Oswald's Alibi - LNT'er Factoids That Are Still Believed.
Ben Holmes
Taken from the censored forum:
>> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>
> Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
> alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
> shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have given on that
> subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
> claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is uncorroborated
> by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
> lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witnesses to see
> him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time after
> the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself, and correct the LNT'er factoids
presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be familiar
to all LNT'ers by now:
**************************************************************************
Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
If on 11/22/63 one wanted to give Lee Oswald a fair chance to exonerate himself,
this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something re the
movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he could
not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" at
12:30pm. In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators something
which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
The moderately curious, if they want to learn a little something re the JFK
assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. There, they will find, in
the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository worker
James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Oswald
(p182). Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the WR
footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
employees, "Junior" & "Shorty" (pp605, 626/Fritz, Kelley [Secret Service],
resp.). The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third,
unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendices of
the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
particular other employees (p622/Bookhout [FBI]). And, finally, at the very
center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonant note
from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of Oswald:
say[s] two negr came in.
As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could in fact
describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 12:15pm
the day before. With those five words--which did not make it to Fritz's final
report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
reconcile Oswald's version of events with that of co-workers Jarman and Harold
"Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements between
11:45am & 12:30pm. Dynamite five words....
Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Williams
(v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard, Oswald
on the fifth and/or sixth floors. Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "domino
room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mainly on
the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). Between about
11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then, we
cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet joined
forces. But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place a bit
*later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald....
By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor domino
room because
(a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the motorcade
was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered the
depository through the "back of the building" (Jarman p202)--this was not a
planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go through
& cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people standing
on the stairway there" (p202)
(b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
elevators would have been seen from the door of the domino room (WR diagram
p148)
(c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TSBD,
alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during
this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
(d) Oswald [as per Fritz] "say[s] two negr came in. One Jr. + short negro."
In other words--contrary to the Fritz & Kelley reports--Oswald was *not*
claiming to have gone downstairs, around noon, to join Jarman & Norman at a
table. Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phraseology, &
the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman to
handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: "[Oswald] said he ate lunch
with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). Bookhout, unambiguously, said
*alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was closer,
ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! Both phrases suggest,
further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in or
near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
Pretty clearly, then--in between the time that Fritz did his notes & the time
that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman indeed
"came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--and the
phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might seem to
synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be replaced
(in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easily
contradicted "ate lunch with". If you read only the final reports of Fritz,
Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had the bum
ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz with
Bookhout, & leaves *Kelley* out in the cold, with Fritz's now-suspect "ate lunch
with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". Because "two negr came in" implies
in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
12:25....
Speculate as you wish as to why his lunch was delayed about 20 minutes--there
are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was on the
floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or not
*they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have had to
dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "sniper's
nest" by 12:30. He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Williams &
Givens) come in....
copr 2004 Donald Willis
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Donald Willis
them--when I first posted this. Like, say, Oswald looking down from the window
& seeing Norman & Jarman walking towards Houston & somehow intuiting that they
were going around to the back entrance! I guess they just had that "back
entrance" look in their step....
dcw
--
Donald Willis
Ben Holmes
>
>I remember LNers coming up with strange solutions to this problem--problem for
>them--when I first posted this. Like, say, Oswald looking down from the window
>& seeing Norman & Jarman walking towards Houston & somehow intuiting that they
>were going around to the back entrance! I guess they just had that "back
>entrance" look in their step....
>dcw
It's downright amusing to see LNT'ers running from the evidence, and trying
desperately to come up with anything that they can.
Another recent example was when I pointed out that Bugliosi lied when he claimed
that Carrico had described the throat wound as "ragged" to buttress his "exit"
theory.
At least one LNT'er promptly pointed out that the trachea is part of the throat,
so Bugliosi wasn't lying.
The sheer nonsense that LNT'ers are forced to spew is laughable...
--
aeffects
well, we can't have a high ranking, Dallas cop commenting-making
inferences , now can we?
Bud
> Taken from the censored forum:
>
> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>
> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have given on that
> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is uncorroborated
> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witnesses to see
> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time after
> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>
> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
<snicker> As if.
>and correct the LNT'er factoids
> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be familiar
> to all LNT'ers by now:
I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t funny. And it
isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw below, he
doesn`t even support his own.
> **************************************************************************
>
> Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
Where does it appear that Oswald offered anything resembling an
alibi?
> If on 11/22/63 one wanted to give Lee Oswald a fair chance to exonerate himself,
> this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something re the
> movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he could
> not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" at
> 12:30pm.
Has anyone ever seen anything in evidence where Oswald tried to
relay information that would help support the idea he was innocent?
Did he ever show any interest in particulars so he could show how he
wasn`t involved? Of course not, he knew he was guilty and couldn`t
offer anything that could possibly indicate his innocence.
Walt
This post by Don Willis has to be one of the best posts ever posted in
this NG. Don lays it out point by irrefutable point and even the
biggest liar in the LN camp can't truthfullly refute it. The best
the LNer's can do is repeat Will Fritz's lie, of saying that Oswald
claimed he ate lunch with two colored men. Oswald said nothing of the
kind....He said he saw two colored employees pass by the lunchroom
while he was eating lunch. He said one of the colored men was called
"Junior" and the other was a little short man who they called
"Shorty".
The time line fits perfectly.....Oswald saw "Junior" and "Shorty" pass
by the lunchroom while he was eating lunch at about 12:25, then when
he finished eating a few minutes later, at about 12:30 he went to the
second floor lunchroom to buy a coke. and that's where Officer Baker
and Roy Truly saw him less than 80 seconds after the shooting.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jun 28, 9:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>>
>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
>hat
>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
>ed
>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
>e
>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time afte=
>r
>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>>
>ctoids
>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be fam=
>iliar
>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>*
>>
>> Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
>>
>imself,
>> this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something =
>re the
>> movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he=
> could
>> not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" a=
>t
>> 12:30pm. =A0In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators som=
>ething
>> which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
>>
>FK
>> assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. =A0There, they will=
> find, in
>> the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository wo=
>rker
>> James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Os=
>wald
>> (p182). =A0Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the=
> WR
>> footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
>,
>> resp.). =A0The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third=
>,
>> unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendic=
>es of
>> the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
> very
>> center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonan=
>t note
>> from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of =
>Oswald:
>> =A0 say[s] two negr came in.
>>
>> As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could in=
> fact
>> describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 1=
>2:15pm
>> the day before. =A0With those five words--which did not make it to Fritz'=
>s final
>> report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
>arold
>> "Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements =
>between
>> 11:45am & 12:30pm. =A0Dynamite five words....
>>
>> Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Will=
>iams
>> (v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard,=
> Oswald
>> on the fifth and/or sixth floors. =A0Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
>> 12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "d=
>omino
>> room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mai=
>nly on
>> the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). =A0Between=
> about
>> 11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then, =
>we
>> cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet jo=
>ined
>> forces. =A0But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place =
>a bit
>> *later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald...=
>.
>>
>> By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor do=
>mino
>> room because
>> (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the mo=
>torcade
>> was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered the
> a
>> planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go t=
>hrough
>> & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people sta=
>nding
>> on the stairway there" (p202)
>> (b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
>am
>> p148)
>> (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TS=
>BD,
>> alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room=
> during
>> this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
>gro."
>>
>> In other words--contrary to the Fritz & Kelley reports--Oswald was *not*
> a
>> table. =A0Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phras=
>eology, &
>> the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman=
> to
>> handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: =A0"[Oswald] said he ate =
>lunch
>> with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). =A0Bookhout, unambiguously, sai=
>d
>> *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
>,
>> ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! =A0Both phrases sugge=
>st,
>> further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in=
> or
>> near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>>
>time
>> that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman ind=
>eed
>> "came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--a=
>nd the
>> phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might se=
>em to
>> synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be re=
>placed
>> (in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easi=
>ly
>> contradicted "ate lunch with". =A0If you read only the final reports of F=
>ritz,
>> Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had =
>the bum
>> ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz with
>e lunch
>> with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". =A0Because "two negr came in" =
>implies
>> in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
>> 12:25....
>>
>here
>> are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was=
> on the
>> floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or n=
>ot
>> *they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have had=
> to
>> dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "s=
>niper's
>> nest" by 12:30. =A0He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Will=
>iams &
>> Givens) come in....
>>
>> copr 2004 Donald Willis
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
>This post by Don Willis has to be one of the best posts ever posted in
>this NG. Don lays it out point by irrefutable point and even the
>biggest liar in the LN camp can't truthfullly refute it. The best
>the LNer's can do is repeat Will Fritz's lie, of saying that Oswald
>claimed he ate lunch with two colored men. Oswald said nothing of the
>kind....He said he saw two colored employees pass by the lunchroom
>while he was eating lunch. He said one of the colored men was called
>"Junior" and the other was a little short man who they called
>"Shorty".
>
>The time line fits perfectly.....Oswald saw "Junior" and "Shorty" pass
>by the lunchroom while he was eating lunch at about 12:25, then when
>he finished eating a few minutes later, at about 12:30 he went to the
>second floor lunchroom to buy a coke. and that's where Officer Baker
>and Roy Truly saw him less than 80 seconds after the shooting.
Yep... you look at all the trees, and the forest is plainly visible.
I agree, this *is* one of Donald Willis' best posts... he does have a track
record of digging into the evidence, and coming up with reasonable explanations.
Unfortunately, although these explanations are credible, they aren't
non-conspiratorial.
LNT'ers and trolls have learned to stay away from evidence posts like the above.
Donald Willis
>On Jun 28, 7:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>>
>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
>hat
>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
>ed
>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
>e
>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time afte=
>r
>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>>
>ctoids
>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be fam=
>iliar
>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>*
>>
>> Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
>>
>imself,
>> this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something =
>re the
>> movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he=
> could
>> not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" a=
>t
>ething
>> which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
>>
>FK
>> assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. =A0There, they will=
> find, in
>> the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository wo=
>rker
>> James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Os=
>wald
>> (p182). =A0Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the=
> WR
>> footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
>,
>> resp.). =A0The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third=
>,
>> unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendic=
>es of
>> the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
> very
>> center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonan=
>t note
>> from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of =
>Oswald:
>> =A0 say[s] two negr came in.
>>
>> As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could in=
> fact
>> describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 1=
>2:15pm
>s final
>> report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
>arold
>> "Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements =
>between
>> 11:45am & 12:30pm. =A0Dynamite five words....
>> Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Will=
>iams
>> (v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard,=
> Oswald
>> on the fifth and/or sixth floors. =A0Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
>> 12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "d=
>omino
>> room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mai=
>nly on
>> the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). =A0Between=
> about
>> 11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then, =
>we
>> cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet jo=
>ined
>> forces. =A0But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place =
>a bit
>> *later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald...=
>.
>>
>> By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor do=
>mino
>> room because
>> (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the mo=
>torcade
>> was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered the
> a
>> planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go t=
>hrough
>> & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people sta=
>nding
>> on the stairway there" (p202)
>> (b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
>am
>> p148)
>> (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TS=
>BD,
>> alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room=
> during
>> this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
>gro."
>>
> a
>> table. =A0Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phras=
>eology, &
>> the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman=
> to
>> handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: =A0"[Oswald] said he ate =
>> with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). =A0Bookhout, unambiguously, sai=
>d
>> *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
>,
>> ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! =A0Both phrases sugge=
>st,
>> further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in=
> or
>> near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>
>well, we can't have a high ranking, Dallas cop commenting-making
>inferences , now can we?
We can, just so his inferences aren't mistaken for fact, as I believe they were
in the Warren Report....
dcw
>
>> Pretty clearly, then--in between the time that Fritz did his notes & the =
>time
>> that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman ind=
>eed
>> "came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--a=
>nd the
>> phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might se=
>em to
>> synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be re=
>placed
>> (in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easi=
>ly
>> contradicted "ate lunch with". =A0If you read only the final reports of F=
>ritz,
>> Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had =
>the bum
>> ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz with
>> Bookhout, & leaves *Kelley* out in the cold, with Fritz's now-suspect "at=
>e lunch
>> with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". =A0Because "two negr came in" =
>implies
>> in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
>> 12:25....
>>
>> Speculate as you wish as to why his lunch was delayed about 20 minutes--t=
>here
>> are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was=
> on the
>> floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or n=
>ot
>> *they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have had=
> to
>> dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "s=
>niper's
>> nest" by 12:30. =A0He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Will=
>iams &
>> Givens) come in....
>>
>> copr 2004 Donald Willis
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
--
Donald Willis
Donald Willis
>On Jun 28, 10:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>>
>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
>hat
>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
>ed
>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
>e
>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time afte=
>r
>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>>
>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>
> <snicker> As if.
>
>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>iliar
>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>
> I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t funny. And it
>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw below, he
>doesn`t even support his own.
>
Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) on the 6th...?
dcw
>> *************************************************************************=
>*
>>
>> Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
>
> Where does it appear that Oswald offered anything resembling an
>alibi?
>
>> If on 11/22/63 one wanted to give Lee Oswald a fair chance to exonerate h=
>imself,
>> this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something =
>re the
>> movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he=
> could
>> not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" a=
>t
>> 12:30pm.
>
> Has anyone ever seen anything in evidence where Oswald tried to
>relay information that would help support the idea he was innocent?
>Did he ever show any interest in particulars so he could show how he
>wasn`t involved? Of course not, he knew he was guilty and couldn`t
>offer anything that could possibly indicate his innocence.
>
>>=A0In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators something
>> which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
>>
>> The moderately curious, if they want to learn a little something re the J=
>FK
>> assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. =A0There, they will=
> find, in
>> the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository wo=
>rker
>> James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Os=
>wald
>> (p182). =A0Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the=
> WR
>> footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
>> employees, "Junior" & "Shorty" (pp605, 626/Fritz, Kelley [Secret Service]=
>,
>> resp.). =A0The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third=
>,
>> unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendic=
>es of
>> the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
>> particular other employees (p622/Bookhout [FBI]). =A0And, finally, at the=
> very
>> center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonan=
>t note
>> from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of =
>Oswald:
>> =A0 say[s] two negr came in.
>>
>> As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could in=
> fact
>> describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 1=
>2:15pm
>> the day before. =A0With those five words--which did not make it to Fritz'=
>s final
>> report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
>> reconcile Oswald's version of events with that of co-workers Jarman and H=
>arold
>> "Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements =
>between
>> 11:45am & 12:30pm. =A0Dynamite five words....
>>
>> Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Will=
>iams
>> (v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard,=
> Oswald
>> on the fifth and/or sixth floors. =A0Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
>> 12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "d=
>omino
>> room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mai=
>nly on
>> the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). =A0Between=
> about
>> 11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then, =
>we
>> cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet jo=
>ined
>> forces. =A0But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place =
>a bit
>> *later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald...=
>.
>>
>> By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor do=
>mino
>> room because
>> (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the mo=
>torcade
>> was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered the
>> depository through the "back of the building" (Jarman p202)--this was not=
> a
>> planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go t=
>hrough
>> & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people sta=
>nding
>> on the stairway there" (p202)
>> (b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
>> elevators would have been seen from the door of the domino room (WR diagr=
>am
>> p148)
>> (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TS=
>BD,
>> alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room=
> during
>> this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
>> (d) Oswald [as per Fritz] "say[s] two negr came in. =A0One Jr. + short ne=
>gro."
>>
>> In other words--contrary to the Fritz & Kelley reports--Oswald was *not*
>> claiming to have gone downstairs, around noon, to join Jarman & Norman at=
> a
>> table. =A0Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phras=
>eology, &
>> the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman=
> to
>> handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: =A0"[Oswald] said he ate =
>lunch
>> with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). =A0Bookhout, unambiguously, sai=
>d
>> *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
>> through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was closer=
>,
>> ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! =A0Both phrases sugge=
>st,
>> further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in=
> or
>> near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>>
>> Pretty clearly, then--in between the time that Fritz did his notes & the =
>time
>> that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman ind=
>eed
>> "came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--a=
>nd the
>> phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might se=
>em to
>> synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be re=
>placed
>> (in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easi=
>ly
>> contradicted "ate lunch with". =A0If you read only the final reports of F=
>ritz,
>> Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had =
>the bum
>> ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz with
>> Bookhout, & leaves *Kelley* out in the cold, with Fritz's now-suspect "at=
>e lunch
>> with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". =A0Because "two negr came in" =
>implies
>> in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
>> 12:25....
>>
>> Speculate as you wish as to why his lunch was delayed about 20 minutes--t=
>here
>> are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was=
> on the
>> floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or n=
>ot
>> *they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have had=
> to
>> dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "s=
>niper's
>> nest" by 12:30. =A0He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Will=
>iams &
>> Givens) come in....
>>
>> copr 2004 Donald Willis
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
--
Donald Willis
Donald Willis
>On Jun 28, 9:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>>
>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
>hat
>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
>ed
>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
>e
>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time afte=
>r
>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>>
>ctoids
>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be fam=
>iliar
>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>*
>>
>> Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
>>
>imself,
>> this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something =
>re the
>> movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he=
> could
>> not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" a=
>t
>ething
>> which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
>>
>FK
>> assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. =A0There, they will=
> find, in
>> the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository wo=
>rker
>> James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Os=
>wald
>> (p182). =A0Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the=
> WR
>> footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
>,
>> resp.). =A0The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third=
>,
>> unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendic=
>es of
>> the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
> very
>> center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonan=
>t note
>> from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of =
>Oswald:
>> =A0 say[s] two negr came in.
>>
>> As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could in=
> fact
>> describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 1=
>2:15pm
>s final
>> report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
>arold
>> "Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements =
>between
>> 11:45am & 12:30pm. =A0Dynamite five words....
>>
>> Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Will=
>iams
>> (v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard,=
> Oswald
>> on the fifth and/or sixth floors. =A0Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
>> 12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "d=
>omino
>> room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mai=
>nly on
>> the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). =A0Between=
> about
>> 11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then, =
>we
>> cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet jo=
>ined
>> forces. =A0But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place =
>a bit
>> *later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald...=
>.
>>
>> By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor do=
>mino
>> room because
>> (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the mo=
>torcade
>> was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered the
> a
>> planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go t=
>hrough
>> & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people sta=
>nding
>> on the stairway there" (p202)
>> (b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
>am
>> p148)
>> (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TS=
>BD,
>> alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room=
> during
>> this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
>gro."
>>
> a
>> table. =A0Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phras=
>eology, &
>> the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman=
> to
>> handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: =A0"[Oswald] said he ate =
>> with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). =A0Bookhout, unambiguously, sai=
>d
>> *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
>,
>> ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! =A0Both phrases sugge=
>st,
>> further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in=
> or
>> near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>>
>time
>> that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman ind=
>eed
>> "came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--a=
>nd the
>> phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might se=
>em to
>> synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be re=
>placed
>> (in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easi=
>ly
>> contradicted "ate lunch with". =A0If you read only the final reports of F=
>ritz,
>> Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had =
>the bum
>> ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz with
>e lunch
>> with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". =A0Because "two negr came in" =
>> in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
>> 12:25....
>>
>here
>> are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was=
> on the
>> floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or n=
>ot
>> *they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have had=
> to
>> dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "s=
>niper's
>> nest" by 12:30. =A0He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Will=
>iams &
>> Givens) come in....
>>
>> copr 2004 Donald Willis
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
>This post by Don Willis has to be one of the best posts ever posted in
>this NG. Don lays it out point by irrefutable point and even the
>biggest liar in the LN camp can't truthfullly refute it.
Thanks the big much, Walt. I'm blushing
dcw
The best
>the LNer's can do is repeat Will Fritz's lie, of saying that Oswald
>claimed he ate lunch with two colored men. Oswald said nothing of the
>kind....He said he saw two colored employees pass by the lunchroom
>while he was eating lunch. He said one of the colored men was called
>"Junior" and the other was a little short man who they called
>"Shorty".
>
>The time line fits perfectly.....Oswald saw "Junior" and "Shorty" pass
>by the lunchroom while he was eating lunch at about 12:25, then when
>he finished eating a few minutes later, at about 12:30 he went to the
>second floor lunchroom to buy a coke. and that's where Officer Baker
>and Roy Truly saw him less than 80 seconds after the shooting.
>
>
>
>
--
Donald Willis
timstter
Benny is reduced to quoting Donald Willis, LOL!
Oh how are the mighty fallen!
Sorrowing Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Ben Holmes
>
>
>>On Jun 28, 10:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>>
>>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>>>
>>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
>>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
>>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have given on t=
>>hat
>>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
>>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is uncorroborat=
>>ed
>>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
>>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witnesses to se=
>>e
>>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time afte=
>>r
>>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>>>
>>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> <snicker> As if.
Is this the best you can do???
>>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be fam=
>>iliar
>>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>> I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t funny.
Then simply repost your critique...
Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas and the way you treat
evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is rather cowardly, don't
you think?
>> And it
>>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw below, he
>>doesn`t even support his own.
The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
>Oh, Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers? Somehow, he *saw*
>Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) on the 6th...?
>dcw
Bud is willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever change that
despicable habit, I'd be willing to remove him from my killfilter...
>>> **************************************************************************
Bud
> In article <iufnm001...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis says...
>
>
>
> >I remember LNers coming up with strange solutions to this problem--problem for
> >them--when I first posted this. Like, say, Oswald looking down from the window
> >& seeing Norman & Jarman walking towards Houston & somehow intuiting that they
> >were going around to the back entrance! I guess they just had that "back
> >entrance" look in their step....
> >dcw
>
> It's downright amusing to see LNT'ers running from the evidence, and trying
> desperately to come up with anything that they can.
<snicker> It`s downright amusing to watch the kooks desperately
trying to scrape together an alibi for Oswald.
> Another recent example was when I pointed out that Bugliosi lied when he claimed
> that Carrico had described the throat wound as "ragged" to buttress his "exit"
> theory.
>
> At least one LNT'er promptly pointed out that the trachea is part of the throat,
> so Bugliosi wasn't lying.
