to turn to ad hominem attacks when you are
cornered. And you do that deliberately, which is why you posted this
only to ACJ.
I asked you a very simple question, which you continue to evade.
> And you're turning logic on its
> head (as all CTers always do).
Only a false assertion can turn anything on its head, David. I asked you
a question.
Have you discovered even a single piece of evidence which isolates
Oswald as the only shooter?
A simple yes or no will do nicely, plus of course, some data if you say
yes.
>
> I.E.,
>
> Robert Harris is implying that since all of the evidence points to ONE
> single individual named Oswald -- and, of course, it does -- this
> somehow indicates that it's likely that MORE than just the one
> individual named Oswald was involved in President Kennedy's murder.
> That is the (il)logic of the CT world (at least here at the aaj/acj
> fora/asylums).
I'm sorry David. I guess you just weren't paying attention or perhaps I
wasn't clear enough. But I am quite sure that I did not suggest that all
evidence points to "one single individual named Oswald".
And in fact, there is a vast quantity of evidence which proves exactly
the opposite. This is based on the timing of the final shots, the
overwhelming evidence of mafia participation in the attack, the easily
proven fact that the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon,
and the equally easy to prove fact that CE399 was not the bullet
involved in the SBT shot.
David, did you notice that whenever we have a "debate", I talk about
evidence and facts, and you talk about me??
>
> So, to answer your very, very silly inquiry, Bob:
>
> EVERY single piece of evidence in the whole case is evidence that
> indicates that Oswald acted ALONE.
Ok, then let's talk about the evidence related to the shot at frame 285
and test your claim.
In fact, let's start with just one of many pieces of evidence.
I think we both agree that the reason Nellie Connally thought her
husband was hit by a later shot than the one that wounded JFK was, that
she didn't immediately realize when he (JBC) was first wounded.
Watching her actions in the Zapruder film, David, when do you think she
heard what she thought was the shot that hit her hubby?
Robert Harris
bigdog
Tell the truth, Robocrap. You CTs have a contest to see who can make
the stupidest statement each week. You look like a sure fire winner.
Are you really going to say that there is no proof Oswald owned the
rifle? The application for the rifle was made out in his handwriting.
The envelope that order application was sent in was in his
handwriting. The money order that paid for it was in his handwriting.
The name on the application was the same as the alias for which Oswald
had a Selective Service ID card when he was arrested. The application
for the P.O. Box was in Oswald's handwriting and the box was rented to
Lee H. Oswald. There were three pictures taken of him with the rifle.
The rifle was found at his place of work with his palm print on it and
fibers from his shirt on the butt plate. No proof of ownership my
fucking ass!!! Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to
win the contest. I would expect Giltardo or Rosstards or Walt to say
something as stupid as there being no proof that Oswald owned the
rifle, but if you really believe that, you are in their league and
should be able to compete with them consistently for the weekly
contest to see who can make the stupidest statement.
David Von Pein
>>> "I [Robert "Z285" Harris] am quite sure that I did not suggest that all evidence points to "one single individual named Oswald"." <<<
Of course you didn't. It was I [DVP] who suggested that. And that's
because it's a fact. Like it or not.
>>> "And in fact, there is a vast quantity of evidence which proves exactly the opposite." <<<
Only in the subjective minds of conspiracy seekers, Bob. Nowhere else.
But to a person who has the capability of assessing the TOTALITY of
the evidence (with this "totality" including NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
anywhere other than stuff that is screaming "OSWALD"), the conclusions
that must be reached are the following ones:
1.) Lee Oswald killed JFK....and Oswald very, very likely did it alone
(with no help from anybody else).
2.) Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit....and Oswald absolutely, positively
did it alone.
3.) Jack Ruby killed Lee Oswald....and Ruby absolutely, positively did
it alone.
Jas
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-FFF79...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Why do you play word games? What do you want, a PowerPoint graphic
demonstration? That's already been done by experts in the field many moons
ago.
You have everything back-assward. YOU'RE the one with the burden of proof
to prove the official findings wrong because you're the one challenging
it.
The proof is that -- based on the totality of all the evidence -- all the
shots have been determined to have originated from the 6th floor TSBD
sountheastern window where Oswald was seen firing at the motorcade, and
where the sniper's nest was discovered.
Now if you want to start speculating as in "there is a 2nd gunman hiding
somewhere else in Dealey," go ahead, that's your prerogative -- you're
free to speculate all you want.