No, I pointed out that the trachea was part of the throat making
your claim about what Carrico said a lie.
> The sheer nonsense that LNT'ers are forced to spew is laughable...
What do you call taking sentence fragments out of context to try and
cobble together a loophole for an obviously guilty assassin?
Answer: A retard hobby.
Bud
> I remember LNers coming up with strange solutions to this problem--problem for
> them--when I first posted this.
There is no problem for us. This construct in no way, shape or form
constitutes an alibi for Oswald.
> Like, say, Oswald looking down from the window
> & seeing Norman & Jarman walking towards Houston & somehow intuiting that they
> were going around to the back entrance! I guess they just had that "back
> entrance" look in their step....
Oswald had a view of out front, and Oswald would have been able to
hear their voices when they took their places beneath him.
Donald Willis
>
>On Jun 29, 1:33=A0pm, Donald Willis <dcwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I remember LNers coming up with strange solutions to this problem--proble=
>m for
>> them--when I first posted this.
>
> There is no problem for us. This construct in no way, shape or form
>constitutes an alibi for Oswald.
>
>> & seeing Norman & Jarman walking towards Houston & somehow intuiting that=
> they
>> were going around to the back entrance! =A0I guess they just had that "ba=
>ck
>> entrance" look in their step....
>
> Oswald had a view of out front, and Oswald would have been able to
>hear their voices when they took their places beneath him.
>
sidewalk chatter, and Norman & Jarman certainly would have talked louder then
the (many) others down there. However, based on what Truly saw, what someone
might have heard was N&J agreeing to go with Givens across Houston & down to
where his friend was. In fact, Truly testified that Norman & Jarman actually
started across Houston!
And your scenario has O in the "nest" trying to set up an alibi when he would
more probably have been intent on Main St., double checking the angled shot down
Elm, making sure everything was ready.... In fact, your assertion works better
in reverse--he would not have been fishing for an alibi at the last minute, with
so many other things on his mind....
dcw
>> dcw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>> >>> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>>
>> >> Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to a=
>n
>> >> alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
>> >> shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have given on =
>that
>> >> subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
>> >> claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is uncorrobora=
>ted
>> >> by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
>> >> lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witnesses to s=
>ee
>> >> him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time aft=
>er
>> >> the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>>
>> >Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself, and correct the LNT'er f=
>actoids
>> >presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be fa=
>miliar
>> >to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>> >************************************************************************=
>**
>>
>> >Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
>>
>> >If on 11/22/63 one wanted to give Lee Oswald a fair chance to exonerate =
>himself,
>> >this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something=
> re the
>> >movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which h=
>e could
>> >not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" =
>at
>> >12:30pm. =A0In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators so=
>mething
>> >which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
>>
>> >The moderately curious, if they want to learn a little something re the =
>JFK
>> >assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. =A0There, they wil=
>l find, in
>> >the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository w=
>orker
>> >James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with O=
>swald
>> >(p182). =A0Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into th=
>e WR
>> >footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
>> >employees, "Junior" & "Shorty" (pp605, 626/Fritz, Kelley [Secret Service=
>],
>> >resp.). =A0The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a thir=
>d,
>> >unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendi=
>ces of
>> >the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these tw=
>o
>> >particular other employees (p622/Bookhout [FBI]). =A0And, finally, at th=
>e very
>> >center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resona=
>nt note
>> >from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of=
> Oswald:
>> > =A0say[s] two negr came in.
>>
>> >As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could i=
>n fact
>> >describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after =
>12:15pm
>> >the day before. =A0With those five words--which did not make it to Fritz=
>'s final
>> >report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
>> >reconcile Oswald's version of events with that of co-workers Jarman and =
>Harold
>> >"Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements=
> between
>> >11:45am & 12:30pm. =A0Dynamite five words....
>>
>> >Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Wil=
>liams
>> >(v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard=
>, Oswald
>> >on the fifth and/or sixth floors. =A0Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
>> >12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "=
>domino
>> >room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, ma=
>inly on
>> >the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). =A0Betwee=
>n about
>> >11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then,=
> we
>> >cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet j=
>oined
>> >forces. =A0But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place=
> a bit
>> >*later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald..=
>..
>>
>> >By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor d=
>omino
>> >room because
>> >(a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the m=
>otorcade
>> >was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered th=
>e
>> >depository through the "back of the building" (Jarman p202)--this was no=
>t a
>> >planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go =
>through
>> >& cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people st=
>anding
>> >on the stairway there" (p202)
>> >(b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
>> >elevators would have been seen from the door of the domino room (WR diag=
>ram
>> >p148)
>> >(c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the T=
>SBD,
>> >alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the roo=
>m during
>> >this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
>> >(d) Oswald [as per Fritz] "say[s] two negr came in. =A0One Jr. + short n=
>egro."
>>
>> >In other words--contrary to the Fritz & Kelley reports--Oswald was *not*
>> >claiming to have gone downstairs, around noon, to join Jarman & Norman a=
>t a
>> >table. =A0Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phra=
>seology, &
>> >the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarma=
>n to
>> >handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: =A0"[Oswald] said he ate=
> lunch
>> >with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). =A0Bookhout, unambiguously, sa=
>id
>> >*alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walkin=
>g
>> >through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was close=
>r,
>> >ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! =A0Both phrases sugg=
>est,
>> >further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--i=
>n or
>> >near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>>
>> >Pretty clearly, then--in between the time that Fritz did his notes & the=
> time
>> >that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman in=
>deed
>> >"came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--=
>and the
>> >phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might s=
>eem to
>> >synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be r=
>eplaced
>> >(in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the eas=
>ily
>> >contradicted "ate lunch with". =A0If you read only the final reports of =
>Fritz,
>> >Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had=
> the bum
>> >ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz wit=
>h
>> >Bookhout, & leaves *Kelley* out in the cold, with Fritz's now-suspect "a=
>te lunch
>> >with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". =A0Because "two negr came in"=
> implies
>> >in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout =
>&
>> >12:25....
>>
>> >Speculate as you wish as to why his lunch was delayed about 20 minutes--=
>there
>> >are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald wa=
>s on the
>> >floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or =
>not
>> >*they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have ha=
>d to
>> >dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "=
>sniper's
>> >nest" by 12:30. =A0He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Wil=
>liams &
>> >Givens) come in....
>>
>> >copr 2004 Donald Willis
>>
>> --
>> Donald Willis
>
--
Donald Willis
Bud
It sure impresses the conspiracy retards, thats for sure. But on
examination it is really nothing.
> Don lays it out point by irrefutable point and even the
> biggest liar in the LN camp can't truthfullly refute it.
<snicker> "irrefutable point"? If this means this, and this means
this, then Oswald had an alibi. But he hasn`t established either
"this".
> The best
> the LNer's can do is repeat Will Fritz's lie, of saying that Oswald
> claimed he ate lunch with two colored men. Oswald said nothing of the
> kind....
It appears in multiple accounts.
>He said he saw two colored employees pass by the lunchroom
> while he was eating lunch.
No, you need to read the Bookout quote better.
"Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the
TSBD,
alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the
room during
this period."
The only room mentioned is the "lunchroom". If another room was
brought up it would be identified. Therefore, according to Bookout
Oswald said that *maybe* the two walked through the lunchroom.
> He said one of the colored men was called
> "Junior" and the other was a little short man who they called
> "Shorty".
Any support that Jarman was called "Shorty"?
> The time line fits perfectly.....Oswald saw "Junior" and "Shorty" pass
> by the lunchroom while he was eating lunch at about 12:25, then when
> he finished eating a few minutes later, at about 12:30 he went to the
> second floor lunchroom to buy a coke. and that's where Officer Baker
> and Roy Truly saw him less than 80 seconds after the shooting.
Let me point out once more what a retarded idea it is for all the
planning you retards imagine the conspiracy did, but they left the
most vital part to chance when they left Oswald wander the halls of
the TSBD.
And even *if* Oswald did see these guys on the first floor, it still
wouldn`t be an alibi.
Bud
> In article <84323fae-b743-40c8-8e36-fd0226550...@u28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
<snicker> "reasonable". You mean astounding, elaborate, complex,
amazing, extraordinary, incredible?
> Unfortunately, although these explanations are credible, they aren't
> non-conspiratorial.
>
> LNT'ers and trolls have learned to stay away from evidence posts like the above.
Too bad you are too big a coward to come forward and defend the
ideas dw put forth in that article.
Bud
<snicker> No wonder you retards never feel you are refuted, you
never understand the counter-arguments. He doesn`t need to see them on
the first, he only needs to have seen them outside, and heard them
come in down below him.
And it doesn`t matter if he did see them on the first floor, I`ve
always felt it was possible for a smart guy like Oswald to keep the
bullets apart from the rifle, to allow for deniability if the rifle
was discovered. If he left the bullets in his jacket pocket in the
Domino room and went down to retrieve them, he might have seen them
(although you are nowhere near establishing that he did with the weak
out of context nonsense you are trying to use for support). You see,
it doesn`t matter if Oswald was on the first floor then, it doesn`t
afford him an alibi, nobody was killed then. It doesn`t matter when
the motorcade was due to arrive, if circumstances prevented Oswald
from getting to where he hid the rifle, or he had trouble assembling
it these things would dictate more than the clock.
Bud
> "nest".dcw 2011
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 29, 1:33=A0pm, Donald Willis <dcwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I remember LNers coming up with strange solutions to this problem--proble=
> >m for
> >> them--when I first posted this.
>
> > There is no problem for us. This construct in no way, shape or form
> >constitutes an alibi for Oswald.
>
> >>=A0Like, say, Oswald looking down from the window
> >> & seeing Norman & Jarman walking towards Houston & somehow intuiting that=
> > they
> >> were going around to the back entrance! =A0I guess they just had that "ba=
> >ck
> >> entrance" look in their step....
>
> > Oswald had a view of out front, and Oswald would have been able to
> >hear their voices when they took their places beneath him.
>
> Oh! the LN-Kooks are second to none!
Does this mean you are going to address what I said?
> Yes, Oswald was intently listening to
> sidewalk chatter, and Norman & Jarman certainly would have talked louder then
> the (many) others down there.
I guess not.
I wasn`t saying he could hear them down on the street. He could see
them there, and hear them come in underneath him and deduce that they
came in on the first floor rather than climbed up the outside of the
building.
> However, based on what Truly saw, what someone
> might have heard was N&J agreeing to go with Givens across Houston & down to
> where his friend was. In fact, Truly testified that Norman & Jarman actually
> started across Houston!
>
> And your scenario has O in the "nest" trying to set up an alibi
No. My scenario is Oswald not giving the slightest fuck about an
alibi.
Bud
> In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>On Jun 28, 10:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>> Taken from the censored forum:
>
> >>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>
> >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
> >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
> >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have given on t=
> >>hat
> >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
> >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is uncorroborat=
> >>ed
> >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
> >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witnesses to se=
> >>e
> >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time afte=
> >>r
> >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>
> >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>
> >> <snicker> As if.
>
> Is this the best you can do???
I could destroy you on this issue if you were man enough to engage
me on it. As it stands, yah, all I can do is point out you inability
and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
> >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
> >>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be fam=
> >>iliar
> >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>
> >> I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t funny.
>
> Then simply repost your critique...
For whose benefit, retard? You guys were all here the last few times
I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I keep
repeating it it will sink in?
> Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas and the way you treat
> evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
<snicker> How about how dw is treating the evidence? He changes the
meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
> Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is rather cowardly, don't
> you think?
No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts. I think it`s
cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth ideas you haven`t
the guts to support.
> >> And it
> >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw below, he
> >>doesn`t even support his own.
>
> The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas contained
in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in you
inability to support them in an open forum.
> >Oh, Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers? Somehow, he *saw*
> >Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) on the 6th...?
> >dcw
>
> Bud is willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever change that
> despicable habit, I'd be willing to remove him from my killfilter...
You are never going to try to support your ideas in an open forum
here ever again. You can`t. If you came out and engaged me just on
this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out. You have
no choice but to hide.
dklou...@comcast.net
gone nowhere near the domino room.
b) Then Williams too should have heard them down on the street,
shouted out for them to come up to the 6th floor.
dcw
> ...
>
> read more »
aeffects
toots-e-roll?
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
They still have to go to the elevator or stairs.
> b) Then Williams too should have heard them down on the street,
> shouted out for them to come up to the 6th floor.
The idea had nothing to do with anyone hearing down to the street.
Only that Oswald on the 6th floor could hear those guy come into the
area underneath him from the 6th.
Bud
> hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), can ya
> toots-e-roll?
I have won, haven`t you noticed? Ben is afraid to engage me on the
issues he brings up in this open forum. The reason he doesn`t is
because he can`t support his ideas. The reason he can`t support his
ideas is because they aren`t valid. The reason you don`t realize any
of this is because you are retarded.
Walt
Ha.ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.... Nope I can't support that stupid
idea.....
But thank you for exposing your ignorance once again.....Most folks
know that Mr Jarman was called "Junior" and as far as I know nobody
called him "Shorty".
>
> > The time line fits perfectly.....Oswald saw "Junior" and "Shorty" pass
> > by the lunchroom while he was eating lunch at about 12:25, then when
> > he finished eating a few minutes later, at about 12:30 he went to the
> > second floor lunchroom to buy a coke. and that's where Officer Baker
> > and Roy Truly saw him less than 80 seconds after the shooting.
>
> Let me point out once more what a retarded idea it is for all the
> planning you retards imagine the conspiracy did, but they left the
> most vital part to chance when they left Oswald wander the halls of
> the TSBD.
>
> And even *if* Oswald did see these guys on the first floor, it still
> wouldn`t be an alibi.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
Ok, I got them mixed up. Can you support that Norman was called
"Shorty"?
And this is the idea you chose to address?
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), can ya
>toots-e-roll?
And, as his upcoming response will demonstrate, Bud has no choice other than to
lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his latest lie.
>On Jul 1, 3:44=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 9:38=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis says...
>>
>> > >>On Jun 28, 10:24=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > >>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>> > >>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>>
>> > >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring=
> to an
>> > >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of th=
>e
>> > >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have give=
>n on t=3D
>> > >>hat
>> > >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he suppose=
>dly
>> > >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is uncorr=
>oborat=3D
>> > >>ed
>> > >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were ha=
>ving
>> > >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witnesses=
> to se=3D
>> > >>e
>> > >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough tim=
>e afte=3D
>> > >>r
>> > >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor=
>.
>>
>> > >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> > >> <snicker> As if.
>>
>> > Is this the best you can do???
>>
>> I could destroy you on this issue if you were man enough to engage
>> me on it. As it stands, yah, all I can do is point out you inability
>> and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
Then go ahead and "destroy" me...
You don't need my comments - lurkers will read what I and Donald Willis wrote,
and they'll see your rebuttal. And then they can make up their mind.
Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that you can refute the
evidence.
So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he refuses to debate the
evidence?
>> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>> > >>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* =
>be fam=3D
>> > >>iliar
>> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>> > >> =A0I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t funny.
>>
>> > Then simply repost your critique...
>>
>> For whose benefit, retard? You guys were all here the last few times
>> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I keep
>> repeating it it will sink in?
See above.
>> > Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas and the way
>> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>>
>> <snicker> How about how dw is treating the evidence? He changes the
>> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
See above.
>> > Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is rather cowardly,
>> > don't you think?
>>
>> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts." What you're doing, is
ASSERTING that you'd long ago done so... and could do so again if only I would
remove you from my killfilter.
Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to support, isn't it?
Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU IN THE LEAST
FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF.
The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than providing
evidence, and showing how it supports your position is merely one of many
reasons you belong killfiled.
>> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth ideas
>> you haven`t the guts to support.
Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provided (via the
repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald's alibi...
lurkers will simply have to judge for themselves who the coward is.
>> > >> And it
>> > >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw below, h=
>e
>> > >>doesn`t even support his own.
>>
>> > The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
>>
>> If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas contained
>> in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in you
>> inability to support them in an open forum.
I already did.
Why lie about it?
Not ONE SINGLE TIME did you provide a credible, non-conspiratorial explanation
for any of the evidential questions I posed.
Not once!
Oh, you'll lie and say you did... but what you will refuse to do is repost it.
In the meantime, I repost the 45 Questions series every year or two, and new
batches of McAdam's students get to run from it.
>> > >Oh, Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers? =A0Someho=
>w, he *saw*
>> > >Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) on th=
>e 6th...?
>> > >dcw
>>
>> > Bud is willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever change that
>> > despicable habit, I'd be willing to remove him from my killfilter...
>>
>> You are never going to try to support your ideas in an open forum
>> here ever again.
Hey moron... this *IS* an open forum. That some people can't waste their time
with trolls doesn't change that fact.
I can post whatever I want...
You can post WHATEVER YOU WANT...
That's an open forum.
You seem to think that people have a responsibility to engage you in your
nonsense.
>> You can`t. If you came out and engaged me just on
>> this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out. You have
>> no choice but to hide.
Okay... here's a simple example that proves you're lying.
Either provide the quote from Carrico where he describes the throat wound as
"ragged", thus adding evidence that the neck wound was an exit wound... or state
right here in this open forum that Bugliosi lied.
But you can't do either... you'll simply lie again... proving that you belong on
my killfilter.
Walt
> In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
Ben, if you put all liars in your killfilter...... You'll have all
LNer's filtered.
LNer's lie.....That's why they're LNer's. Lner's were born with the
creation of LBJ's "Select Blue Ribbon Committee" ( The Warren
Commission) LBJ selected them because he knew he could count on them
to lie and blame Oswald. All present day LNer's are descendents of
LBJ's "Select Committee".
No matter what solid evidence is displayed to them, (like the well
hidden rifle) they'll lie and deny, and say that Oswald simply ran by
the stacks of book cartons and carelessly threw the rifle down behind
a stack of cartons. The police officers who saw the rifle when it was
first discovered said that it was "WELL HIDDEN" and it was only after
Deputy Boone got a flashlight that he saw the rifle which was well
hidden by burying beneath cartons of books.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
Ben's in the ring taunting the Dud ......"Then go ahead and "destroy"
me..."
Well c'mon Dud.... Let's see you step into the ring, I enjoy seeing
you getting your ass kicked.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jul 2, 10:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), can ya
>> >toots-e-roll?
>>
>han to
>> lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his latest lie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Jul 1, 9:38=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis says...
>>
>te:
>> >> > >>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>d
>>
>> >> > >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referr=
>ing=3D
>> > to an
>> >> > >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> > >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have g=
>ive=3D
>> >n on t=3D3D
>> >> > >>hat
>> >> > >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supp=
>ose=3D
>> >dly
>> >> > >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is unc=
>orr=3D
>> >oborat=3D3D
>> >> > >>ed
>> >> > >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were=
> ha=3D
>> >ving
>> >> > >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witnes=
>ses=3D
>> > to se=3D3D
>> >> > >>e
>> >> > >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough =
>tim=3D
>> >e afte=3D3D
>> >> > >>r
>> >> > >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th fl=
>oor=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> > >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> >> > >> <snicker> As if.
>>
>> >> > Is this the best you can do???
>>
>> >> I could destroy you on this issue if you were man enough to engage
>> >> me on it. As it stands, yah, all I can do is point out you inability
>> >> and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
>>
>> Then go ahead and "destroy" me...
>
>Ben's in the ring taunting the Dud ......"Then go ahead and "destroy"
>me..."
>
>Well c'mon Dud.... Let's see you step into the ring, I enjoy seeing
>you getting your ass kicked.
In reality, were Bud's goal to defend the WCR - he could do so with absolutely
no regard whatsoever to whether or not I read his posts.
His defense of the WCR would STAND ON ITS OWN - no need for me to read it to
'validate' it.
So my refusal to pay attention to Bud has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his
asserted ability to "destroy me". All he has to do is simply refute my posts,
refute the evidence I post, refute the questions I pose with credible and
non-conspiratorial explanations.
Whether or not *I* read his posts don't affect the truth (or lies) of his posts
at all.
Of course, what my refusal to pay attention to his nonsense *DOES* affect - is
his ability to post ad hominem attacks. He can't engage me if I simply refuse to
pay him any attention.
And trolls need attention - they thrive on it.
I'll stick with the evidence.
Bud challenged "If you came out and engaged me just on this issue or any other I
would tear you up and spit you out." - I invite everyone to watch how he runs
away and lies about my example, Bugliosi's lie about what Carrico said.
My crystal ball is telling me that Bud will lie, or refuse to answer... he
certainly won't "tear" me up and "spit" me out. Indeed, that's just what
happened to him.
>> You don't need my comments - lurkers will read what I and Donald Willis w=
>rote,
>> and they'll see your rebuttal. And then they can make up their mind.
>>
>> Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that you can refute =
>the
>> evidence.
>>
>> So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he refuses to debat=
>e the
>> evidence?
>>
>> >> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>> >> > >>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *shoul=
>d* =3D
>> >be fam=3D3D
>> >> > >>iliar
>> >> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>> >> > >> =3DA0I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t funny=
>.
>>
>> >> > Then simply repost your critique...
>>
>> >> For whose benefit, retard? You guys were all here the last few times
>> >> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I keep
>> >> repeating it it will sink in?
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> >> > Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas and the way
>> >> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>>
>> >> <snicker> How about how dw is treating the evidence? He changes the
>> >> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> >> > Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is rather cowa=
>rdly,
>> >> > don't you think?
>>
>> >> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
>>
>> Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts." What you're doing,=
> is
>> ASSERTING that you'd long ago done so... and could do so again if only I =
>would
>> remove you from my killfilter.
>>
>> Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to support, isn't=
> it?
>>
>> Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU IN THE LE=
>AST
>> FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF.
>>
>> The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than providing
>> evidence, and showing how it supports your position is merely one of many
>> reasons you belong killfiled.
>>
>> >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth ideas
>> >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>>
>> Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provided (via t=
>he
>> repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald's alibi...
>> lurkers will simply have to judge for themselves who the coward is.
>>
>> >> > >> And it
>> >> > >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw below=
>, h=3D
>> >e
>> >> > >>doesn`t even support his own.
>>
>> >> > The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
>>
>> >> If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas contained
>> >> in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in you
>> >> inability to support them in an open forum.
>>
>> I already did.
>>
>> Why lie about it?
>>
>> Not ONE SINGLE TIME did you provide a credible, non-conspiratorial explan=
>ation
>> for any of the evidential questions I posed.
>>
>> Not once!
>>
>> Oh, you'll lie and say you did... but what you will refuse to do is repos=
>t it.
>>
>> In the meantime, I repost the 45 Questions series every year or two, and =
>new
>> batches of McAdam's students get to run from it.
>>
>> >> > >Oh, Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers? =3DA0S=
>omeho=3D
>> >w, he *saw*
>> >> > >Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) on=
> th=3D
>> >e 6th...?
>> >> > >dcw
>>
>> >> > Bud is willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever change =
>that
>> >> > despicable habit, I'd be willing to remove him from my killfilter...
>>
>> >> You are never going to try to support your ideas in an open forum
>> >> here ever again.
>>
>> Hey moron... this *IS* an open forum. That some people can't waste their =
Bud
<snicker> Thats the problem, retard, Ben *isn`t* in the ring. He is
heckling from the crowd, but he doesn`t have the balls to get into the
ring where the action is.
> Well c'mon Dud.... Let's see you step into the ring, I enjoy seeing
> you getting your ass kicked.
I`ve never left the ring, moron, I`ve been in it ever since I`ve
come into this nuthouse years and years ago. I`m willing to engage you
idiots on any half-baked idea that pops into your pointed little
heads. Mark has been doing a job on your silly fantasies lately,
bigdog and Tim have been roughing Gil up, but I want the Coward.
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -
Bud
> In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), can ya
> >toots-e-roll?
>
> And, as his upcoming response will demonstrate, Bud has no choice other than to
> lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his latest lie.
<snicker> Yah, let`s see, this should be good.
I *have*. You decided the only course of action left to you was to
hide from what I write.
> You don't need my comments -
Yah, I do. In order to show your ideas are retarded I need your to
say what they are. I need you to go into that dance you do when you
are called on to support your ideas.
> lurkers will read what I and Donald Willis wrote,
> and they'll see your rebuttal. And then they can make up their mind.
Fuck each and every lurker.
> Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that you can refute the
> evidence.
Not what I said. I`d said I could kick your ass on the issues you
raise.
> So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he refuses to debate the
> evidence?
The evidence often isn`t the problem. It`s the retards looking at
the evidence that is the problem.
> >> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
> >> > >>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* =
> >be fam=3D
> >> > >>iliar
> >> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>
> >> > >> =A0I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t funny.
>
> >> > Then simply repost your critique...
>
> >> For whose benefit, retard? You guys were all here the last few times
> >> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I keep
> >> repeating it it will sink in?
>
> See above.
"Above" does not address the point I made.
> >> > Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas and the way
> >> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>
> >> <snicker> How about how dw is treating the evidence? He changes the
> >> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
>
> See above.
"Above" does not address the point I made".
> >> > Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is rather cowardly,
> >> > don't you think?
>
> >> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
>
> Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts."
Then why have you been unable to dispute them?
> What you're doing, is
> ASSERTING that you'd long ago done so... and could do so again if only I would
> remove you from my killfilter.
My being on your killfilter proves my assertion.
> Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to support, isn't it?
>
> Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU IN THE LEAST
> FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF.
Which I did. Maybe you missed it because you have me killfiled.
> The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than providing
> evidence, and showing how it supports your position is merely one of many
> reasons you belong killfiled.
The reason you killfiled me is because you can`t support your ideas,
like this one here. If I wasn`t killfiled, I would just ask you how
what dw produced in that article constitutes a alibi. And you would
dance and duck and never really answer, and everyone would see that
you can`t support the idea you put forth.
And the fact is that I did address the evidence dw was using in his
construct, I pointed out that the portion of Bookout`s report he uses
doesn`t say what he represents it to say. Nobody responds to this
point, you retards just pretend it hasn`t been made.
> >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth ideas
> >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>
> Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provided (via the
> repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald's alibi...
Nothing dw included in that article you produced is in any way,
shape or form an "alibi". You can`t produce one definition of "alibi"
that is satisfied by that offering. It`s a lie to call what he
concocted an "alibi", the word cannot possibly apply.
> lurkers will simply have to judge for themselves who the coward is.
>
> >> > >> And it
> >> > >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw below, h=
> >e
> >> > >>doesn`t even support his own.
>
> >> > The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
>
> >> If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas contained
> >> in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in you
> >> inability to support them in an open forum.
>
> I already did.
>
> Why lie about it?
>
> Not ONE SINGLE TIME did you provide a credible, non-conspiratorial explanation
> for any of the evidential questions I posed.
>
> Not once!
What you mean is not once did you accept the non-conspiratorial
explanations I provided. You like your conspiratorial explanations
better. Also, as i`ve pointed out many times before, it`s up to you to
show conspiracy, not for me to "unshow" it.
You employ a fallacious approach.
> Oh, you'll lie and say you did... but what you will refuse to do is repost it.
What would be the point? To watch you lie again?
> In the meantime, I repost the 45 Questions series every year or two, and new
> batches of McAdam's students get to run from it.
If they answer, you`ll killfile them. Cowards hide, thats what they
do.
> >> > >Oh, Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers? =A0Someho=
> >w, he *saw*
> >> > >Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) on th=
> >e 6th...?
> >> > >dcw
>
> >> > Bud is willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever change that
> >> > despicable habit, I'd be willing to remove him from my killfilter...
>
> >> You are never going to try to support your ideas in an open forum
> >> here ever again.
>
> Hey moron... this *IS* an open forum. That some people can't waste their time
> with trolls doesn't change that fact.
>
> I can post whatever I want...
>
> You can post WHATEVER YOU WANT...
>
> That's an open forum.
No, retard, an open forum is where people engage in an open exchange
of ideas.
> You seem to think that people have a responsibility to engage you in your
> nonsense.
You can do whatever you want. I just point out that your behavior is
that of a coward and a pussy.
> >> You can`t. If you came out and engaged me just on
> >> this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out. You have
> >> no choice but to hide.
>
> Okay... here's a simple example that proves you're lying.
>
> Either provide the quote from Carrico where he describes the throat wound as
> "ragged", thus adding evidence that the neck wound was an exit wound... or state
> right here in this open forum that Bugliosi lied.
We already went around on that one, whats the matter with this one?
Lets see you support the idea that what dw compiled constitutes an
alibi for Oswald. Just answer the simple question of how this is an
alibi for Oswald. You won`t, you`ll duck and dance.
> But you can't do either... you'll simply lie again... proving that you belong on
> my killfilter.
Proving my assessment of your character is accurate.
aeffects
> In article <64c58e6b-88c1-424f-b34a-f7a6b7638...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
I'm athinkin' lone nut busybodies here and elsewhere have no
comprehension of the term, "non-conspiratorial explanation." And to
think of all those lone nut law degrees floating around here --
LMAO! ! !
Bud
> In article <64c58e6b-88c1-424f-b34a-f7a6b7638...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
When did I ever say this was my goal? In fact numerous times I`ve
said that I could have figured out that Oswald killed Kennedy had the
Warren Commission never been formed.
> - he could do so with absolutely
> no regard whatsoever to whether or not I read his posts.
I do. On some occasions you respond to something I`ve written, and I
point out you are too big of a pussy to support your ideas in an open
forum. Other times you will present an idea and I will point out that
you are too big a pussy to support your ideas in an open forum.
And you *do* respond to my posts, so what would be the difference if
you saw everything I wrote? You wouldn`t be able to pretend you
haven`t seen them?
> His defense of the WCR would STAND ON ITS OWN - no need for me to read it to
> 'validate' it.
The WCR stands on it`s own with no need for me to defend it. I want
to engage you on *ideas* because I know I can show that yours suck.
> So my refusal to pay attention to Bud has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his
> asserted ability to "destroy me".
<snicker> It has everything to do with. In fact, I could prove my
contention very easily. Ben can engage me *just* on this idea he
brought up when he started this post, nothing else. I will refrain
from ad hominem. And I will destroy him. He will run crying back
behind his killfilter.
> All he has to do is simply refute my posts,
> refute the evidence I post, refute the questions I pose with credible and
> non-conspiratorial explanations.
How about I just show that your ideas are bad?
> Whether or not *I* read his posts don't affect the truth (or lies) of his posts
> at all.
>
> Of course, what my refusal to pay attention to his nonsense *DOES* affect - is
> his ability to post ad hominem attacks. He can't engage me if I simply refuse to
> pay him any attention.
You never pay attention when someone calls upon you to support what
you say. The killfilter just prevents you from having to skirt issues,
dance, duck and all the other things you do when called upon to
support your ideas.
> And trolls need attention - they thrive on it.
>
> I'll stick with the evidence.
>
> Bud challenged "If you came out and engaged me just on this issue or any other I
> would tear you up and spit you out." - I invite everyone to watch how he runs
> away and lies about my example, Bugliosi's lie about what Carrico said.
That discussion is on record in the archives. I addressed your lie
about what Carrico said.
> My crystal ball is telling me that Bud will lie, or refuse to answer... he
> certainly won't "tear" me up and "spit" me out. Indeed, that's just what
> happened to him.
Really? I don`t recall you refuting one point I made.
Bud
I know what it means. It means "I defy you to offer an explanation I
like better then the retarded conspiratorial one that exists solely in
my imagination". In reality it is an admission by Ben that he can`t
show the conspiracy he claims is there.
aeffects
ROTFLMFAO! ! ! Faith, as in the WCR appears your game eh Dud? And,
you are sure pissed you've been assigned troll duty this holiday
weekend, aren't ya?
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 2, 9:35=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <64c58e6b-88c1-424f-b34a-f7a6b7638...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On Jul 2, 10:09=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> aeffects says...
>>
>> >> >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), can ya
>> >> >toots-e-roll?
>>
>r t=3D
>> >han to
>> >> lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his latest lie.
>>
>> >> >> On Jul 1, 9:38=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis says...
>>
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>> >> >> > >>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>oli=3D
>> >d
>>
>> >> >> > >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be ref=
>err=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> > to an
>> >> >> > >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time=
> of=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> > >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to hav=
>e g=3D
>> >ive=3D3D
>> >> >n on t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >>hat
>> >> >> > >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he s=
>upp=3D
>> >ose=3D3D
>> >> >dly
>> >> >> > >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is =
>unc=3D
>> >orr=3D3D
>> >> >oborat=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >>ed
>> >> >> > >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees w=
>ere=3D
>> > ha=3D3D
>> >> >ving
>> >> >> > >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first wit=
>nes=3D
>> >ses=3D3D
>> >> > to se=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >>e
>> >> >> > >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enou=
>gh =3D
>> >tim=3D3D
>> >> >e afte=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >>r
>> >> >> > >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th=
> fl=3D
>> >oor=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> > >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> >> >> > >> <snicker> As if.
>>
>> >> >> > Is this the best you can do???
>>
>> >> >> I could destroy you on this issue if you were man enough to engage
>y
>> >> >> and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
>>
>> >> Then go ahead and "destroy" me...
>>
>> >Ben's in the ring taunting the Dud ......"Then go ahead and "destroy"
>> >me..."
>>
>> >Well c'mon Dud.... Let's see you step into the ring, I enjoy seeing
>> >you getting your ass kicked.
>>
>> In reality, were Bud's goal to defend the WCR - he could do so with
>> absolutely no regard whatsoever to whether or not I read his posts.
>>
>> His defense of the WCR would STAND ON ITS OWN - no need for me to read it to
>> 'validate' it.
>>
>> So my refusal to pay attention to Bud has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his
>> asserted ability to "destroy me". All he has to do is simply refute my posts,
>> refute the evidence I post, refute the questions I pose with credible and
>> non-conspiratorial explanations.
>
>I'm athinkin' lone nut busybodies here and elsewhere have no
>comprehension of the term, "non-conspiratorial explanation."
Let's not forget "credible". For example, it's certainly non-conspiratorial to
believe that Bugliosi thought that when Carrico referred to the *TRACHEA* as
ragged, that it would support his theory that this was evidence for the neck
wound being an exit.
But it's not *credible*. No-one looks to internal injuries to determine bullet
direction - and since there's no description of the trachea referred to, THE
BULLET COULD HAVE TRAVELED FROM ANY DIRECTION WHATSOEVER, and still created a
"ragged" tracheal wound.
>And to think of all those lone nut law degrees floating around here --
>LMAO! ! !
Bud, and other trolls, apparently think that it's a necessity for me to be able
to read their posts, in order to refute what I say.
I say: Go ahead and provide credible non-conspiratorial explanations for the
facts that we CT'ers bring up.
You don't need us to read your explanations...
>> Whether or not *I* read his posts don't affect the truth (or lies) of his
>> posts at all.
>>
>> Of course, what my refusal to pay attention to his nonsense *DOES* affect=
> - is
>> his ability to post ad hominem attacks. He can't engage me if I simply re=
>fuse to
>> pay him any attention.
>>
>> And trolls need attention - they thrive on it.
>>
>> I'll stick with the evidence.
>>
>> Bud challenged "If you came out and engaged me just on this issue or any =
>other I
>> would tear you up and spit you out." - I invite everyone to watch how he runs
>> away and lies about my example, Bugliosi's lie about what Carrico said.
>>
>> My crystal ball is telling me that Bud will lie, or refuse to answer... he
>> certainly won't "tear" me up and "spit" me out. Indeed, that's just what
>> happened to him.
>>
>>
>> >> You don't need my comments - lurkers will read what I and Donald Willi=
>s w=3D
>> >rote,
>> >> and they'll see your rebuttal. And then they can make up their mind.
>>
>> >> Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that you can refu=
>te =3D
>> >the
>> >> evidence.
>>
>> >> So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he refuses to de=
>bat=3D
>> >e the
>> >> evidence?
>>
>> >> >> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>> >> >> > >>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *sh=
>oul=3D
>> >d* =3D3D
>> >> >be fam=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > >>iliar
>> >> >> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>> >> >> > >> =3D3DA0I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t =
>funny=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> > Then simply repost your critique...
>>
>> >> >> For whose benefit, retard? You guys were all here the last few time=
>s
>> >> >> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I keep
>> >> >> repeating it it will sink in?
>>
>> >> See above.
>>
>> >> >> > Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas and the w=
>ay
>> >> >> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>>
>> >> >> <snicker> How about how dw is treating the evidence? He changes the
>> >> >> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
>>
>> >> See above.
>>
>> >> >> > Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is rather c=
>owa=3D
>> >rdly,
>> >> >> > don't you think?
>>
>> >> >> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
>>
>> >> Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts." What you're doi=
>ng,=3D
>> > is
>> >> ASSERTING that you'd long ago done so... and could do so again if only=
> I =3D
>> >would
>> >> remove you from my killfilter.
>>
>> >> Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to support, is=
>n't=3D
>> > it?
>>
>> >> Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU IN THE=
> LE=3D
>> >AST
>> >> FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF.
>>
>> >> The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than provid=
>ing
>> >> evidence, and showing how it supports your position is merely one of m=
>any
>> >> reasons you belong killfiled.
>>
>> >> >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth ide=
>as
>> >> >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>>
>> >> Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provided (vi=
>a t=3D
>> >he
>> >> repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald's alibi=
>...
>> >> lurkers will simply have to judge for themselves who the coward is.
>>
>> >> >> > >> And it
>> >> >> > >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw be=
>low=3D
>> >, h=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> > >>doesn`t even support his own.
>>
>> >> >> > The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
>>
>> >> >> If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas contained
>> >> >> in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in you
>> >> >> inability to support them in an open forum.
>>
>> >> I already did.
>>
>> >> Why lie about it?
>>
>> >> Not ONE SINGLE TIME did you provide a credible, non-conspiratorial exp=
>lan=3D
>> >ation
>> >> for any of the evidential questions I posed.
>>
>> >> Not once!
>>
>> >> Oh, you'll lie and say you did... but what you will refuse to do is re=
>pos=3D
>> >t it.
>>
>> >> In the meantime, I repost the 45 Questions series every year or two, a=
>nd =3D
>> >new
>> >> batches of McAdam's students get to run from it.
>>
>> >> >> > >Oh, Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers? =3D=
>3DA0S=3D
>> >omeho=3D3D
>> >> >w, he *saw*
>> >> >> > >Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly)=
> on=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e 6th...?
>> >> >> > >dcw
>>
>> >> >> > Bud is willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever chan=
>ge =3D
>> >that
>> >> >> > despicable habit, I'd be willing to remove him from my killfilter=
>...
>>
>> >> >> You are never going to try to support your ideas in an open forum
>> >> >> here ever again.
>>
>> >> Hey moron... this *IS* an open forum. That some people can't waste the=
>ir =3D
>> >time
>> >> with trolls doesn't change that fact.
>>
>> >> I can post whatever I want...
>>
>> >> You can post WHATEVER YOU WANT...
>>
>> >> That's an open forum.
>>
>> >> You seem to think that people have a responsibility to engage you in y=
>our
>> >> nonsense.
>>
>> >> >> You can`t. If you came out and engaged me just on
>> >> >> this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out. You h=
>ave
>> >> >> no choice but to hide.
>>
>> >> Okay... here's a simple example that proves you're lying.
>>
>> >> Either provide the quote from Carrico where he describes the throat
>> >> wound as "ragged", thus adding evidence that the neck wound was an
>> >> exit wound... or state right here in this open forum that Bugliosi lie=
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 2, 1:03=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 3:53=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 2, 9:35=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <64c58e6b-88c1-424f-b34a-f7a6b7638...@t5g2000yqj.googlegro=
>ups.com>,
>> > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > >On Jul 2, 10:09=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > > >> In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.google=
>groups.=3D
>> > > >com>,
>> > > >> aeffects says...
>>
>> > > >> >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), ca=
>n ya
>> > > >> >toots-e-roll?
>>
>> > > >> And, as his upcoming response will demonstrate, Bud has no choice =
>other t=3D
>> > > >han to
>> > > >> lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his latest =
>lie.
>>
>> > > >> >On Jul 1, 3:44=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >> On Jul 1, 9:38=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> > > >> >> > In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis says.=
>..
>>
>> > > >> >> > >>On Jun 28, 10:24=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife=
>.com> wro=3D
>> > > >te:
>> > > >> >> > >>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>ck soli=3D
>> > > >d
>>
>> > > >> >> > >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be=
> referr=3D
>> > > >ing=3D3D
>> > > >> > to an
>> > > >> >> > >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the =
>time of=3D
>> > > > th=3D3D
>> > > >> >e
>> > > >> >> > >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to=
> have g=3D
>> > > >ive=3D3D
>> > > >> >n on t=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >>hat
>> > > >> >> > >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, =
>he supp=3D
>> > > >ose=3D3D
>> > > >> >dly
>> > > >> >> > >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which=
> is unc=3D
>> > > >orr=3D3D
>> > > >> >oborat=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >>ed
>> > > >> >> > >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employe=
>es were=3D
>> > > > ha=3D3D
>> > > >> >ving
>> > > >> >> > >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first=
> witnes=3D
>> > > >ses=3D3D
>> > > >> > to se=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >>e
>> > > >> >> > >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long =
>enough =3D
>> > > >tim=3D3D
>> > > >> >e afte=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >>r
>> > > >> >> > >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the=
> 6th fl=3D
>> > > >oor=3D3D
>> > > >> >.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> <snicker> As if.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Is this the best you can do???
>>
>age
>> > > >> >> me on it. As it stands, yah, all I can do is point out you inab=
>ility
>> > > >> >> and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
>>
>> > > >> Then go ahead and "destroy" me...
>>
>"
>> > > >me..."
>>
>> > > >Well c'mon Dud.... Let's see you step into the ring, I enjoy seeing
>> > > >you getting your ass kicked.
>>
>bsolutely
>> > > no regard whatsoever to whether or not I read his posts.
>>
>d it to
>> > > 'validate' it.
>>
>th his
>> > > asserted ability to "destroy me". All he has to do is simply refute m=
>y posts,
>> > > refute the evidence I post, refute the questions I pose with credible=
> and
>> > > non-conspiratorial explanations.
>>
>> > I'm athinkin' lone nut busybodies here and elsewhere have no
>> > comprehension of the term, "non-conspiratorial explanation."
>>
>> I know what it means. It means "I defy you to offer an explanation I
>> like better then the retarded conspiratorial one that exists solely in
>> my imagination". In reality it is an admission by Ben that he can`t
>> show the conspiracy he claims is there.
>>
>
>ROTFLMFAO! ! ! Faith, as in the WCR appears your game eh Dud? And,
>you are sure pissed you've been assigned troll duty this holiday
>weekend, aren't ya?
I was *so* looking forward to Bud's post - I *KNEW* that he would either run
away or lie about Bugliosi's statement.
And sure enough, Bud has indicted himself as a liar... he made the challenge,
and then he ran away.
And he wonders why he's killfiled...
>> >And to
>> > think of all those lone nut law degrees floating around here --
>> > LMAO! ! !
>>
>> > > Whether or not *I* read his posts don't affect the truth (or lies) of=
> his posts
>> > > at all.
>>
>> > > Of course, what my refusal to pay attention to his nonsense *DOES* af=
>fect - is
>> > > his ability to post ad hominem attacks. He can't engage me if I simpl=
>y refuse to
>> > > pay him any attention.
>>
>> > > And trolls need attention - they thrive on it.
>>
>> > > I'll stick with the evidence.
>>
>> > > Bud challenged "If you came out and engaged me just on this issue or =
>any other I
>> > > would tear you up and spit you out." - I invite everyone to watch how=
> he runs
>> > > away and lies about my example, Bugliosi's lie about what Carrico sai=
>d.
>>
>> > > My crystal ball is telling me that Bud will lie, or refuse to answer.=
>.. he
>> > > certainly won't "tear" me up and "spit" me out. Indeed, that's just w=
>hat
>> > > happened to him.