...but until YOU can prove it, and convince the DOJ, FBI, and all other
current law enforcement organizations, the official conclusions stand.
James
Ben Holmes
This, of course, is the dream that all "LNT'ers" have... that the
"investigation" will end the debate.
But when the evidence is examined, it's easy to see that it DOES NOT support
what the WCR attempted to use it to support... and to this day, LNT'ers run from
the actual evidence. They can do no better than the WC did.
>The proof is that -- based on the totality of all the evidence
The *ignoring* of any contrary evidence, you mean.
> -- all the
>shots have been determined to have originated from the 6th floor TSBD
>sountheastern window where Oswald was seen firing at the motorcade, and
>where the sniper's nest was discovered.
>
>Now if you want to start speculating as in "there is a 2nd gunman hiding
>somewhere else in Dealey," go ahead, that's your prerogative -- you're
>free to speculate all you want.
>
>...but until YOU can prove it, and convince the DOJ, FBI, and all other
>current law enforcement organizations, the official conclusions stand.
You don't *believe* the current "official conclusion", you believe the original
"official conclusion".
>James
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Robert
NO, that game was INVENTED BY LNERS and from what I heard you have it
COPYRIGHTED!
> You look like a sure fire winner.
Speaking the truth always makes you dumb in the LNer world. The more
truth you speak, the dumber you get according to them.
> Are you really going to say that there is no proof Oswald owned the
> rifle?
Sure am. IF you have some PROOF, show it to us.
> The application for the rifle was made out in his handwriting.
NO, the claim is it was his handwriting, and the order form shows us a
36" Carbine was the desired weapon. Was the weapon found in the TSBD
a 36" Carbine?
> The envelope that order application was sent in was in his
> handwriting.
Ditto.
> The money order that paid for it was in his handwriting.
Explain how he purchased the money order while he WAS AT WORK! Then
explain how the number sequencing would NOT be used for a few years!
> The name on the application was the same as the alias for which Oswald
> had a Selective Service ID card when he was arrested.
NO card was found on him on the day he was arrested, you are lying.
The police listed ONE and ONLY ONE alias for him on the arrest sheet
-- O.H. Lee.
Explain that for us BigCon.
> The application
> for the P.O. Box was in Oswald's handwriting and the box was rented to
> Lee H. Oswald.
It sure was and page 3 NEVER mentioned a A. Hidell -- thus Hidell had
NO rights to receive mail there.
> There were three pictures taken of him with the rifle.
So you have proved it was LHO in the pictures? When did this happen?
> The rifle was found at his place of work with his palm print on it and
> fibers from his shirt on the butt plate.
About 70 others worked there too, and some who didn't could have come
in via the backway. There was NO palmprint on the rifle as Latona
said NO lift was done, in fact, he said NO processing was done! Day
lied and that is why he refused to sign an affadavit for the FBI. The
fibers on the butt plate were from a shirt LHO was NOT wearing at the
time and even then they were NOT matched to that shirt to the
exclusion of all other like shirts.
> No proof of ownership my
> fucking ass!!!
YOU betcha, and thanks for proving this again for us!
> Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to
> win the contest.
See?? Stupid=telling the truth to LNers.
> I would expect Giltardo or Rosstards or Walt to say
> something as stupid as there being no proof that Oswald owned the
> rifle, but if you really believe that, you are in their league and
> should be able to compete with them consistently for the weekly
> contest to see who can make the stupidest statement.
Nice try and trying to get some "street cred" for your fellow shill
Walt, but you are lying. This WC shill admits LHO ordered, received
and posed with a 40" Carcano.
Robert Harris
wrote:
It is hardly a "word game" to ask someone to support their claims.
Of course, you and David know very well that no such evidence exists,
and yet you continue to make that bogus claim.
> What do you want, a PowerPoint graphic
> demonstration?
Well yes, that would be good.
I do that kind of thing all the time, although I use a bit better
software than Powerpoint.
Just do a Youtube search for bobharris77.
You can also view most of them at my website, jfkhistory.com
> That's already been done by experts in the field many moons
> ago.
Oh yes. "experts" from the WC were totally contradicted by "experts"
from the HSCA, not only on the question of conspiracy, but on numerous
details about the shooting.
Then Posner came along and proposed a shooting scenario that totally
contradicted by the WC and the HSCA.
And then Bugliosi told us that Posner was FOS.
And these are the "experts" you want me to rely on???
>
> You have everything back-assward. YOU'RE the one with the burden of proof
> to prove the official findings wrong because you're the one challenging
> it.