>>
>> > > >> You don't need my comments - lurkers will read what I and Donald W=
>illis w=3D
>> > > >rote,
>> > > >> and they'll see your rebuttal. And then they can make up their min=
>d.
>>
>> > > >> Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that you can =
>refute =3D
>> > > >the
>> > > >> evidence.
>>
>> > > >> So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he refuses t=
>o debat=3D
>> > > >e the
>> > > >> evidence?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>> > > >> >> > >>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that=
> *shoul=3D
>> > > >d* =3D3D
>> > > >> >be fam=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >>iliar
>> > > >> >> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> =3D3DA0I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it is=
>n`t funny=3D
>> > > >.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Then simply repost your critique...
>>
>> > > >> >> For whose benefit, retard? You guys were all here the last few =
>times
>> > > >> >> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I keep
>> > > >> >> repeating it it will sink in?
>>
>> > > >> See above.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas and t=
>he way
>> > > >> >> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>>
>> > > >> >> <snicker> How about how dw is treating the evidence? He changes=
> the
>> > > >> >> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
>>
>> > > >> See above.
>>
>> > > >> >> > Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is rath=
>er cowa=3D
>> > > >rdly,
>> > > >> >> > don't you think?
>>
>> > > >> >> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
>>
>> > > >> Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts." What you're=
> doing,=3D
>> > > > is
>> > > >> ASSERTING that you'd long ago done so... and could do so again if =
>only I =3D
>> > > >would
>> > > >> remove you from my killfilter.
>>
>> > > >> Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to support=
>, isn't=3D
>> > > > it?
>>
>> > > >> Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU IN=
> THE LE=3D
>> > > >AST
>> > > >> FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF.
>>
>> > > >> The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than pr=
>oviding
>> > > >> evidence, and showing how it supports your position is merely one =
>of many
>> > > >> reasons you belong killfiled.
>>
>> > > >> >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth=
> ideas
>> > > >> >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>>
>> > > >> Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provided=
> (via t=3D
>> > > >he
>> > > >> repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald's a=
>libi...
>> > > >> lurkers will simply have to judge for themselves who the coward is=
>.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> And it
>> > > >> >> > >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by d=
>w below=3D
>> > > >, h=3D3D
>> > > >> >e
>> > > >> >> > >>doesn`t even support his own.
>>
>> > > >> >> > The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
>>
>> > > >> >> If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas contain=
>ed
>> > > >> >> in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in yo=
>u
>> > > >> >> inability to support them in an open forum.
>>
>> > > >> I already did.
>>
>> > > >> Why lie about it?
>>
>> > > >> Not ONE SINGLE TIME did you provide a credible, non-conspiratorial=
> explan=3D
>> > > >ation
>> > > >> for any of the evidential questions I posed.
>>
>> > > >> Not once!
>>
>> > > >> Oh, you'll lie and say you did... but what you will refuse to do i=
>s repos=3D
>> > > >t it.
>>
>> > > >> In the meantime, I repost the 45 Questions series every year or tw=
>o, and =3D
>> > > >new
>> > > >> batches of McAdam's students get to run from it.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >Oh, Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers?=
> =3D3DA0S=3D
>> > > >omeho=3D3D
>> > > >> >w, he *saw*
>> > > >> >> > >Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (suppose=
>dly) on=3D
>> > > > th=3D3D
>> > > >> >e 6th...?
>> > > >> >> > >dcw
>>
>> > > >> >> > Bud is willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever =
>change =3D
>> > > >that
>> > > >> >> > despicable habit, I'd be willing to remove him from my killfi=
>lter...
>>
>> > > >> >> You are never going to try to support your ideas in an open for=
>um
>> > > >> >> here ever again.
>>
>> > > >> Hey moron... this *IS* an open forum. That some people can't waste=
> their =3D
>> > > >time
>> > > >> with trolls doesn't change that fact.
>>
>> > > >> I can post whatever I want...
>>
>> > > >> You can post WHATEVER YOU WANT...
>>
>> > > >> That's an open forum.
>>
>> > > >> You seem to think that people have a responsibility to engage you =
>in your
>> > > >> nonsense.
>>
>> > > >> >> You can`t. If you came out and engaged me just on
>> > > >> >> this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out. Y=
>ou have
>> > > >> >> no choice but to hide.
>>
>> > > >> Okay... here's a simple example that proves you're lying.
>>
>> > > >> Either provide the quote from Carrico where he describes the throa=
>t
>> > > >> wound as "ragged", thus adding evidence that the neck wound was an
>> > > >> exit wound... or state right here in this open forum that Bugliosi=
> lied.
>>
>> > > >> But you can't do either... you'll simply lie again... proving that=
Bud
Fuck yeah, babysitting retards while DVP got to go to the Langley
picnic.
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
> In article <23752c7b-9d34-4ae1-a2c8-a686f2a86...@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
<snicker> If you weren`t such a pussy you could unkillfile me and
see them all.
>- I *KNEW* that he would either run
> away or lie about Bugliosi's statement.
>
> And sure enough, Bud has indicted himself as a liar... he made the challenge,
Which you cowardly ignored when you didn`t take me off your
killfile.
> and then he ran away.
Actually, I did address that, in another post you couldn`t see
because you have me killfiled. Thats the problem with trying to hold a
give and take discussion with someone who has you killfiled, you never
know what they are going to see.
> And he wonders why he's killfiled...
No, I don`t, I know exactly why. You`re an intellectual coward. You
couldn`t support your ideas honestly in an open forum if your life
depended on it.
Walt
The Dud wrote:......."I would just ask you how what dw produced in
that article constitutes a alibi."
The fact that you have to ask how Oswald knew that Junior Jarman and
Shorty Norman passed by the domino lunchroom at about 12:25 is solid
proof that you're one stupid bastard.
Oswald told his interrogators that he saw the two colored guys pass by
the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch. It later developed that
Jarm and Norman did in fact enter the back dor of the TSBD and Oswald
probably did see them as they passed the lunchroom. Oswald said he did
and there's no way he could have known that J&N had passed by that
lunchroom unless he was on the first floor at that time.
Of course you're to damned arrogant and stupid to admit the truth, so
I expect you'll continue to reply with the response of a gutless
coward who is too arrogant to face the facts.
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On Jul 2, 2:28 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 11:09 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
> > > aeffects says...
>
> > > >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), can ya
> > > >toots-e-roll?
>
> > > lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his latest lie.
>
> > <snicker> Yah, let`s see, this should be good.
>
Where does it appear in evidence that Oswald said he saw Jarman and
Norman pass by the domino room at 12:25, retard?
And who the fuck was murdered at 12:25 that an alibi was needed?
> Oswald told his interrogators that he saw the two colored guys pass by
> the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch.
Nothing close to this appears in evidence.
> It later developed that
> Jarm and Norman did in fact enter the back dor of the TSBD and Oswald
> probably did see them as they passed the lunchroom. Oswald said he did
Where did he say this?
> and there's no way he could have known that J&N had passed by that
> lunchroom unless he was on the first floor at that time.
You haven`t shown he did know they were on the first floor at that
time.
> Of course you're to damned arrogant and stupid to admit the truth, so
> I expect you'll continue to reply with the response of a gutless
> coward who is too arrogant to face the facts.
The fact is that what dw presented is every bit as much a confession
as it is an alibi.
> > > >> > >Oh,Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers? =A0Someho=
> > > >w, he *saw*
> > > >> > >Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) on th=
> > > >e 6th...?
> > > >> > >dcw
>
> > > >> >Budis willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever change that
> > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jul 2, 2:28=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 11:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), can ya
>> > >toots-e-roll?
>>
>> > And, as his upcoming response will demonstrate, Bud has no choice other
>> > than to lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his
>> > latest lie.
>>
>> <snicker> Yah, let`s see, this should be good.
And, as predicted, Bud lied and ran away... (see below)
>> > >On Jul 1, 3:44=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Jul 1, 9:38=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis says...
>>
>> > >> > >>On Jun 28, 10:24=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> w=
>rote:
>> > >> > >>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>> > >> > >>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock so=
>lid
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be refe=
>rring=3D
>> > > to an
>> > >> > >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time =
>of th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have=
> give=3D
>> > >n on t=3D3D
>> > >> > >>hat
>> > >> > >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he su=
>ppose=3D
>> > >dly
>> > >> > >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is u=
>ncorr=3D
>> > >oborat=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ed
>> > >> > >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees we=
>re ha=3D
>> > >ving
>> > >> > >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witn=
>esses=3D
>> > > to se=3D3D
>> > >> > >>e
>> > >> > >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enoug=
>h tim=3D
>> > >e afte=3D3D
>> > >> > >>r
>> > >> > >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th =
>floor=3D
>> > >.
>>
>> > >> > >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> > >> > >> <snicker> As if.
>>
>> > >> > Is this the best you can do???
>>
>> > >> I could destroy you on this issue if you were man enough to engage
>> > >> me on it. As it stands, yah, all I can do is point out you inability
>> > >> and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
>>
>> > Then go ahead and "destroy" me...
>>
>> I *have*.
By lying and running away???
>> You decided the only course of action left to you was to
>> hide from what I write.
And yet, you've refused to provide Carrico's statement.
Or admit the obvious... Bugliosi lied.
>> > You don't need my comments -
>>
>> Yah, I do.
I post in this forum on virtually a daily basis.
You *need* my comments only for trolling purposes.
>> In order to show your ideas are retarded I need your to
>> say what they are. I need you to go into that dance you do when you
>> are called on to support your ideas.
I post in this forum on virtually a daily basis.
Your assertion holds no merit.
>> > lurkers will read what I and Donald Willis wrote,
>> > and they'll see your rebuttal. And then they can make up their mind.
>>
>> Fuck each and every lurker.
>>
>> > Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that you can refut=
>e the
>> > evidence.
>>
>> Not what I said. I`d said I could kick your ass on the issues you
>> raise.
And, as clear shown in this post... you've lied and run away.
Why is that?
>> > So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he refuses to
>> > debate the evidence?
>>
>> The evidence often isn`t the problem. It`s the retards looking at
>> the evidence that is the problem.
Then simply provide credible non-conspiratorial explanations...
But you can't.
>> > >> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>> > >> > >>> presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *sho=
>uld* =3D
>> > >be fam=3D3D
>> > >> > >>iliar
>> > >> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>> > >> > >> I`ve taken this thing apart so many times now it isn`t funny.
>>
>> > >> > Then simply repost your critique...
>>
>> > >> For whose benefit, retard? You guys were all here the last few times
>> > >> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I keep
>> > >> repeating it it will sink in?
>>
>> > See above.
>>
>> "Above" does not address the point I made.
So you believe.
>> > >> > Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas and the wa=
>y
>> > >> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>>
>> > >> <snicker> How about how dw is treating the evidence? He changes the
>> > >> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
>>
>> > See above.
>>
>> "Above" does not address the point I made".
So you believe.
>> > >> > Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is rather co=
>wardly,
>> > >> > don't you think?
>>
>> > >> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
>>
>> > Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts."
>>
>> Then why have you been unable to dispute them?
Can't "dispute" what you don't provide.
Such as the alleged assertion by Carrico... where is it? Why do you refuse to
quote or cite it?
>> > What you're doing, is ASSERTING that you'd long ago done so... and
>> > could do so again if only I would remove you from my killfilter.
>>
>> My being on your killfilter proves my assertion.
To a moron, *anything* "proves" something.
Ordinary people well understand that you can't pay attention to everyone.
Particularly nut cases.
>> > Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to support,
>> > isn't it?
>>
>> > Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU IN THE =
>LEAST
>> > FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF.
>>
>> Which I did. Maybe you missed it because you have me killfiled.
Still running, eh?
You mean *NO-ONE* was willing to reply to a quote or cite by you refuting my
statement that Bugliosi lied???
(Of course, you're lying again...)
>> > The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than
>> > providing evidence, and showing how it supports your position
>> > is merely one of many reasons you belong killfiled.
>>
>> The reason you killfiled me
Was just provided.
Constantly lying and running away was another reason.
>> is because you can`t support your ideas,
>> like this one here. If I wasn`t killfiled, I would just ask you how
>> what dw produced in that article constitutes a alibi.
>
>The Dud wrote:......."I would just ask you how what dw produced in
>that article constitutes a alibi."
>
>The fact that you have to ask how Oswald knew that Junior Jarman and
>Shorty Norman passed by the domino lunchroom at about 12:25 is solid
>proof that you're one stupid bastard.
Not just "stupid"... an outright liar. Bud *claims* he can't understand why
that's evidence for an alibi, but he really knows better.
He's just lying.
>Oswald told his interrogators that he saw the two colored guys pass by
>the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch. It later developed that
>Jarm and Norman did in fact enter the back dor of the TSBD and Oswald
>probably did see them as they passed the lunchroom. Oswald said he did
>and there's no way he could have known that J&N had passed by that
>lunchroom unless he was on the first floor at that time.
>
>Of course you're to damned arrogant and stupid to admit the truth, so
>I expect you'll continue to reply with the response of a gutless
>coward who is too arrogant to face the facts.
That's what trolls do, they lie.
>> And you would
>> dance and duck and never really answer, and everyone would see that
>> you can`t support the idea you put forth.
>>
>> And the fact is that I did address the evidence dw was using in his
>> construct, I pointed out that the portion of Bookout`s report he uses
>> doesn`t say what he represents it to say. Nobody responds to this
>> point, you retards just pretend it hasn`t been made.
You're lying again.
Any intelligent person can turn to the WCR, page 622, and read where Bookhout
reported that Oswald said he was eating lunch alone, and that he "recalled
possibly two Negro employees walking through the room at during this period."
Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything that he did not put
in his report.
You're lying again.
You can't produce *ANY* quote from Donald Willis stating that Bookhout said
*ANYTHING* that he did not actually say.
This is why you're killfiled... you simply lie just for the sake of lying.
>> > >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth ideas
>> > >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>>
>> > Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provided (via the
>> > repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald's alibi...
>>
>> Nothing dw included in that article you produced is in any way,
>> shape or form an "alibi". You can`t produce one definition of "alibi"
>> that is satisfied by that offering. It`s a lie to call what he
>> concocted an "alibi", the word cannot possibly apply.
Yep... it's expected that trolls will lie to defend a LNT'er factoid.
>> > lurkers will simply have to judge for themselves who the coward is.
>>
>> > >> > >> And it
>> > >> > >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw bel=
>ow, h=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > >>doesn`t even support his own.
>>
>> > >> > The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
>>
>> > >> If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas contained
>> > >> in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in you
>> > >> inability to support them in an open forum.
>>
>> > I already did.
>>
>> > Why lie about it?
>>
>> > Not ONE SINGLE TIME did you provide a credible, non-conspiratorial
>> > explanation for any of the evidential questions I posed.
>>
>> > Not once!
>>
>> What you mean is not once did you accept the non-conspiratorial
>> explanations I provided.
*CREDIBLE* non-conspiratorial explanations.
Where is it?
Why can't you immediately 'ram it down my throat' by reposting it here? Are you
too stupid to use 'cut & paste'?
The truth is, you're simply lying again.
>> You like your conspiratorial explanations
>> better. Also, as i`ve pointed out many times before, it`s up to you to
>> show conspiracy, not for me to "unshow" it.
No, it's *NOT* up to me.
It's up to the evidence.
The fact that you REFUSE to present credible non-conspiratorial explanations for
the evidence we mention on this forum is credible proof that you can't.
>> You employ a fallacious approach.
You see? Ad hominem is all you have. You *NEED* my interaction to make your life
worthwhile.
But I don't need your lies... life is too short.
>> > Oh, you'll lie and say you did... but what you will refuse to do is rep=
>ost it.
>>
>> What would be the point? To watch you lie again?
Any excuse you can come up with to avoid the evidence, or to support your
assertions.
>> > In the meantime, I repost the 45 Questions series every year or two,
>> > and new batches of McAdam's students get to run from it.
>>
>> If they answer, you`ll killfile them. Cowards hide, thats what they
>> do.
Nah... you're lying again.
What gets trolls killfiled is their lies, and their refusal to address the
evidence.
Where's Carrico's statement?
Why can't you cite or quote it?
What's holding you back?
>> > >> > >Oh, Bud--was it you who had Oswald sporting near-ESP powers? =3DA=
>0Someho=3D
>> > >w, he *saw*
>> > >> > >Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) =
>on th=3D
>> > >e 6th...?
>> > >> > >dcw
>>
>> > >> > Bud is willing to lie at the drop of a hat... should he ever chang=
>e that
>> > >> > despicable habit, I'd be willing to remove him from my killfilter.=
>..
>>
>> > >> You are never going to try to support your ideas in an open forum
>> > >> here ever again.
>>
>> > Hey moron... this *IS* an open forum. That some people can't waste thei=
>r time
>> > with trolls doesn't change that fact.
>>
>> > I can post whatever I want...
>>
>> > You can post WHATEVER YOU WANT...
>>
>> > That's an open forum.
>>
>> No, retard, an open forum is where people engage in an open exchange
>> of ideas.
You're lying again...
Indeed, using *your* wacky redefinition, there's no such thing as an "open
forum".
You can't provide even *ONE* single example of an "open forum" that matches your
definition. For if there's even a single poster who fails to respond to EACH AND
EVERY OTHER POSTER - it wouldn't fit your wacky definition.
You're crying because you aren't important enough to have me respond to you
every-time.
>> > You seem to think that people have a responsibility to engage you in yo=
>ur
>> > nonsense.
>>
>> You can do whatever you want. I just point out that your behavior is
>> that of a coward and a pussy.
Then you clearly are. For by YOUR OWN DEFINITION there are many people, posts,
and topics that you fail to respond to.
(Morons never think through their assertions...)
>> > >> You can`t. If you came out and engaged me just on
>> > >> this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out. You ha=
>ve
>> > >> no choice but to hide.
>>
>> > Okay... here's a simple example that proves you're lying.
>>
>> > Either provide the quote from Carrico where he describes the throat wou=
>nd as
>> > "ragged", thus adding evidence that the neck wound was an exit wound...=
> or state
>> > right here in this open forum that Bugliosi lied.
>>
>> We already went around on that one,
So where's the statement?
Why can't you quote or cite it?
Why can't you simply admit that Bugliosi lied?
I knew you'd lie and run away on this one - I predicted it in advance.
>> whats the matter with this one?
Just taking you at your word. Or were you simply lying again when you stated:
"If you came out and engaged me just on this issue or any other I would tear you
up and spit you out."?
Clearly you were lying.
>> Lets see you support the idea that what dw compiled constitutes an
>> alibi for Oswald. Just answer the simple question of how this is an
>> alibi for Oswald. You won`t, you`ll duck and dance.
*YOU* were the one who stated: "If you came out and engaged me just on
this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out."
Lied, didn't you?
>> > But you can't do either... you'll simply lie again... proving that you
>> > belong on my killfilter.
>>
>> Proving my assessment of your character is accurate.
Nah... you just proved my prediction to be absolutely on the money.
You lied.
You *KNOW* Bugliosi lied too, but you're not man enough to admit it.
Bud
> In article <882fce4c-75ef-47ed-8ea9-4571a5548...@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
By exposing you as a blowhard who can`t support a single thing he
says I drove you behind your kilfilter.
> >> You decided the only course of action left to you was to
> >> hide from what I write.
>
> And yet, you've refused to provide Carrico's statement.
I did so numerous times.
> Or admit the obvious... Bugliosi lied.
Carrico`s statement showed that *you* lied.
> >> > You don't need my comments -
>
> >> Yah, I do.
>
> I post in this forum on virtually a daily basis.
It does me no good to address your proclamations. It need your help
in exposing you as a retard. You stopped helping me because you
realized how successful I was at it.
> You *need* my comments only for trolling purposes.
I address the evidence when it is the evidence that is the problem.
I address the retards when it is the retards that are the problem.
Usually I am addressing the retards because usually they are the
proble. This post, for example, you hold dw`s article up as some sort
of "alibi" for Oswald. But it really doesn`t fit any definition known
to man for the word. So why should I proceed as if this is something
it is not just because retards say it is?
> >> In order to show your ideas are retarded I need your to
> >> say what they are. I need you to go into that dance you do when you
> >> are called on to support your ideas.
>
> I post in this forum on virtually a daily basis.
>
> Your assertion holds no merit.
Of course it does. When you claim something is an "alibi", I need to
be able to ask "How is it an alibi"? Then when you go into your song
and dance I can revel in your dishonesty. It`s no fun without your
participation.
> >> > lurkers will read what I and Donald Willis wrote,
> >> > and they'll see your rebuttal. And then they can make up their mind.
>
> >> Fuck each and every lurker.
>
> >> > Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that you can refut=
> >e the
> >> > evidence.
>
> >> Not what I said. I`d said I could kick your ass on the issues you
> >> raise.
>
> And, as clear shown in this post... you've lied and run away.
>
> Why is that?
Just another claim of yours you can`t support, I`ve neither lied or
run away.
> >> > So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he refuses to
> >> > debate the evidence?
>
> >> The evidence often isn`t the problem. It`s the retards looking at
> >> the evidence that is the problem.
>
> Then simply provide credible non-conspiratorial explanations...
You need to show conspiracy. You can`t.
> But you can't.
You`ve claimed in the past that you can provide conspiratorial
explanations for your questions. Lets see that happen.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge it when I quote it? And what was my
purpose for quoting it, what statement of yours did it refute?
> >> > What you're doing, is ASSERTING that you'd long ago done so... and
> >> > could do so again if only I would remove you from my killfilter.
>
> >> My being on your killfilter proves my assertion.
>
> To a moron, *anything* "proves" something.
That seems to be the case with conspiracy retards. A cop writes a
few words in his notes and retard think it proves Oswald had an alibi.
> Ordinary people well understand that you can't pay attention to everyone.
> Particularly nut cases.
Yet you keep responding to me through other peoples responses.
> >> > Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to support,
> >> > isn't it?
>
> >> > Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU IN THE =
> >LEAST
> >> > FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSELF.
>
> >> Which I did. Maybe you missed it because you have me killfiled.
>
> Still running, eh?
No, you are hiding. If you want to see what I write take me off your
killfilter.
> You mean *NO-ONE* was willing to reply to a quote or cite by you refuting my
> statement that Bugliosi lied???
I don`t know about that one. I do know I quoted Carrico showing that
you lied about what he said.
> (Of course, you're lying again...)
>
> >> > The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than
> >> > providing evidence, and showing how it supports your position
> >> > is merely one of many reasons you belong killfiled.
>
> >> The reason you killfiled me
>
> Was just provided.
Naw, thats just your cover story.
> Constantly lying and running away was another reason.
Pointing out that you can`t support what you say was the main
reason.
> >> is because you can`t support your ideas,
> >> like this one here. If I wasn`t killfiled, I would just ask you how
> >> what dw produced in that article constitutes a alibi.
>
> >The Dud wrote:......."I would just ask you how what dw produced in
> >that article constitutes a alibi."
>
> >The fact that you have to ask how Oswald knew that Junior Jarman and
> >Shorty Norman passed by the domino lunchroom at about 12:25 is solid
> >proof that you're one stupid bastard.
>
> Not just "stupid"... an outright liar. Bud *claims* he can't understand why
> that's evidence for an alibi, but he really knows better.
<snicker> This is real reason you killfiled me, because I would take
you apart on this. You represent this slop to be an alibi, but you
can`t support this idea. You won`t even try.
You can`t produce one definition for "alibi" that could apply to
what dw presented. Calling it an "alibi" is at best a
misrepresentation, and at worst a lie.
You can`t begin to show that that quote from Bookout means that
Oswald saw Norman and Jarman pass by the domino room while he ate
lunch.
You can`t begin to show what Fritz meant when he wrote "two negr
came in", "one jr + short negro". And what Fritz`s notes actually say
is "Says 11-21-63 Say two negr came in One jr + short negro"
http://www.jfk-info.com/notes3.htm
It`s typical kook stew, a little misrepresentation of words, a
sentence fragment out of context, a few unsupportable claims and
viola, conspiracy retards think they have a banquet.
> He's just lying.
>
> >Oswald told his interrogators that he saw the two colored guys pass by
> >the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch. It later developed that
> >Jarm and Norman did in fact enter the back dor of the TSBD and Oswald
> >probably did see them as they passed the lunchroom. Oswald said he did
> >and there's no way he could have known that J&N had passed by that
> >lunchroom unless he was on the first floor at that time.
>
> >Of course you're to damned arrogant and stupid to admit the truth, so
> >I expect you'll continue to reply with the response of a gutless
> >coward who is too arrogant to face the facts.
>
> That's what trolls do, they lie.
Thats what cowards do, they hide, and shake their fist ineffectually
at the outside world.
If you were a man you could support this idea in an open forum.
Since you are something quite less, you can`t.
> >> And you would
> >> dance and duck and never really answer, and everyone would see that
> >> you can`t support the idea you put forth.
>
> >> And the fact is that I did address the evidence dw was using in his
> >> construct, I pointed out that the portion of Bookout`s report he uses
> >> doesn`t say what he represents it to say. Nobody responds to this
> >> point, you retards just pretend it hasn`t been made.
>
> You're lying again.
>
> Any intelligent person can turn to the WCR, page 622, and read where Bookhout
> reported that Oswald said he was eating lunch alone, and that he "recalled
> possibly two Negro employees walking through the room at during this period."
Why didn`t you produce the whole sentence? What room was named? You
think an FBI agent wouldn`t know that if he was referring to a room
different than the one named that it would need to be identified?
> Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything that he did not put
> in his report.
But his interpretation of what Bookout wrote misrepresented what was
written. dw wrote...
"Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the
TSBD,
alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the
room during
this period. (WR p622/Bookhout)
The only room mentioned was the lunchroom. The room Oswald saw them
walking through would have to be the lunchroom, as no new room was
specified. Words have meaning, retard, you don`t get to ignore them or
say they mean something else when they don`t fit the story you are
trying to weave.
> You're lying again.
>
> You can't produce *ANY* quote from Donald Willis stating that Bookhout said
> *ANYTHING* that he did not actually say.
Then you can show in Bookout`s report where he said Oswald saw
Norman and Jarman walking through the room next to the domino room,
right?
> This is why you're killfiled... you simply lie just for the sake of lying.
This is why I`m killfiled. I point out to you how what you claim and
what actually is are different.
> >> > >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth ideas
> >> > >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>
> >> > Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provided (via the
> >> > repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald's alibi...
>
> >> Nothing dw included in that article you produced is in any way,
> >> shape or form an "alibi". You can`t produce one definition of "alibi"
> >> that is satisfied by that offering. It`s a lie to call what he
> >> concocted an "alibi", the word cannot possibly apply.
>
> Yep... it's expected that trolls will lie to defend a LNT'er factoid.
It`s a conspiracy retard factoid that this is an alibi. They cling
to it in their desperation to believe Oswald was innocent. As if
sentence fragments out of context is going to help against all the
indications of Oswald`s guilt in evidence.
> >> > lurkers will simply have to judge for themselves who the coward is.
>
> >> > >> > >> And it
> >> > >> > >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw bel=
> >ow, h=3D
> >> > >e
> >> > >> > >>doesn`t even support his own.
>
> >> > >> > The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours...
>
> >> > >> If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas contained
> >> > >> in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in you
> >> > >> inability to support them in an open forum.
>
> >> > I already did.
>
> >> > Why lie about it?
>
> >> > Not ONE SINGLE TIME did you provide a credible, non-conspiratorial
> >> > explanation for any of the evidential questions I posed.
>
> >> > Not once!
>
> >> What you mean is not once did you accept the non-conspiratorial
> >> explanations I provided.
>
> *CREDIBLE* non-conspiratorial explanations.
>
> Where is it?
>
> Why can't you immediately 'ram it down my throat' by reposting it here?
What would be the point for me to search the archives to produce
something you might not even see?
> Are you
> too stupid to use 'cut & paste'?
Just learned that recently. If you unkillfile me I have all sorts of
embarrassing things from the archives in store for you.
> The truth is, you're simply lying again.
You will cling to the "truths" you are comfortable with, whether
they are true or not.
> >> You like your conspiratorial explanations
> >> better. Also, as i`ve pointed out many times before, it`s up to you to
> >> show conspiracy, not for me to "unshow" it.
>
> No, it's *NOT* up to me.
Yah, the conspiracy you retards envision is an immense, complex and
extraordinary undertaking. You need to show it.
> It's up to the evidence.
Thats the thing, the evidence doesn`t, you only make the empty
claim that it does. Take Finck being denied the opportunity to examine
Kennedy`s clothing, that is what this witness claimed. Now what? He
didn`t say why he was denied, he couldn`t even name the person who
denied him. So there is zero in evidence about the motivations of the
person who denied Finck the opportunity to see the clothing. Now what,
we have gone a s far as the evidence goes. You are willing to
speculate beyond the evidence (something you won`t allow LNers), but
how meaningful is that?
> The fact that you REFUSE to present credible non-conspiratorial explanations for
> the evidence we mention on this forum is credible proof that you can't.
The fact that you take this approach proves you can`t show
conspiracy, so you foist it onto others to "unprove" it.
> >> You employ a fallacious approach.
>
> You see? Ad hominem is all you have. You *NEED* my interaction to make your life
> worthwhile.
<snicker> Pointing out that you use a fallacious approach is ad
hominem?
> But I don't need your lies... life is too short.
Like your height.
> >> > Oh, you'll lie and say you did... but what you will refuse to do is rep=
> >ost it.
>
> >> What would be the point? To watch you lie again?
>
> Any excuse you can come up with to avoid the evidence, or to support your
> assertions.
I`m not hiding from you. You just get a little carried away thinking
you set the rules and parameters. And even on carefully chosen ground
like this "alibi" nonsense you do poorly. Then you run and hide.
> >> > In the meantime, I repost the 45 Questions series every year or two,
> >> > and new batches of McAdam's students get to run from it.
>
> >> If they answer, you`ll killfile them. Cowards hide, thats what they
> >> do.
>
> Nah... you're lying again.
>
> What gets trolls killfiled is their lies, and their refusal to address the
> evidence.
Your reading of the evidence.
> Where's Carrico's statement?
I provided the quote of Carrico`s that showed that what you said was
a lie many times now.
> Why can't you cite or quote it?
>
> What's holding you back?
Doing the same thing over and over rarely yields different results.
What did I write that made you think I was saying it was mandatory
for every poster to address what every other poster wrote?
These forums are an excellent place for ideas to be thrown about to
see which ones are valid. But of course you are so embarrassed by your
own ideas to wouldn`t think to do a thing, your ideas are so weak and
fragile they would break, so they must be secreted away. You must
demand that everyone address only what you say, and look only where
you say, and anyone who doesn`t obey, anyone who points out what a
blowhard fraud you are, anyone who challenges you to support your
claims ends up on the killfile list.
> You're crying because you aren't important enough to have me respond to you
> every-time.
Just pointing out why you don`t. You are a coward. And a hypocrite,
you cry about ad hominem, yet you employed it to drive many a LNer
from this newsgroup.
> >> > You seem to think that people have a responsibility to engage you in yo=
> >ur
> >> > nonsense.
>
> >> You can do whatever you want. I just point out that your behavior is
> >> that of a coward and a pussy.
>
> Then you clearly are. For by YOUR OWN DEFINITION there are many people, posts,
> and topics that you fail to respond to.
>
> (Morons never think through their assertions...)
I chose not to address every idea presented here. But I don`t hide
from any.
> >> > >> You can`t. If you came out and engaged me just on
> >> > >> this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out. You ha=
> >ve
> >> > >> no choice but to hide.
>
> >> > Okay... here's a simple example that proves you're lying.
>
> >> > Either provide the quote from Carrico where he describes the throat wou=
> >nd as
> >> > "ragged", thus adding evidence that the neck wound was an exit wound...=
> > or state
> >> > right here in this open forum that Bugliosi lied.
>
> >> We already went around on that one,
>
> So where's the statement?
>
> Why can't you quote or cite it?
>
> Why can't you simply admit that Bugliosi lied?
I pointed out that you lied about Carrico`s statement.
> I knew you'd lie and run away on this one - I predicted it in advance.
If you want to unkillfile me I will engage you on this issue. Start
a post, I`ll address it, and you don`t even have to respond to
anything else I write but this one post. I`ll sweeten the pot, I won`t
even call you a retard in it.
> >> whats the matter with this one?
>
> Just taking you at your word. Or were you simply lying again when you stated:
> "If you came out and engaged me just on this issue or any other I would tear you
> up and spit you out."?
>
> Clearly you were lying.
Have you come out from behind your killfile to face me, retard?
> >> Lets see you support the idea that what dw compiled constitutes an
> >> alibi for Oswald. Just answer the simple question of how this is an
> >> alibi for Oswald. You won`t, you`ll duck and dance.
>
> *YOU* were the one who stated: "If you came out and engaged me just on
> this issue or any other I would tear you up and spit you out."
>
> Lied, didn't you?
Have you come out from behind your killfilter to face me, retard?
> >> > But you can't do either... you'll simply lie again... proving that you
> >> > belong on my killfilter.
>
> >> Proving my assessment of your character is accurate.
>
> Nah... you just proved my prediction to be absolutely on the money.
>
> You lied.
>
> You *KNOW* Bugliosi lied too, but you're not man enough to admit it.
Unkillfile me, retard, we can talk about this if you like.
Sean Smiley
in". But, according to Bookhout, O was more specific--he had Norman &
Jarman "walking thru" the lunchroom. And they too were more specific,
or at least Jarman was--the two reentered thru the "back of the
building". Why would he specify the lunchroom, at the back of the
building, when he supposedly saw them at the front?
dcw
>
>
Walt
> In article <882fce4c-75ef-47ed-8ea9-4571a5548...@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Someone needs to post a copy of page 622......Then we can watch Dud,
the lying maggot, try to wiggle and squirm away from Boohout's report.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Sean Smiley
Wrong question. Who was supposed to pass thru Dealey at 12:25, as
originally scheduled? A 12:25 alibi would seem to be pretty
foolproof!
dcw
> ...
>
> read more »
Sean Smiley
> On Jul 1, 1:14 am, Donald Willis <dcwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >On Jun 28, 10:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> > >> Taken from the censored forum:
>
> > >> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>
> > >> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
> > >> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged to have given on t=
> > >hat
> > >> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
> > >> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, which is uncorroborat=
> > >ed
> > >> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
> > >> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the first witnesses to se=
> > >e
> > >> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time afte=
> > >r
> > >> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>
> > >> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>
> > > <snicker> As if.
>
> > >iliar
> > >> to all LNT'ers by now:
>
> > >isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented by dw below, he
> > >doesn`t even support his own.
>
> > Norman & Jarman on the first floor, although he was (supposedly) on the 6th...?
> > dcw
>
> <snicker> No wonder you retards never feel you are refuted, you
> never understand the counter-arguments. He doesn`t need to see them on
> the first, he only needs to have seen them outside, and heard them
> come in down below him.
>
> And it doesn`t matter if he did see them on the first floor, I`ve
> always felt it was possible for a smart guy like Oswald to keep the
> bullets apart from the rifle, to allow for deniability if the rifle
> was discovered. If he left the bullets in his jacket pocket in the
> Domino room and went down to retrieve them, he might have seen them
> (although you are nowhere near establishing that he did with the weak
> out of context nonsense you are trying to use for support). You see,
> it doesn`t matter if Oswald was on the first floor then
"Then"? You'll have to clarify what you mean by "then". Norman &
Jarman did not even begin to go around & reenter the building until at
least 12:20 (v3p202 & 190). He sees them, then, about 12:22 or 12:23,
and that's just a minute or two before the motorcade is scheduled to
run thru Dealey. Oswald without bullets circa 12:23, on the first
floor???
dcw
, it doesn`t
> afford him an alibi, nobody was killed then. It doesn`t matter when
> the motorcade was due to arrive, if circumstances prevented Oswald
> from getting to where he hid the rifle, or he had trouble assembling
> it these things would dictate more than the clock.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> *************************************************************************=
> > >*
>
> > >> Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
>
> > > Where does it appear that Oswald offered anything resembling an
> > >alibi?
>
> > >> If on 11/22/63 one wanted to give Lee Oswald a fair chance to exonerate h=
> > >imself,
> > >> this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something =
> > >re the
> > >> movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he=
> > > could
> > >> not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" a=
> > >t
> > >> 12:30pm.
>
> > > Has anyone ever seen anything in evidence where Oswald tried to
> > >relay information that would help support the idea he was innocent?
> > >Did he ever show any interest in particulars so he could show how he
> > >wasn`t involved? Of course not, he knew he was guilty and couldn`t
> > >offer anything that could possibly indicate his innocence.
>
> > >>=A0In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators something
> > >> which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
>
> > >> The moderately curious, if they want to learn a little something re the J=
> > >FK
> > >> assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. =A0There, they will=
> > > find, in
> > >> the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository wo=
> > >rker
> > >> James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Os=
> > >wald
> > >> (p182). =A0Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the=
> > > WR
> > >> footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
> > >> employees, "Junior" & "Shorty" (pp605, 626/Fritz, Kelley [Secret Service]=
> > >,
> > >> resp.). =A0The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third=
> > >,
> > >> unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendic=
> > >es of
> > >> the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
> > >> particular other employees (p622/Bookhout [FBI]). =A0And, finally, at the=
> > > very
> > >> center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonan=
> > >t note
> > >> from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of =
> > >Oswald:
> > >> =A0 say[s] two negr came in.
>
> > >> As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could in=
> > > fact
> > >> describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 1=
> > >2:15pm
> > >> the day before. =A0With those five words--which did not make it to Fritz'=
> > >s final
> > >> report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
> > >> reconcile Oswald's version of events with that of co-workers Jarman and H=
> > >arold
> > >> "Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements =
> > >between
> > >> 11:45am & 12:30pm. =A0Dynamite five words....
>
> > >> Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Will=
> > >iams
> > >> (v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard,=
> > > Oswald
> > >> on the fifth and/or sixth floors. =A0Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
> > >> 12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "d=
> > >omino
> > >> room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mai=
> > >nly on
> > >> the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). =A0Between=
> > > about
> > >> 11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then, =
> > >we
> > >> cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet jo=
> > >ined
> > >> forces. =A0But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place =
> > >a bit
> > >> *later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald...=
> > >.
>
> > >> By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor do=
> > >mino
> > >> room because
> > >> (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the mo=
> > >torcade
> > >> was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered the
> > >> depository through the "back of the building" (Jarman p202)--this was not=
> > > a
> > >> planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go t=
> > >hrough
> > >> & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people sta=
> > >nding
> > >> on the stairway there" (p202)
> > >> (b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
> > >> elevators would have been seen from the door of the domino room (WR diagr=
> > >am
> > >> p148)
> > >> (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TS=
> > >BD,
> > >> alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room=
> > > during
> > >> this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
> > >> (d) Oswald [as per Fritz] "say[s] two negr came in. =A0One Jr. + short ne=
> > >gro."
>
> > >> In other words--contrary to the Fritz & Kelley reports--Oswald was *not*
> > >> claiming to have gone downstairs, around noon, to join Jarman & Norman at=
> > > a
> > >> table. =A0Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phras=
> > >eology, &
> > >> the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman=
> > > to
> > >> handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: =A0"[Oswald] said he ate =
> > >lunch
> > >> with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). =A0Bookhout, unambiguously, sai=
> > >d
> > >> *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
> > >> through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was closer=
> > >,
> > >> ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! =A0Both phrases sugge=
> > >st,
> > >> further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in=
> > > or
> > >> near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>
> > >> Pretty clearly, then--in between the time that Fritz did his notes & the =
> > >time
> > >> that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman ind=
> > >eed
> > >> "came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--a=
> > >nd the
> > >> phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might se=
> > >em to
> > >> synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be re=
> > >placed
> > >> (in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easi=
> > >ly
> > >> contradicted "ate lunch with". =A0If you read only the final reports of F=
> > >ritz,
> > >> Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had =
> > >the bum
> > >> ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz with
> > >> Bookhout, & leaves *Kelley* out in the cold, with Fritz's now-suspect "at=
> > >e lunch
> > >> with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". =A0Because "two negr came in" =
> > >implies
> > >> in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
> > >> 12:25....
>
> > >> Speculate as you wish as to why his lunch was delayed about 20 minutes--t=
> > >here
> > >> are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was=
> > > on the
> > >> floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or n=
> > >ot
> > >> *they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have had=
> > > to
> > >> dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "s=
> > >niper's
> > >> nest" by 12:30. =A0He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Will=
> > >iams &
> > >> Givens) come in....
>
> > >> copr 2004 Donald Willis
>
> > >> --
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Sean Smiley
> On Jun 30, 9:28 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Taken from the censored forum:
>
> > > >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>
> > > > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must be referring to an
> > > > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
> > > > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
> > > > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
> > > > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time after
> > > > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>
> > > presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be familiar
> > > to all LNT'ers by now:
>
>
> > > Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
>
> > > this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something re the
> > > movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he could
> > > not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" at
> > > 12:30pm. In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators something
> > > which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
>
> > > assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. There, they will find, in
> > > the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository worker
> > > James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Oswald
> > > (p182). Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the WR
> > > footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
> > > resp.). The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third,
> > > unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendices of
> > > the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
> > > center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonant note
> > > from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of Oswald:
> > > say[s] two negr came in.
>
> > > describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 12:15pm
> > > report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
> > > "Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements between
> > > 11:45am & 12:30pm. Dynamite five words....
>
> > > Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Williams
> > > (v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard, Oswald
> > > on the fifth and/or sixth floors. Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
> > > 12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "domino
> > > room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mainly on
> > > the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). Between about
> > > 11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then, we
> > > cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet joined
> > > forces. But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place a bit
> > > *later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald....
>
> > > By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor domino
> > > room because
> > > (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the motorcade
> > > was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered the
> > > planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go through
> > > & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people standing
> > > on the stairway there" (p202)
> > > (b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
> > > p148)
> > > (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TSBD,
> > > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during
> > > this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
>
> > > table. Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phraseology, &
> > > the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman to
> > > handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: "[Oswald] said he ate lunch
> > > with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). Bookhout, unambiguously, said
> > > *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
> > > ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! Both phrases suggest,
> > > further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in or
> > > near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>
> > > that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman indeed
> > > "came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--and the
> > > phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might seem to
> > > synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be replaced
> > > (in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easily
> > > contradicted "ate lunch with". If you read only the final reports of Fritz,
> > > Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had the bum
> > > ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz with
> > > in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
> > > 12:25....
>
> > > are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was on the
> > > floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or not
> > > *they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have had to
> > > dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "sniper's
> > > nest" by 12:30. He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Williams &
> > > Givens) come in....
>
> > > copr 2004 Donald Willis
>
> > > --
> > > Ben Holmes
> > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> > this NG.
>
> It sure impresses the conspiracy retards, thats for sure. But on
> examination it is really nothing.
>
> > Don lays it out point by irrefutable point and even the
> > biggest liar in the LN camp can't truthfullly refute it.
>
> <snicker> "irrefutable point"? If this means this, and this means
> this, then Oswald had an alibi. But he hasn`t established either
> "this".
>
> > The best
> > the LNer's can do is repeat Will Fritz's lie, of saying that Oswald
> > claimed he ate lunch with two colored men. Oswald said nothing of the
> > kind....
>
> It appears in multiple accounts.
Chuckle! You mean like Fritz's report? The same Fritz who earlier
wrote no such thing in his *NOTES*??
dcw
>
> >He said he saw two colored employees pass by the lunchroom
> > while he was eating lunch.
>
> No, you need to read the Bookout quote better.
>
> "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the
> TSBD,
> alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the
> room during
> this period."
>
> The only room mentioned is the "lunchroom". If another room was
> brought up it would be identified. Therefore, according to Bookout
> Oswald said that *maybe* the two walked through the lunchroom.
>
> > He said one of the colored men was called
> > "Junior" and the other was a little short man who they called
> > "Shorty".