I have proven them wrong over and over again and none of you have the
testicular abundance to even try to refute me.
But I do NOT have the burden of proof when one of you make the
outrageously false claim that all the evidence proves Oswald acted
alone. In fact, there is not a single, legitimate reason to assume that,
and you know it.
>
> The proof is that -- based on the totality of all the evidence -- all the
> shots have been determined to have originated from the 6th floor TSBD
> sountheastern window where Oswald was seen firing at the motorcade, and
> where the sniper's nest was discovered.
James, you cannot prove one unsupported assertion with another.
You have ZERO evidence which connects the Tague wound with Oswald. And
you have no connection whatsoever, to Oswald for the probable missed
shot at 160.
And the evidence is overwhelming that CE399 was never fired during the
assassination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio
The evidence is overwhelmingly against you, James. From the fact that
the final shots were much too closely spaced to have been fired by
Oswald to the fact that we now know that the mafia was involved in the
attack. And those are only a small part of the evidence.
In rebuttal to that, you have absolute ZERO evidence that suggests
Oswald acted alone.
This one isn't even close, James.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<5fd611df-ed4a-4afb...@r33g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I [Robert "Z285" Harris] am quite sure that I did not suggest that all
> >>> evidence points to "one single individual named Oswald"." <<<
>
>
> Of course you didn't. It was I [DVP] who suggested that. And that's
> because it's a fact. Like it or not.
No, that's not what you said, David:-) I think you knew that, which is
why you snipped your own words,
"Robert Harris is implying that since all of the evidence points to ONE
single individual named Oswald -- and, of course, it does -- this
somehow indicates that it's likely that MORE than just the one
individual named Oswald was involved in President Kennedy's murder."
>
>
> >>> "And in fact, there is a vast quantity of evidence which proves exactly
> >>> the opposite." <<<
>
> Only in the subjective minds of conspiracy seekers, Bob. Nowhere else.
>
> But to a person who has the capability of assessing the TOTALITY of
> the evidence (with this "totality" including NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
> anywhere other than stuff that is screaming "OSWALD"), the conclusions
> that must be reached are the following ones:
>
> 1.) Lee Oswald killed JFK....and Oswald very, very likely did it alone
> (with no help from anybody else).
>
> 2.) Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit....and Oswald absolutely, positively
> did it alone.
>
> 3.) Jack Ruby killed Lee Oswald....and Ruby absolutely, positively did
> it alone.
David, do you realize that you just made three totally unsupported
assertions? What is it about evidence and facts that you don't like?
And speaking of evidence and facts, why did you snip the questions I
asked you?
David, if you were correct, there is NO QUESTION that you would ever
need to run from. Let me put backin, the part you evaded,
(reposted)
Only a false assertion can turn anything on its head, David. I asked you
a question.
Have you discovered even a single piece of evidence which isolates
Oswald as the only shooter?
A simple yes or no will do nicely, plus of course, some data if you say
yes.
>
> I.E.,
>
> Robert Harris is implying that since all of the evidence points to ONE
> single individual named Oswald -- and, of course, it does -- this
> somehow indicates that it's likely that MORE than just the one
> individual named Oswald was involved in President Kennedy's murder.
> That is the (il)logic of the CT world (at least here at the aaj/acj
> fora/asylums).
I'm sorry David. I guess you just weren't paying attention or perhaps I
wasn't clear enough. But I am quite sure that I did not suggest that all
evidence points to "one single individual named Oswald".
And in fact, there is a vast quantity of evidence which proves exactly
the opposite. This is based on the timing of the final shots, the
overwhelming evidence of mafia participation in the attack, the easily
proven fact that the early shots were fired from a suppressed weapon,
and the equally easy to prove fact that CE399 was not the bullet
involved in the SBT shot.
David, did you notice that whenever we have a "debate", I talk about
evidence and facts, and you talk about me??
>
> So, to answer your very, very silly inquiry, Bob:
>
> EVERY single piece of evidence in the whole case is evidence that
> indicates that Oswald acted ALONE.
Ok, then let's talk about the evidence related to the shot at frame 285
and test your claim.
In fact, let's start with just one of many pieces of evidence.
I think we both agree that the reason Nellie Connally thought her
husband was hit by a later shot than the one that wounded JFK was, that
she didn't immediately realize when he (JBC) was first wounded.
Watching her actions in the Zapruder film, David, when do you think she
heard what she thought was the shot that hit her hubby?
Robert Harris