>
> Any support that Jarman was called "Shorty"?
>
Sean Smiley
>
Watch out! You've got a lot of umbrage hurtling towards you, TB....
dcw
> Oh how are the mighty fallen!
>
> Sorrowing Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
But what if one were not a fool, and realized that Oswald on the
first floor at 12:25 affords him no alibi for a murder committed at
12:30?
Bud
Yah, I don`t accept your times at all anyway. I suspect they went in
earlier.
> He sees them, then, about 12:22 or 12:23,
> and that's just a minute or two before the motorcade is scheduled to
> run thru Dealey.
> Oswald without bullets circa 12:23, on the first
> floor???
As I pointed out, circumstances might have dictated Oswald movements
more than the clock.
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
You ever wonder about the inclusion of the word "possibly" in that
sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone or you don`t. Lying
maggots like Oswald will use such terms to leave themselves wriggle
room when their accounts are scrutinized.
> Someone needs to post a copy of page 622......Then we can watch Dud,
> the lying maggot, try to wiggle and squirm away from Boohout's report.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything that he did not put
> > in his report.
>
> > You're lying again.
>
> > You can't produce *ANY* quote from Donald Willis stating that Bookhout said
> > *ANYTHING* that he did not actually say.
>
> > This is why you're killfiled... you simply lie just for the sake of lying.
>
> > >> > >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put forth ideas
> > >> > >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>
> > >> > Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provided (via the
> > >> > repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald's alibi...
>
> > >> Nothing dw included in that article you produced is in any way,
> > >> shape or form an "alibi". You can`t produce one definition of "alibi"
> > >> that is satisfied by that offering. It`s a lie to call what he
> > >> concocted an "alibi", the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
How do you know? Fritz`s notes were written by Fritz for Fritz. Not
so you could determine what was said, but to remind himself.
Walt
The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
word "possibly" in that sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone
or you don`t."
Hey Dud.....The word "possibly" in this context mean's the POSSIBILITY
was there ( conditions existed) for Oswald to observe Junior Jarman
and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said they
did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
lunch. We know that Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the
TSBD on their way to the fifth floor at cirat 12:25 /12:27. We also
know that Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan saw a 165 / 175 pound, 35
year old man, who had a sniper rifle and was dressed in LIGHT colored
clothing standing behind the SW corner window, at THIS VERY
TIME!!.... Oswald could not have been on the first floor observing J
&N pass by the lunchroom and behind the sixth fllor window ( dressed
differently) at the same moment in time.
Is this too difficult for you to understand???? Stupid!
Lying
> maggots like Oswald will use such terms to leave themselves wriggle
> room when their accounts are scrutinized.
>
>
>
> > Someone needs to post a copy of page 622......Then we can watch Dud,
> > the lying maggot, try to wiggle and squirm away from Boohout's report.
>
> > > Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything that he did not put
> > > in his report.
>
> > > You're lying again.
>
> > > You can't produce *ANY* quote from Donald
>
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 1, 2:42=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 12:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>> > >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was rock solid
>>
>an
>> > > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at the time of the
> that
>> > > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall, he supposedly
>ated
>> > > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other employees were having
>see
>> > > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a long enough time af=
>ter
>> > > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from the 6th floor.
>>
>factoids
>> > presented above, let me quote from a 2004 post - one that *should* be f=
>amiliar
>> > to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>***
>>
>> > Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
>>
> himself,
>> > this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him somethin=
>g re the
>> > movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which =
>he could
>> > not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest"=
> at
>> > 12:30pm. =A0In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators s=
>omething
>> > which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
>>
> JFK
>> > assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. =A0There, they wi=
>ll find, in
>> > the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository =
>worker
>> > James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with =
>Oswald
>> > (p182). =A0Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into t=
>he WR
>> > footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fello=
>w
>> > employees, "Junior" & "Shorty" (pp605, 626/Fritz, Kelley [Secret Servic=
>e],
>> > resp.). =A0The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a thi=
>rd,
>> > unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the append=
>ices of
>> > the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these t=
>wo
>> > particular other employees (p622/Bookhout [FBI]). =A0And, finally, at t=
>he very
>> > center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this reson=
>ant note
>> > from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview o=
>f Oswald:
>> > =A0 say[s] two negr came in.
>>
>> > As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could =
>in fact
>> > describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after=
> 12:15pm
>> > the day before. =A0With those five words--which did not make it to Frit=
>z's final
>> > report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, help=
>s
>> > reconcile Oswald's version of events with that of co-workers Jarman and=
> Harold
>> > "Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movement=
>s between
>> > 11:45am & 12:30pm. =A0Dynamite five words....
>>
>> > Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Wi=
>lliams
>> > (v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or hear=
>d, Oswald
>> > on the fifth and/or sixth floors. =A0Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
>> > 12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or =
>"domino
>> > room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, m=
>ainly on
>> > the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). =A0Betwe=
>en about
>> > 11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then=
>, we
>> > cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet =
>joined
>> > forces. =A0But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took plac=
>e a bit
>> > *later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald.=
>...
>>
>> > By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor =
>domino
>> > room because
>> > (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that the =
>motorcade
>> > was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], & re-entered t=
>he
>> > depository through the "back of the building" (Jarman p202)--this was n=
>ot a
>> > planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't go=
> through
>> > & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people s=
>tanding
>> > on the stairway there" (p202)
>> > (b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
>gram
>> > p148)
>> > (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the =
>TSBD,
>> > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the ro=
>om during
>> > this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
>negro."
>>
>> > In other words--contrary to the Fritz & Kelley reports--Oswald was *not=
>*
>> > claiming to have gone downstairs, around noon, to join Jarman & Norman =
>at a
>> > table. =A0Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phr=
>aseology, &
>> > the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarm=
>an to
>> > handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: =A0"[Oswald] said he at=
>e lunch
>> > with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). =A0Bookhout, unambiguously, s=
>aid
>> > *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walki=
>ng
>> > through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was clos=
>er,
>> > ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! =A0Both phrases sug=
>gest,
>> > further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--=
>in or
>> > near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>>
>e time
>> > that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman i=
>ndeed
>> > "came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort-=
>-and the
>> > phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might =
>seem to
>> > synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be =
>replaced
>> > (in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the ea=
>sily
>> > contradicted "ate lunch with". =A0If you read only the final reports of=
> Fritz,
>> > Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who ha=
>d the bum
>> > ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz wi=
>th
>> > Bookhout, & leaves *Kelley* out in the cold, with Fritz's now-suspect "=
>ate lunch
>> > with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". =A0Because "two negr came in=
>" implies
>> > in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout=
> &
>> > 12:25....
>>
>> > Speculate as you wish as to why his lunch was delayed about 20 minutes-=
>-there
>> > are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald w=
>as on the
>> > floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or=
> not
>> > *they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have h=
>ad to
>> > dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the =
>"sniper's
>> > nest" by 12:30. =A0He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Wi=
>lliams &
>> > Givens) come in....
>>
>> > copr 2004 Donald Willis
>>
>>
>Watch out! You've got a lot of umbrage hurtling towards you, TB....
>dcw
I find it hilarious that the very same people who will quote Posner or Bugliosi
at the drop of a hat, despise CT'ers for quoting other sources.
Why would I try to duplicate the excellent work that Donald Willis has already
done?
>> Oh how are the mighty fallen!
Oh ... the rampant hypocrisy among the trolls!
>> Sorrowing Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
You`re a retard. Why would Oswald say he "possibly" saw these guys.
And if you want to know what Oswald actually told the authorities in
the interrogations you need to read the reports...
Fritz: "Said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked
with him."
Kelley: Said he ate lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
He described one of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other as
a short negro boy."
This is what he told investigators. It wasn`t that everybody was out
to get him, he was just guilty is all.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jul 3, 4:32=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 12:04=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 2, 5:36=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <882fce4c-75ef-47ed-8ea9-4571a5548...@j23g2000yqc.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>> > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > >On Jul 2, 2:28=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > >> On Jul 2, 11:09=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.goog=
>legroup=3D
>> > > >s.com>,
>> > > >> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > >> > >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter), =
>can ya
>> > > >> > >toots-e-roll?
>>
>> > > >> > And, as his upcoming response will demonstrate, Bud has no choic=
>e other
>> > > >> > than to lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note h=
>is
>> > > >> > latest lie.
>>
>> > > >> <snicker> Yah, let`s see, this should be good.
>>
>> > > And, as predicted, Bud lied and ran away... (see below)
>>
>> > > >> > >> On Jul 1, 9:38=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > >> > In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis say=
>s...
>>
>> > > >> > >> > >>On Jun 28, 10:24=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkni=
>fe.com> w=3D
>> > > >rote:
>> > > >> > >> > >>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>
>rock so=3D
>> > > >lid
>>
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must =
>be refe=3D
>> > > >rring=3D3D
>> > > >> > > to an
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at th=
>e time =3D
>> > > >of th=3D3D
>> > > >> > >e
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged =
>to have=3D
>> > > > give=3D3D
>> > > >> > >n on t=3D3D3D
>> > > >> > >> > >>hat
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recall=
>, he su=3D
>> > > >ppose=3D3D
>> > > >> > >dly
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, whi=
>ch is u=3D
>> > > >ncorr=3D3D
>> > > >> > >oborat=3D3D3D
>> > > >> > >> > >>ed
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other emplo=
>yees we=3D
>> > > >re ha=3D3D
>> > > >> > >ving
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the fir=
>st witn=3D
>> > > >esses=3D3D
>> > > >> > > to se=3D3D3D
>> > > >> > >> > >>e
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a lon=
>g enoug=3D
>> > > >h tim=3D3D
>> > > >> > >e afte=3D3D3D
>> > > >> > >> > >>r
>> > > >> > >> > >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from t=
>he 6th =3D
>> > > >floor=3D3D
>> > > >> > >.
>>
>> > > >> > >> > >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> > > >> > >> > >> <snicker> As if.
>>
>> > > >> > >> > Is this the best you can do???
>>
>ngage
>> > > >> > >> me on it. As it stands, yah, all I can do is point out you in=
>ability
>> > > >> > >> and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
>>
>> > > >> > Then go ahead and "destroy" me...
>>
>> > > >> I *have*.
>>
>> > > By lying and running away???
>>
>> > > >> You decided the only course of action left to you was to
>> > > >> hide from what I write.
>>
>> > > And yet, you've refused to provide Carrico's statement.
>>
>> > > Or admit the obvious... Bugliosi lied.
>>
>> > > >> > You don't need my comments -
>>
>> > > >> Yah, I do.
>>
>> > > I post in this forum on virtually a daily basis.
>>
>> > > You *need* my comments only for trolling purposes.
>>
>> > > >> In order to show your ideas are retarded I need your to
>u
>> > > >> are called on to support your ideas.
>>
>> > > I post in this forum on virtually a daily basis.
>>
>> > > Your assertion holds no merit.
>>
>> > > >> > lurkers will read what I and Donald Willis wrote,
>ind.
>>
>> > > >> Fuck each and every lurker.
>>
>n refut=3D
>> > > >e the
>> > > >> > evidence.
>>
>> > > >> Not what I said. I`d said I could kick your ass on the issues you
>> > > >> raise.
>>
>> > > And, as clear shown in this post... you've lied and run away.
>>
>> > > Why is that?
>>
> to
>> > > >> > debate the evidence?
>>
>> > > >> The evidence often isn`t the problem. It`s the retards looking at
>> > > >> the evidence that is the problem.
>>
>> > > Then simply provide credible non-conspiratorial explanations...
>>
>> > > But you can't.
>>
>> > > >> > >> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>at *sho=3D
>> > > >uld* =3D3D
>> > > >> > >be fam=3D3D3D
>> > > >> > >> > >>iliar
>> > > >> > >> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>unny.
>>
>> > > >> > >> > Then simply repost your critique...
>>
>w times
>> > > >> > >> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I ke=
>ep
>> > > >> > >> repeating it it will sink in?
>>
>> > > >> > See above.
>>
>> > > >> "Above" does not address the point I made.
>>
>> > > So you believe.
>>
> the wa=3D
>> > > >y
>> > > >> > >> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>>
>es the
>> > > >> > >> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
>>
>> > > >> > See above.
>>
>> > > >> "Above" does not address the point I made".
>>
>> > > So you believe.
>>
>ther co=3D
>> > > >wardly,
>> > > >> > >> > don't you think?
>>
>> > > >> > >> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
>>
>> > > >> > Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts."
>>
>> > > >> Then why have you been unable to dispute them?
>>
>> > > Can't "dispute" what you don't provide.
>>
>efuse to
>> > > quote or cite it?
>>
>nd
>> > > >> > could do so again if only I would remove you from my killfilter.
>>
>> > > >> My being on your killfilter proves my assertion.
>>
>> > > To a moron, *anything* "proves" something.
>>
>one.
>> > > Particularly nut cases.
>>
>> > > >> > Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to suppo=
>rt,
>> > > >> > isn't it?
>>
>> > > >> > Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU =
>IN THE =3D
>> > > >LEAST
>> > > >> > FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSEL=
>F.
>>
>> > > >> Which I did. Maybe you missed it because you have me killfiled.
>>
>> > > Still running, eh?
>>
>ting my
>> > > statement that Bugliosi lied???
>>
>> > > (Of course, you're lying again...)
>>
>> > > >> > The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than
>> > > >> > providing evidence, and showing how it supports your position
>> > > >> > is merely one of many reasons you belong killfiled.
>>
>> > > >> The reason you killfiled me
>>
>> > > Was just provided.
>>
>> > > Constantly lying and running away was another reason.
>>
>> > > >> is because you can`t support your ideas,
>w
>> > > >> what dw produced in that article constitutes a alibi.
>>
>> > > >The Dud wrote:......."I would just ask you how what dw produced in
>> > > >that article constitutes a alibi."
>>
>> > > >The fact that you have to ask how Oswald knew that Junior Jarman and
>> > > >Shorty Norman passed by the domino lunchroom at about 12:25 is solid
>> > > >proof that you're one stupid bastard.
>>
>nd why
>> > > that's evidence for an alibi, but he really knows better.
>>
>> > > He's just lying.
>>
>by
>> > > >the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch. It later developed that
>d
>> > > >probably did see them as they passed the lunchroom. Oswald said he d=
>id
>> > > >and there's no way he could have known that J&N had passed by that
>> > > >lunchroom unless he was on the first floor at that time.
>>
>o
>> > > >I expect you'll continue to reply with the response of a gutless
>> > > >coward who is too arrogant to face the facts.
>>
>> > > That's what trolls do, they lie.
>>
>> > > >> And you would
>t
>> > > >> you can`t support the idea you put forth.
>>
>s
>> > > >> construct, I pointed out that the portion of Bookout`s report he u=
>ses
>> > > >> doesn`t say what he represents it to say. Nobody responds to this
>> > > >> point, you retards just pretend it hasn`t been made.
>>
>> > > You're lying again.
>>
>Bookhout
>> > > reported that Oswald said he was eating lunch alone, and that he "rec=
>alled
>> > > possibly two Negro employees walking through the room at during this =
>period."
>>
>> > Any intelligent person can turn to the WCR, page 622, and read where
>> > Bookhout
>> > reported that Oswald said he was eating lunch alone, and that he
>> > "recalled
>> > possibly two Negro employees walking through the room at during this
>> > period."
>>
>> You ever wonder about the inclusion of the word "possibly" in that
>> sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone or you don`t.
Hey troll! You asserted that Donald Willis misrepresented what Bookhout said.
Here's a relevant quote from the original post:
(c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TSBD,
alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during
this period. (WR p622/Bookhout)
Now... without continuing to lie, please point out where Donald Willis used this
quote from Bookhout to misrepresent anything.
But you can't... you've been caught in a lie.
>The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
>word "possibly" in that sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone
>or you don`t."
A word that was QUOTED by Donald Willis... he wasn't trying to hide anything, or
misrepresent anything.
Bud, on the other hand, has been caught blatantly lying.
>Hey Dud.....The word "possibly" in this context mean's the POSSIBILITY
>was there ( conditions existed) for Oswald to observe Junior Jarman
>and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said they
>did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
>lunch. We know that Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the
>TSBD on their way to the fifth floor at cirat 12:25 /12:27. We also
>know that Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan saw a 165 / 175 pound, 35
>year old man, who had a sniper rifle and was dressed in LIGHT colored
>clothing standing behind the SW corner window, at THIS VERY
>TIME!!.... Oswald could not have been on the first floor observing J
>&N pass by the lunchroom and behind the sixth fllor window ( dressed
>differently) at the same moment in time.
>
>Is this too difficult for you to understand???? Stupid!
It's not difficult to understand at all - that's why Bud is lying about it.
>> Lying
>> maggots like Oswald will use such terms to leave themselves wriggle
>> room when their accounts are scrutinized.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Someone needs to post a copy of page 622......Then we can watch Dud,
>> > the lying maggot, try to wiggle and squirm away from Boohout's report.
>>
>> > > Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything that he d=
>id not put
>> > > in his report.
>>
>> > > You're lying again.
>>
>> > > You can't produce *ANY* quote from Donald
And, quite clearly ... he didn't.
Bud
> In article <7494b402-7723-4be3-acbd-1186e90d4...@x10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Of course he did. That excerpt from Bookout`s report puts Jarman and
Norman *inside* the Domino room. Willis uses it to put them *outside*
the domino room. Words have meaning, retard.
> But you can't... you've been caught in a lie.
I addressed this yesterday, retard. Apparently you missed it because
you have me killfiled, retard. If you want to enage on these issues
you have to unkillfile me so you can see all the points I make in all
the responses I make, retard. I`m not going to try to engage you
through other peoples posts or try to figure out which posts of mine
you`ve "seen" and which ones you haven`t, retard.
> >The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
> >word "possibly" in that sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone
> >or you don`t."
>
> A word that was QUOTED by Donald Willis... he wasn't trying to hide anything, or
> misrepresent anything.
Again, you aren`t following the whole discussion, you are only
getting bits and pieces. This is a whole different issue I brought up
and asked Walt about, it has nothing to do with anything dw wrote.
> Bud, on the other hand, has been caught blatantly lying.
BOO!!!
> >Hey Dud.....The word "possibly" in this context mean's the POSSIBILITY
> >was there ( conditions existed) for Oswald to observe Junior Jarman
> >and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said they
> >did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
> >lunch. We know that Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the
> >TSBD on their way to the fifth floor at cirat 12:25 /12:27. We also
> >know that Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan saw a 165 / 175 pound, 35
> >year old man, who had a sniper rifle and was dressed in LIGHT colored
> >clothing standing behind the SW corner window, at THIS VERY
> >TIME!!.... Oswald could not have been on the first floor observing J
> >&N pass by the lunchroom and behind the sixth fllor window ( dressed
> >differently) at the same moment in time.
>
> >Is this too difficult for you to understand???? Stupid!
>
> It's not difficult to understand at all - that's why Bud is lying about it.
Why would Oswald say he only "possibly" saw these two, retard? Walt
couldn`t answer, maybe you`d like to take a shot at it.
> >> Lying
> >> maggots like Oswald will use such terms to leave themselves wriggle
> >> room when their accounts are scrutinized.
>
> >> > Someone needs to post a copy of page 622......Then we can watch Dud,
> >> > the lying maggot, try to wiggle and squirm away from Boohout's report.
>
> >> > > Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything that he d=
> >id not put
> >> > > in his report.
>
> >> > > You're lying again.
>
> >> > > You can't produce *ANY* quote from Donald
>
> And, quite clearly ... he didn't.
Here is dw placing the sighting *outside* the lunchroom.
Quote on...
b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the
freight
elevators would have been seen from the door of the domino room (WR
diagram
p148)
Quote off...
The excerpt from Bookout`s report only refers to events inside the
lunchroom.
Quote on...
(c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at
the TSBD,
alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the
room during
this period. (WR p622/Bookhout)
Quote off...
The only room identified is the lunchroom.
Of course you`ll miss this and later claim I never produced it, but
I guess this is what can be expected when dealing with cowards.
Sean Smiley
would have been leaving the sixth floor to join them at just about the
same time that Oswald reached the sixth floor! A bit of Alphonse &
Gaston would have ensued....
dcw
>
> read more »
Sean Smiley
>
> > > You ever wonder about the inclusion of the word "possibly" in that
> > > sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone or you don`t.
>
> > The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
> > word "possibly" in that sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone
> > or you don`t."
>
> > Hey Dud.....The word "possibly" in this context mean's the POSSIBILITY
> > was there ( conditions existed) for Oswald to observe Junior Jarman
> > and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said they
> > did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
> > lunch.
>
> You`re a retard. Why would Oswald say he "possibly" saw these guys.
>
something Oswald said.
dcw
> And if you want to know what Oswald actually told the authorities in
> the interrogations you need to read the reports...
>
> Fritz: "Said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked
> with him."
>
No, thankfully, in Fritz's case we have something written *before*
that report--his note, which sounds nothing like that line in the
report....
dcw
> Kelley: Said he ate lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
> He described one of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other as
> a short negro boy."
>
> This is what he told investigators.
Not necessarily, or even probably. Fritz of the Notes and Bookhout
say something else....
Sean Smiley
>
> > Hey troll! You asserted that Donald Willis misrepresented what Bookhout said.
>
> > Here's a relevant quote from the original post:
>
> > (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TSBD,
> > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during
> > this period. (WR p622/Bookhout)
>
> > Now... without continuing to lie, please point out where Donald Willis used this
> > quote from Bookhout to misrepresent anything.
>
> Of course he did. That excerpt from Bookout`s report puts Jarman and
> Norman *inside* the Domino room. Willis uses it to put them *outside*
> the domino room.
Speaking of misrepresenting, Bud.... Here's what I wrote:
Bookhout, unambiguously, said
*alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's
"walking
through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was
closer,
ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! Both phrases
suggest,
further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--
in or
near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
> > But you can't... you've been caught in a lie.
>
Sean Smiley
CUT
> > Chuckle! You mean like Fritz's report? The same Fritz who earlier
> > wrote no such thing in his *NOTES*??
> > dcw
>
> How do you know? Fritz`s notes were written by Fritz for Fritz. Not
> so you could determine what was said, but to remind himself.
>
campaign, when the McCain people asserted that McCain did not speak
for the campaign!
And, Bud, we do know what Fritz wrote in his Notes, whatever he meant
by it. Cold shower, now, guy....
dcw
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >He said he saw two colored employees pass by the lunchroom
> > > > while he was eating lunch.
>
> > > No, you need to read the Bookout quote better.
>
> > > "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the
> > > TSBD,
> > > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the
> > > room during
> > > this period."
>
> > > The only room mentioned is the "lunchroom". If another room was
> > > brought up it would be identified. Therefore, according to Bookout
> > > Oswald said that *maybe* the two walked through the lunchroom.
>
> > > > He said one of the colored men was called
> > > > "Junior" and the other was a little short man who they called
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
> On Jul 3, 2:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot
> CUT> > Chuckle! You mean like Fritz's report? The same Fritz who earlier
> > > wrote no such thing in his *NOTES*??
> > > dcw
>
> > How do you know? Fritz`s notes were written by Fritz for Fritz. Not
> > so you could determine what was said, but to remind himself.
>
> That reminds me of the funniest moment from the '08 Presidential
> campaign, when the McCain people asserted that McCain did not speak
> for the campaign!
>
> And, Bud, we do know what Fritz wrote in his Notes, whatever he meant
> by it.
Yah, thats the point, you don`t know for sure what he meant by them.
Bud
> On Jul 3, 11:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Hey troll! You asserted that Donald Willis misrepresented what Bookhout said.
>
> > > Here's a relevant quote from the original post:
>
> > > (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TSBD,
> > > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during
> > > this period. (WR p622/Bookhout)
>
> > > Now... without continuing to lie, please point out where Donald Willis used this
> > > quote from Bookhout to misrepresent anything.
>
> > Of course he did. That excerpt from Bookout`s report puts Jarman and
> > Norman *inside* the Domino room. Willis uses it to put them *outside*
> > the domino room.
>
> Speaking of misrepresenting, Bud.... Here's what I wrote:
>
> Bookhout, unambiguously, said
> *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's
> "walking
> through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was
> closer,
> ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own!
No, it suggests Fritz used the words "two negr came in" to remind
him of what Oswald said. What was said in the interviews could
resemble this...
Fritz: Where we you at lunchtime?
Oswald: I was eating lunch alone in the lunchroom.
Fritz: Did anyone see you there?
Oswald: Maybe Junior and some short negro came in and ate, I`m not
sure.
An exchange like this would satisfy all the accounts, with Fritz,
Kelley and Bookout explaining the same exchange differently. That some
exchange like this is what actually occurred is much, much more likely
than the amazing and extraordinary idea that a bunch of law
enforcement officials from diverse agencies were risking their lives
and livelihoods to frame an innocent man (what is there to support
this other than a great desire to pretend Oswald is innocent?).
> Both phrases
> suggest,
> further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--
> in or
> near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
Did they say they went into the Domino room?
Bud
They all took the elevators, Oswald would be on the stairs.
And we don`t really have a lot of information to make precise
determinations. I personally have doubts about when these things
occurred, your 12:25 time is far from established, it could easily
have been earlier.
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
> On Jul 3, 10:58 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > You ever wonder about the inclusion of the word "possibly" in that
> > > > sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone or you don`t.
>
> > > The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
> > > word "possibly" in that sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone
> > > or you don`t."
>
> > > Hey Dud.....The word "possibly" in this context mean's the POSSIBILITY
> > > was there ( conditions existed) for Oswald to observe Junior Jarman
> > > and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said they
> > > did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
> > > lunch.
>
> > You`re a retard. Why would Oswald say he "possibly" saw these guys.
>
> We don't know if that's Oswald's word or Bookhout's interpretation of
> something Oswald said.
> dcw
>
> > And if you want to know what Oswald actually told the authorities in
> > the interrogations you need to read the reports...
>
> > Fritz: "Said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked
> > with him."
>
> No, thankfully, in Fritz's case we have something written *before*
> that report--his note, which sounds nothing like that line in the
> report....
To you, but it wasn`t written to mean something to you.
If you think you know what Fritz means by what he writes in his
notes, what did Fritz mean when he wrote "says 11-21-63" just before
"say two negr came in"?
Bud
Your reading of them says something else. The question is whether
your reading correctly reflects what was meant.
Walt
Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--- in or near
the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered."
Hey Dud you can have someone who can understand what he reads read
Bookhout's report on page 622 of the WR and they wiil tell you that
Bookhout said that Oswald said he ate lunch A-L-O-N-E in the Dominio
room. Oswald said that he saw Junior Jarman and Shorty Norman enter
the back door of the TSBD and walk past where he was eating his lunch.
It is a FACT that Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the TSBD
at circa 12:25. If Oswald was in the 1st floor lunchroom at that
time, he certainly could NOT have been the man 165 / 175 pound man in
his early thirties who was dressed in LIGHT colored clothes that
Arnold Rowland, Howard Brennan and others saw behind the SW corner
window on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
>
>
>
> > > But you can't... you've been caught in a lie.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 3, 2:21=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 12:18=A0am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 2, 3:28=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 2, 5:32=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 2, 2:28=A0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jul 2, 11:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.goo=
>glegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > > > >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matter),=
> can ya
>> > > > > > >toots-e-roll?
>>
>> > > > > > And, as his upcoming response will demonstrate,Budhas no choice=
> other than to
>> > > > > > lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his late=
>st lie.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 <snicker> Yah, let`s see, this should be good.
>>
>> > > > > > >On Jul 1, 3:44=3DA0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> On Jul 1, 9:38=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis sa=
>ys...
>>
>> > > > > > >> > >>On Jun 28, 10:24=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknif=>> > > > > > >> > >>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi was=
> rock solid
>>
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you must=
> be referring=3D
>> > > > > > > to an
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor at t=
>he time of th=3D
>> > > > > > >e
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alleged=
> to have give=3D
>> > > > > > >n on t=3D3D
>> > > > > > >> > >>hat
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I recal=
>l, he suppose=3D
>> > > > > > >dly
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time, wh=
>ich is uncorr=3D
>> > > > > > >oborat=3D3D
>> > > > > > >> > >>ed
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other empl=
>oyees were ha=3D
>> > > > > > >ving
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the fi=
>rst witnesses=3D
>> > > > > > > to se=3D3D
>> > > > > > >> > >>e
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a lo=
>ng enough tim=3D
>> > > > > > >e afte=3D3D
>> > > > > > >> > >>r
>> > > > > > >> > >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there from =
>the 6th floor=3D
>> > > > > > >.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> > > > > > >> > >> <snicker> As if.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > Is this the best you can do???
>>
>engage
>> > > > > > >> me on it. As it stands, yah, all I can do is point out you i=
>nability
>> > > > > > >> and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
>>
>> > > > > > Then go ahead and "destroy" me...
>>
>as to
>> > > > > hide from what I write.
>>
>> > > > > > You don't need my comments -
>>
>ur to
>> > > > > say what they are. I need you to go into that dance you do when y=
>ou
>> > > > > are called on to support your ideas.
>>
>> > > > > > lurkers will read what I and Donald Willis wrote,
>mind.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Fuck each and every lurker.
>>
>> > > > > > Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that you c=
>an refute the
>> > > > > > evidence.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Not what I said. I`d said I could kick your ass on the issues=
> you
>> > > > > raise.
>>
>> > > > > > So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he refuse=
>s to debate the
>> > > > > > evidence?
>>
>> > > > > =A0 The evidence often isn`t the problem. It`s the retards lookin=
>g at
>> > > > > the evidence that is the problem.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>hat *should* =3D
>> > > > > > >be fam=3D3D
>> > > > > > >> > >>iliar
>> > > > > > >> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
>sn`t funny.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > Then simply repost your critique...
>>
>ew times
>> > > > > > >> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if I k=
>eep
>> > > > > > >> repeating it it will sink in?
>>
>> > > > > > See above.
>>
>>
>> > > > > > >> > Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas an=
>d the way
>> > > > > > >> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>>
>ges the
>> > > > > > >> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
>>
>> > > > > > See above.
>>
>>
>> > > > > > >> > Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" is r=
>ather cowardly,
>> > > > > > >> > don't you think?
>>
>> > > > > > >> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
>>
>> > > > > > Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts."
>>
>>
>> > > > > > What you're doing, is
>if only I would
>> > > > > > remove you from my killfilter.
>>
>>
>> > > > > > Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to supp=
>ort, isn't it?
>>
>> > > > > > Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP YOU=
> IN THE LEAST
>> > > > > > FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOURSE=
>LF.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Which I did. Maybe you missed it because you have me killfile=
>d.
>>
>> > > > > > The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks than=
> providing
>> > > > > > evidence, and showing how it supports your position is merely o=
>ne of many
>> > > > > > reasons you belong killfiled.
>>
> ideas,
>> > > > > like this one here. If I wasn`t killfiled, I would just ask you h=
>ow
>> > > > > what dw produced in that article constitutes a alibi.
>> > > > The Dud wrote:......."I would just ask you how what dw produced in
>>
>> > > > that article constitutes a alibi."
>>
>d
>> > > > Shorty Norman passed by the domino lunchroom at about 12:25 is soli=
>d
>> > > > proof that you're one stupid bastard.
>>
>nd
>> > > Norman pass by the domino room at 12:25, retard?
>>
>>
>> > Wrong question. Who was supposed to pass thru Dealey at 12:25, as
>> > originally scheduled? A 12:25 alibi would seem to be pretty
>> > foolproof!
>>
>> But what if one were not a fool, and realized that Oswald on the
>> first floor at 12:25 affords him no alibi for a murder committed at
>> 12:30?
Another lie on Bud's part... he *KNOWS* that eyewitnesses were seeing someone in
the SN *BEFORE* the assassination... one of his favorite eyewitnesses, for
example, Brennan - asserted that someone was there "waiting" for the President
to show up.
Nor was he able to explain why an assassin would be in the wrong place to commit
the assassination that everyone knew *should* have been at 12:25.
>And Oswald would have been right behind Norman & Jarman, & Williams
>would have been leaving the sixth floor to join them at just about the
>same time that Oswald reached the sixth floor! A bit of Alphonse &
>Gaston would have ensued....
>dcw
>>
>>
>>
>> > dcw
>>
>> > > > Oswald told his interrogators that he saw the two colored guys pass=
> by
>> > > > the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch.
>>
>> > > =A0 Nothing close to this appears in evidence.
>>
>> > > > It later developed that
>> > > > Jarm and Norman did in fact enter the back dor of the TSBD and Oswa=
>ld
>> > > > probably did see them as they passed the lunchroom. Oswald said he =
>did
>>
>> > > =A0 Where did he say this?
>>
>> > > > and there's no way he could have known that J&N had passed by that
>> > > > lunchroom unless he was on the first floor at that time.
>>
>> > > =A0 You haven`t shown he did know they were on the first floor at tha=
>t
>> > > time.
>>
>> > > > Of course you're to damned arrogant and stupid to admit the truth, =
>so
>> > > > I expect you'll continue to reply with the response of a gutless
>> > > > coward who is too arrogant to face the facts.
>>
>> > > =A0 The fact is that what dw presented is every bit as much a confess=
>ion
>> > > as it is an alibi.
>>
>> > > > And you would> dance and duck and never really answer, and everyone=
> would see that
>> > > > > you can`t support the idea you put forth.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 And the fact is that I did address the evidence dw was using =
>in his
>> > > > > construct, I pointed out that the portion of Bookout`s report he =
>uses
>> > > > > doesn`t say what he represents it to say. Nobody responds to this
>> > > > > point, you retards just pretend it hasn`t been made.
>>
>> > > > > > >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put fo=
>rth ideas
>> > > > > > >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>>
>> > > > > > Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* provi=
>ded (via the
>> > > > > > repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswald'=
>s alibi...
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Nothing dw included in that article you produced is in any wa=
>y,
>> > > > > shape or form an "alibi". You can`t produce one definition of "al=
>ibi"
>> > > > > that is satisfied by that offering. It`s a lie to call what he
>> > > > > concocted an "alibi", the word cannot possibly apply.
>>
>> > > > > > lurkers will simply have to judge for themselves who the coward=
> is.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > >> And it
>> > > > > > >> > >>isn`t like Ben is going to support the ideas presented b=
>y dw below, h=3D
>> > > > > > >e
>> > > > > > >> > >>doesn`t even support his own.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > The 45 Questions rather disproved that silly idea of yours=
>...
>>
>> > > > > > >> If this series was so strong you could defend the ideas cont=
>ained
>> > > > > > >> in it in an open forum. The proof that they are weak lies in=
> you
>> > > > > > >> inability to support them in an open forum.
>>
>> > > > > > I already did.
>>
>> > > > > > Why lie about it?
>>
>> > > > > > Not ONE SINGLE TIME did you provide a credible, non-conspirator=
>ial explanation
>> > > > > > for any of the evidential questions I posed.
>>
>> > > > > > Not once!
>>
>> > > > > =A0 What you mean is not once did you accept the non-conspiratori=
>al
>> > > > > explanations I provided. You like your conspiratorial explanation=
>s
>> > > > > better. Also, as i`ve pointed out many times before, it`s up to y=
>ou to
>> > > > > show conspiracy, not for me to "unshow" it.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 You employ a fallacious approach.
>>
>> > > > > > Oh, you'll lie and say you did... but what you will refuse to d=
>o is repost it.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 What would be the point? To watch you
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 3, 10:58=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > You ever wonder about the inclusion of the word "possibly" in that
>> > > sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone or you don`t.
>>
>> > The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
>> > word "possibly" in that sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone
>> > or you don`t."
>>
>> > Hey Dud.....The word "possibly" in this context mean's the POSSIBILITY
>> > and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said they
>> > did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
>> > lunch.
>>
>> You`re a retard. Why would Oswald say he "possibly" saw these guys.
>>
>We don't know if that's Oswald's word or Bookhout's interpretation of
>something Oswald said.
>dcw
Yep... that's true. And Bud continues to lie... he's pointed out *NO*
misrepresentation on Donald Willis' part concerning the Bookhout report.
Why would a liar claim that Donald Willis misrepresented his sources, then fail
to provide any support for that claim?
>> And if you want to know what Oswald actually told the authorities in
>> the interrogations you need to read the reports...
>>
>> Fritz: "Said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked
>> with him."
>>
>No, thankfully, in Fritz's case we have something written *before*
>that report--his note, which sounds nothing like that line in the
>report....
>dcw
Bud likes to pick and choose... and refuse to admit that evidence exists that
contradicts what he's chosen to pick.
>> Kelley: Said he ate lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
>> He described one of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other as
>> a short negro boy."
>>
>> This is what he told investigators.
>
>Not necessarily, or even probably. Fritz of the Notes and Bookhout
>say something else....
Yep... And Bud can't admit it.
>> It wasn`t that everybody was out
>> to get him, he was just guilty is all.
>> > We know that Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the
>> > TSBD on their way to the fifth floor at cirat 12:25 /12:27. =A0We also
>> > know that Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan saw a 165 / 175 pound, 35
>> > year old man, who had a sniper rifle and was dressed in LIGHT colored
>> > clothing standing behind the SW corner window, at THIS VERY
>> > TIME!!.... =A0 Oswald could not have been on the first floor observing =
>J
>> > &N pass by the lunchroom and behind the sixth fllor window ( dressed
>> > differently) at the same moment in time.
>>
>> > Is this too difficult for you to understand???? =A0Stupid!
>>
>> > Lying> maggots like Oswald will use such terms to leave themselves wrig=
>gle
>> > > room when their accounts are scrutinized.
>>
>> > > > Someone needs to post a copy of page 622......Then we can watch Dud=
>,
>> > > > the lying maggot, try to wiggle and squirm away from Boohout's repo=
>rt.
>>
>> > > > > Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything that =
>he did not put
>> > > > > in his report.
>>
>> > > > > You're lying again.
>>
>> > > > > You can't produce *ANY* quote from Donald
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 3, 11:23=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey troll! You asserted that Donald Willis misrepresented what Bookhout=
> said.
>>
>> > Here's a relevant quote from the original post:
>>
>TSBD,
>> > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the ro=
>om during
>> > this period. (WR p622/Bookhout)
>>
>used this
>> > quote from Bookhout to misrepresent anything.
>>
>> Norman *inside* the Domino room. Willis uses it to put them *outside*
>> the domino room.
>
>Speaking of misrepresenting, Bud.... Here's what I wrote:
Nah... Bud isn't merely "misrepresenting"... he's outright lying.
> Bookhout, unambiguously, said *alone*, however, & Fritz's original
> "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking through," & suggests that what
> Fritz actually heard Oswald say was closer, ironically, to the Bookhout
> report than to his own! Both phrases suggest, further, that Oswald was
> already on the first floor of the depository--in or near the domino
> room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>
>> > But you can't... you've been caught in a lie.
>>
Walt
> In article <969048da-cb7f-4192-b3bc-379df5ee0...@y13g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Actually eyewitnesses said the man, who did not fit Oswald's
description, appeared behind various sixth floor windows.
I believe It was Brennan who said that the man moved back and forth
from window to window. When Arnold Rowland saw the man with the
sniper's rifle, he said the man was standing behind the wide open
window at the WEST end of the sixth floor.
Bud knows that the man who witnesses saw the man behind the sixth
floor windows could NOT have been Oswald, because that man didn't fit
the description of Oswald..... and furthermore Oswald was eating lunch
in the Domino Room on the first floor where he was at 12:25 when
Junior Jarman and Harold Norman entered the back door of the TSBD and
walked past Oswald as he ate his lunch.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 3, 2:23=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot
>CUT
>> > Chuckle! =A0You mean like Fritz's report? =A0The same Fritz who earlier
>> > wrote no such thing in his *NOTES*??
>> > dcw
>>
>> How do you know? Fritz`s notes were written by Fritz for Fritz. Not
>> so you could determine what was said, but to remind himself.
>>
>That reminds me of the funniest moment from the '08 Presidential
>campaign, when the McCain people asserted that McCain did not speak
>for the campaign!
>
>And, Bud, we do know what Fritz wrote in his Notes, whatever he meant
>by it. Cold shower, now, guy....
>dcw
This is how LNT'ers handle *ALL* the evidence... if it supports the WCR, all
well and good... if it fails to support the WCR, then evidence isn't really
evidence... or it doesn't mean the obvious.
It's a twisted world that LNT'ers live in.
>> > > >He said he saw two colored employees pass by the lunchroom
>> > > > while he was eating lunch.
>>
>> > > =A0 No, you need to read the Bookout quote better.
>>
>> > > =A0 =A0"Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at=
> the
>> > > TSBD,
>> > > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the
>> > > room during
>> > > this period."
>>
>> > > =A0 The only room mentioned is the "lunchroom". If another room was
>> > > brought up it would be identified. Therefore, according to Bookout
>> > > Oswald said that *maybe* the two walked through the lunchroom.
>>
>> > > > He said one of the colored men was called
>> > > > "Junior" and the other was a little short man who they called
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jul 3, 11:23=A0pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 11:23=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Hey troll! You asserted that Donald Willis misrepresented what Bookho=
>ut said.
>>
>> > > Here's a relevant quote from the original post:
>>
>e TSBD,
>> > > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the =
>room during
>> > > this period. (WR p622/Bookhout)
>>
>s used this
>> > > quote from Bookhout to misrepresent anything.
>>
>d
>> > Norman *inside* the Domino room. Willis uses it to put them *outside*
>> > the domino room.
>>
>> Speaking of misrepresenting, Bud.... Here's what I wrote:
>>
>> *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's
>> "walking
>> through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was
>> closer,
>> suggest,
>> further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--
>> in or
>> near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>
>
>"Bookhout, unambiguously, said *alone*, however, & Fritz's original
>"came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking through," & suggests that what
>Fritz actually heard Oswald say was closer, ironically, to the
>Bookhout report than to his own! Both phrases suggest, further, that
>Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--- in or near
>the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered."
>
>Hey Dud you can have someone who can understand what he reads read
>Bookhout's report on page 622 of the WR and they wiil tell you that
>Bookhout said that Oswald said he ate lunch A-L-O-N-E in the Dominio
>room. Oswald said that he saw Junior Jarman and Shorty Norman enter
>the back door of the TSBD and walk past where he was eating his lunch.
Oh... Bud understands quite well.
He wouldn't be caught blatantly lying about what Donald Willis said if he were
merely stupid.
>It is a FACT that Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the TSBD
>at circa 12:25. If Oswald was in the 1st floor lunchroom at that
>time, he certainly could NOT have been the man 165 / 175 pound man in
>his early thirties who was dressed in LIGHT colored clothes that
>Arnold Rowland, Howard Brennan and others saw behind the SW corner
>window on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
And Bud can't whine about the 12:25 time not being an alibi for 12:30 - since
it's a FACT that eyewitnesses saw an assassin in the window BEFORE the President
arrived.
(Well, I say he can't... but he does anyway...)
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jul 4, 10:04=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <969048da-cb7f-4192-b3bc-379df5ee0...@y13g2000prb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Sean Smiley says...
>>
>> >> On Jul 3, 12:18=3DA0am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> > On Jul 2, 3:28=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Jul 2, 5:32=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Jul 2, 2:28=3DA0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On Jul 2, 11:09=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > In article <3c350675-e80d-4b12-8dca-ab25fdee8...@28g2000pry.=
>goo=3D
>> >glegroups.com>,
>> >> > > > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> > > > > > >hon, you simply can't win here (or any place for that matte=
>r),=3D
>> > can ya
>> >> > > > > > >toots-e-roll?
>>
>> >> > > > > > And, as his upcoming response will demonstrate,Budhas no cho=
>ice=3D
>> > other than to
>> >> > > > > > lie. See the end of the post after he responds to note his l=
>ate=3D
>> >st lie.
>>
>> >> > > > > =3DA0 <snicker> Yah, let`s see, this should be good.
>>
>> >> > > > > > >On Jul 1, 3:44=3D3DA0pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >> On Jul 1, 9:38=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.c=
>om> w=3D
>> >rote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > In article <iujl3402...@drn.newsguy.com>, Donald Willis=
> sa=3D
>> >ys...
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>On Jun 28, 10:24=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burnin=
>gknif=3D>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> >> But the sad fact for you is that Oswald's alibi =
>was=3D
>> > rock solid
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > Which alibi was that? As far as I can tell, you m=
>ust=3D
>> > be referring=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > > to an
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > alibi which would have him not on the 6th floor a=
>t t=3D
>> >he time of th=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >e
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > shooting, and I know of no alibi he was ever alle=
>ged=3D
>> > to have give=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >n on t=3D3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>hat
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > subject that is even remotely rock solid. As I re=
>cal=3D
>> >l, he suppose=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >dly
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time,=
> wh=3D
>> >ich is uncorr=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >oborat=3D3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>ed
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > by anyone else, and in fact lied and said other e=
>mpl=3D
>> >oyees were ha=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >ving
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > lunch with him, which is obviously false, and the=
> fi=3D
>> >rst witnesses=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > > to se=3D3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>e
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > him in the lunchroom after the shooting saw him a=
> lo=3D
>> >ng enough tim=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >e afte=3D3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>r
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> > the shooting for him to have gotten down there fr=
>om =3D
>> >the 6th floor=3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >.
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> Rather than try to refute this nonsense myself,
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > >> <snicker> As if.
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > Is this the best you can do???
>>
>to =3D
>> >engage
>> >> > > > > > >> me on it. As it stands, yah, all I can do is point out yo=
>u i=3D
>> >nability
>> >> > > > > > >> and unwillingness to support these issues you bring up.
>>
>> >> > > > > > Then go ahead and "destroy" me...
>>
>you w=3D
>> >as to
>> >> > > > > hide from what I write.
>>
>> >> > > > > > You don't need my comments -
>>
>ed yo=3D
>> >ur to
>> >> > > > > say what they are. I need you to go into that dance you do whe=
>n y=3D
>> >ou
>> >> > > > > are called on to support your ideas.
>>
>> >> > > > > > lurkers will read what I and Donald Willis wrote,
>ir =3D
>> >mind.
>>
>> >> > > > > =3DA0 Fuck each and every lurker.
>>
>> >> > > > > > Right now, all that you're spouting is the ASSERTION that yo=
>u c=3D
>> >an refute the
>> >> > > > > > evidence.
>>
>> >> > > > > =3DA0 Not what I said. I`d said I could kick your ass on the i=
>ssues=3D
>> > you
>> >> > > > > raise.
>>
>> >> > > > > > So why would I be interested in engaging a troll when he ref=
>use=3D
>> >s to debate the
>> >> > > > > > evidence?
>>
>ookin=3D
>> >g at
>> >> > > > > the evidence that is the problem.
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>>and correct the LNT'er factoids
>e t=3D
>> >hat *should* =3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >be fam=3D3D3D
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>iliar
>> >> > > > > > >> > >>> to all LNT'ers by now:
>>
> it i=3D
>> >sn`t funny.
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > Then simply repost your critique...
>>
>t f=3D
>> >ew times
>> >> > > > > > >> I addressed dw`s nonsense, am I supposed to hope that if =
>I k=3D
>> >eep
>> >> > > > > > >> repeating it it will sink in?
>>
>> >> > > > > > See above.
>>
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > Of course, if you did, then people would see your ideas=
> an=3D
>> >d the way
>> >> > > > > > >> > you treat evidence, and draw their own conclusions...
>>
>han=3D
>> >ges the
>> >> > > > > > >> meaning of his sources to suit his purposes.
>>
>> >> > > > > > See above.
>>
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> > Merely asserting that you've "taken this thing apart" i=
>s r=3D
>> >ather cowardly,
>> >> > > > > > >> > don't you think?
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> No, I don`t think it`s cowardly to point out facts.
>>
>> >> > > > > > Neither do I... but you're *NOT* "pointing out facts."
>>
>>
>> >> > > > > > What you're doing, is
>in =3D
>> >if only I would
>> >> > > > > > remove you from my killfilter.
>>
>>
>> >> > > > > > Again, it's cowardly to make assertions that you refuse to s=
>upp=3D
>> >ort, isn't it?
>>
>> >> > > > > > Whether or not you're on someone's killfilter, DOESN'T STOP =
>YOU=3D
>> > IN THE LEAST
>> >> > > > > > FROM REFUTING SOMEONE'S STATEMENTS BY USING THE EVIDENCE YOU=
>RSE=3D
>> >LF.
>>
>> >> > > > > =3DA0 Which I did. Maybe you missed it because you have me kil=
>lfile=3D
>> >d.
>>
>> >> > > > > > The fact that you're more interested in ad hominem attacks t=
>han=3D
>> > providing
>> >> > > > > > evidence, and showing how it supports your position is merel=
>y o=3D
>> >ne of many
>> >> > > > > > reasons you belong killfiled.
>>
> your=3D
>> > ideas,
>> >> > > > > like this one here. If I wasn`t killfiled, I would just ask yo=
>u h=3D
>> >ow
>> >> > > > > what dw produced in that article constitutes a alibi.
>in
>>
>> >> > > > that article constitutes a alibi."
>>
> an=3D
>> >d
>> >> > > > Shorty Norman passed by the domino lunchroom at about 12:25 is s=
>oli=3D
>> >d
>> >> > > > proof that you're one stupid bastard.
>>
>man a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> > > Norman pass by the domino room at 12:25, retard?
>>
>ded?
>>
>> >> > Wrong question. Who was supposed to pass thru Dealey at 12:25, as
>> >> > originally scheduled? A 12:25 alibi would seem to be pretty
>> >> > foolproof!
>>
>> >> But what if one were not a fool, and realized that Oswald on the
>> >> first floor at 12:25 affords him no alibi for a murder committed at
>> >> 12:30?
>>
>eone in
>> the SN *BEFORE* the assassination... one of his favorite eyewitnesses, fo=
>r
>> example, Brennan - asserted that someone was there "waiting" for the Pres=
>ident
>> to show up.
>
>Actually eyewitnesses said the man, who did not fit Oswald's
>description, appeared behind various sixth floor windows.
>I believe It was Brennan who said that the man moved back and forth
>from window to window. When Arnold Rowland saw the man with the
>sniper's rifle, he said the man was standing behind the wide open
>window at the WEST end of the sixth floor.
>
>Bud knows that the man who witnesses saw the man behind the sixth
>floor windows could NOT have been Oswald, because that man didn't fit
>the description of Oswald..... and furthermore Oswald was eating lunch
>in the Domino Room on the first floor where he was at 12:25 when
>Junior Jarman and Harold Norman entered the back door of the TSBD and
>walked past Oswald as he ate his lunch.
It's threads like this, where a troll is getting hammered by his lies, that
shows why there's a need for the censored forum.
A place where the LNT'ers can gather, tell lies to each other, and not have them
pointed out.
Or have inconvenient evidence brought up.
Bud is desperately trying to save the LNT'er factoid that there was no evidence
for an Oswald alibi, and he's floundering.
It's threads like this that encourage John McAdams & family to stay far away.
>> Nor was he able to explain why an assassin would be in the wrong place
>> to commit the assassination that everyone knew *should* have been at 12:25.
>>
>>
>>
>> >And Oswald would have been right behind Norman & Jarman, & Williams
>> >would have been leaving the sixth floor to join them at just about the
>> >same time that Oswald reached the sixth floor! =A0A bit of Alphonse &
>> >Gaston would have ensued....
>> >dcw
>>
>> >> > dcw
>>
>> >> > > > Oswald told his interrogators that he saw the two colored guys p=
>ass=3D
>> > by
>> >> > > > the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch.
>>
>> >> > > =3DA0 Nothing close to this appears in evidence.
>>
>> >> > > > It later developed that
>> >> > > > Jarm and Norman did in fact enter the back dor of the TSBD and O=
>swa=3D
>> >ld
>> >> > > > probably did see them as they passed the lunchroom. Oswald said =
>he =3D
>> >did
>>
>> >> > > =3DA0 Where did he say this?
>>
>> >> > > > and there's no way he could have known that J&N had passed by th=
>at
>> >> > > > lunchroom unless he was on the first floor at that time.
>>
>> >> > > =3DA0 You haven`t shown he did know they were on the first floor a=
>t tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> > > time.
>>
>> >> > > > Of course you're to damned arrogant and stupid to admit the trut=
>h, =3D
>> >so
>> >> > > > I expect you'll continue to reply with the response of a gutless
>> >> > > > coward who is too arrogant to face the facts.
>>
>> >> > > =3DA0 The fact is that what dw presented is every bit as much a co=
>nfess=3D
>> >ion
>> >> > > as it is an alibi.
>>
>> >> > > > And you would> dance and duck and never really answer, and every=
>one=3D
>> > would see that
>> >> > > > > you can`t support the idea you put forth.
>>
>> >> > > > > =3DA0 And the fact is that I did address the evidence dw was u=
>sing =3D
>> >in his
>> >> > > > > construct, I pointed out that the portion of Bookout`s report =
>he =3D
>> >uses
>> >> > > > > doesn`t say what he represents it to say. Nobody responds to t=
>his
>> >> > > > > point, you retards just pretend it hasn`t been made.
>>
>> >> > > > > > >> I think it`s cowardly to hide behind a killfilter and put=
> fo=3D
>> >rth ideas
>> >> > > > > > >> you haven`t the guts to support.
>>
>> >> > > > > > Since you aren't supporting your assertions, and I *have* pr=
>ovi=3D
>> >ded (via the
>> >> > > > > > repost) the evidence that refutes the LNT'er factoid of Oswa=
>ld'=3D
>> >s alibi...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Sean Smiley
But, fortunately, it's in English, not shorthand, & the note sounds
nothing like the line in the report. I don't think there's one word
in the first that finds its way into the second....
dcw
>
> If you think you know what Fritz means by what he writes in his
> notes, what did Fritz mean when he wrote "says 11-21-63" just before
> "say two negr came in"?
>
He got the date wrong. 11/22/63 was not imprinted on everyone's mind
yet....
Bud
> In article <969048da-cb7f-4192-b3bc-379df5ee0...@y13g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Casual observation of one of the dozens and dozens of people around
him. It only would take a few minutes for Oswald to leave the window,
get something from the first floor and return. There is no reason to
believe Brennan must notice his absence. But I don`t think there is
any real evidence he did go down the the first floor, I was just
pointing out that such a trip *still* wouldn`t afford him an alibi.
> Nor was he able to explain why an assassin would be in the wrong place to commit
> the assassination that everyone knew *should* have been at 12:25.
If you weren`t such a coward you could see all my responses, and you
would have seen that I explained it twice already. Circumstances could
have dictated Oswald`s actions more than the clock.
Sean Smiley
> In article <1cdc6d6a-559c-4645-92d3-135a19e9a...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
> Sean Smiley says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 3, 10:58=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > You ever wonder about the inclusion of the word "possibly" in that
> >> > > sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone or you don`t.
>
> >> > The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
> >> > word "possibly" in that sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone
> >> > or you don`t."
>
> >> > Hey Dud.....The word "possibly" in this context mean's the POSSIBILITY
> >> > was there ( conditions existed) for Oswald to =A0observe Junior Jarman
> >> > and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said they
> >> > did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
> >> > lunch.
>
> >> You`re a retard. Why would Oswald say he "possibly" saw these guys.
>
> >We don't know if that's Oswald's word or Bookhout's interpretation of
> >something Oswald said.
> >dcw
>
> Yep... that's true. And Bud continues to lie... he's pointed out *NO*
> misrepresentation on Donald Willis' part concerning the Bookhout report.
I think here he just misread or misremembered what I wrote.
dcw
Bud
> In article <03002d91-dcb8-4cb0-b67f-8c7fb431d...@b39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Sean Smiley says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 3, 2:23=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot
> >CUT
> >> > Chuckle! =A0You mean like Fritz's report? =A0The same Fritz who earlier
> >> > wrote no such thing in his *NOTES*??
> >> > dcw
>
> >> How do you know? Fritz`s notes were written by Fritz for Fritz. Not
> >> so you could determine what was said, but to remind himself.
>
> >That reminds me of the funniest moment from the '08 Presidential
> >campaign, when the McCain people asserted that McCain did not speak
> >for the campaign!
>
> >And, Bud, we do know what Fritz wrote in his Notes, whatever he meant
> >by it. Cold shower, now, guy....
> >dcw
>
> This is how LNT'ers handle *ALL* the evidence... if it supports the WCR, all
> well and good... if it fails to support the WCR, then evidence isn't really
> evidence... or it doesn't mean the obvious.
<snicker> You`re joking, right? *We* treat the evidence based on
whether it support our ideas? Why is dw trashing the evidence from
Fritz`s and Kelley`s reports that goes against his silly theories? He
does what conspiracy retards have been doing for ages with this case,
if somebody in authority gives evidence that goes against their silly
ideas they just say that person must be part of the conspiracy (no
support needed).
> It's a twisted world that LNT'ers live in.
Lets look at the conspiracy retard world...
The people who were entrusted to protect the President were out to
kill him.
The people entrusted with determining who killed him were all
trying to hide who killed him.
The Dallas police, who should be wanting to bring the murderer of
one of their own to justice are really try to pin the murder on an
innocent man (thereby letting his true murderer get away with it).
Ordinary citizens are saying they saw Oswald kill people, or saw him
with a gun running from a murder when they really didn`t.
Friends of Kennedy are aiding in the cover-up of his murderers,
helping them avoid justice.
Professionals in many different fields and walks of life are risking
their lives and livelihoods framing an innocent man.
Up is always down in the conspiracy retard world and *were* twisted?
Bud
> In article <6fc1ff35-d28e-438e-ae00-aa4d13187...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
No he doesn`t, and neither one of you retards can show were what
Walt asserted exists anywhere in evidence.
> He wouldn't be caught blatantly lying about what Donald Willis said if he were
> merely stupid.
You can`t support dw`s idea or any other, this is why you hide.
> >It is a FACT that Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the TSBD
> >at circa 12:25. If Oswald was in the 1st floor lunchroom at that
> >time, he certainly could NOT have been the man 165 / 175 pound man in
> >his early thirties who was dressed in LIGHT colored clothes that
> >Arnold Rowland, Howard Brennan and others saw behind the SW corner
> >window on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
>
> And Bud can't whine about the 12:25 time not being an alibi for 12:30 -
<snicker> I point out a fact and I`m "whining"? I point it out, but
none of you kooks address it, because you can`t.
> since
> it's a FACT that eyewitnesses saw an assassin in the window BEFORE the President
> arrived.
Yah, but you retards are pretending you have concrete when you
really have sand. The last time someone inside the building saw
Oswald was before lunch. His actions and movements in side are largely
unreported except for the casual observations of people outside. This
does nothing to provide a minute to minute tracking of his movements,
must Brennan notice if Oswald left and reappeared? You are pretending
you have precise information to work with when you have mush. And dw`s
12:25 time for this encounter is far from established.
Sean Smiley
Sorry, no. Fritz had Oswald say he "ate lunch with some of the
colored boys...." If the above exchange did happen, Fritz distorted
it in his report.
dcw
That some
> exchange like this is what actually occurred is much, much more likely
> than the amazing and extraordinary idea that a bunch of law
> enforcement officials from diverse agencies were risking their lives
> and livelihoods to frame an innocent man (what is there to support
> this other than a great desire to pretend Oswald is innocent?).
I think Oswald had been delegated some duty on the first floor--
possibly slowing down cops entering from the front door.... I think,
collaterally, of course, that he was innocent of shooting from the 6th
floor.
Sean Smiley
> On Jul 4, 12:29 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 2:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot
> > CUT> > Chuckle! You mean like Fritz's report? The same Fritz who earlier
> > > > wrote no such thing in his *NOTES*??
> > > > dcw
>
> > > How do you know? Fritz`s notes were written by Fritz for Fritz. Not
> > > so you could determine what was said, but to remind himself.
>
> > That reminds me of the funniest moment from the '08 Presidential
> > campaign, when the McCain people asserted that McCain did not speak
> > for the campaign!
>
> > And, Bud, we do know what Fritz wrote in his Notes, whatever he meant
> > by it.
>
> Yah, thats the point, you don`t know for sure what he meant by them.
>
exchange, you couldn't account for Fritz's report saying that Oswald
"ate lunch with some of the colored boys". You were very fair, and
didn't hop off the track, like Fritz....
dcw
Bud
> In article <c20ad227-2428-4bb1-ac88-02ba575e4...@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
<snicker> How am I being "hammered"? Certainly a pussy who is too
afraid to engage me on this issue can do me no harm.
> A place where the LNT'ers can gather, tell lies to each other, and not have them
> pointed out.
Er, hypocrite, you killfile everyone who points out your lies.
> Or have inconvenient evidence brought up.
This is the problem, you have conspiracy retards don willis scour
the evidence in order to contrive something that will get Oswald off
the hook for his crimes. He comes up with construct, which is
basically "if this mean what i say it does that I can`t support, and
this say what I say it does that i can`t support, than Oswald has an
alibi". And the worst part is that even though he can`t establish
either of the ideas he uses to support his premise, even if he *was*
right, Oswald *still* wouldn`t have an alibi.
> Bud is desperately trying to save the LNT'er factoid that there was no evidence
> for an Oswald alibi, and he's floundering.
Can Ben the Coward produce some meaning for the word "alibi" that
applies to what dw presented? Of course not, he couldn`t support an
idea if his life depended on it, which is why he is forced to cower
behind his killfilter.
> It's threads like this that encourage John McAdams & family to stay far away.
You may be right there, but for the wrong reasons.
Sean Smiley
retard, & retard, in that order. Name-calling smacks of
desperation....
dcw
Gil Jesus
> The last time someone inside the building saw
> Oswald was before lunch.
WRONG AGAIN LIAR:
No less than 4 witnesses reported seeing Oswald on the first floor
between 11:45 am and 12:15 pm
The sightings by these four witnesses of Oswald on the first floor at
the same time Arnold Rowland saw a man on the sixth floor with a rifle
in his hands, make it impossible for Oswald to have been that man.
Bud
Exasperation. You are willing to believe the whole world was out to
get Oswald rather than accept his guilt. Thats retarded.
Bud
> On Jul 4, 6:35 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > The last time someone inside the building saw
> > Oswald was before lunch.
>
> WRONG AGAIN LIAR:
>
> No less than 4 witnesses reported seeing Oswald on the first floor
> between 11:45 am and 12:15 pm
Name them and quote them saying they saw Oswald after lunch started,
retard.
Bud
Fritz`s notes are in shorthand.
> & the note sounds
> nothing like the line in the report.
You can`t establish that it must.
> I don't think there's one word
> in the first that finds its way into the second....
Is that a rule?
> dcw
>
> > If you think you know what Fritz means by what he writes in his
> > notes, what did Fritz mean when he wrote "says 11-21-63" just before
> > "say two negr came in"?
>
> He got the date wrong. 11/22/63 was not imprinted on everyone's mind
> yet....
<snicker> Yah, contrive some reason to throw out the parts of the
evidence that aren`t useful to your constructs. Thats pretty good too,
Fritz knew to write "morning 23rd" on the top of his notes but it
somehow slipped his mind that the President was killed the previous
day.
Bud
> On Jul 3, 10:04 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 12:29 am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 3, 2:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot
> > > CUT> > Chuckle! You mean like Fritz's report? The same Fritz who earlier
> > > > > wrote no such thing in his *NOTES*??
> > > > > dcw
>
> > > > How do you know? Fritz`s notes were written by Fritz for Fritz. Not
> > > > so you could determine what was said, but to remind himself.
>
> > > That reminds me of the funniest moment from the '08 Presidential
> > > campaign, when the McCain people asserted that McCain did not speak
> > > for the campaign!
>
> > > And, Bud, we do know what Fritz wrote in his Notes, whatever he meant
> > > by it.
>
> > Yah, thats the point, you don`t know for sure what he meant by them.
>
> But even in your very reasonable recreation of the Fritz/Oswald
> exchange, you couldn't account for Fritz's report saying that Oswald
> "ate lunch with some of the colored boys".
Also Kelley.
> You were very fair, and
> didn't hop off the track, like Fritz....
You are trying to make a mountain out of nothing. The common
denominator in all three accounts is Oswald in the lunchroom with
Jarman and Norman (with Bookout only offering it as a possibility).
The problem is that Jarman and Norman said they weren`t in the
lunchroom with Oswald at lunchtime. What Oswald told the
investigators, whatever the exact wording, just wasn`t true.
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 3, 10:25=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 12:05=A0am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 3, 10:58=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > =A0 You ever wonder about the inclusion of the word "possibly" in=
> that
>> > > > > sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone or you don`t.
>>
>> > > > The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
>ne
>> > > > or you don`t."
>>
>ITY
>> > > > was there ( conditions existed) for Oswald to =A0observe Junior Jar=
>man
>> > > > and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said th=
>ey
>> > > > did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
>> > > > lunch.
>>
>s.
>>
>> > We don't know if that's Oswald's word or Bookhout's interpretation of
>> > something Oswald said.
>> > dcw
>>
>> > > And if you want to know what Oswald actually told the authorities in
>> > > the interrogations you need to read the reports...
>>
>> > > Fritz: "Said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked
>> > > with him."
>>
>> > No, thankfully, in Fritz's case we have something written *before*
>> > that report--his note, which sounds nothing like that line in the
>> > report....
>>
>> To you, but it wasn`t written to mean something to you.
Anyone notice that Bud still hasn't retracted his lie that Donald Willis
misrepresented the Bookhout notes?
>But, fortunately, it's in English, not shorthand, & the note sounds
>nothing like the line in the report. I don't think there's one word
>in the first that finds its way into the second....
>dcw
Bud is desperately nitpicking anything he can...
What he *can't* do is tell the truth.
>> If you think you know what Fritz means by what he writes in his
>> notes, what did Fritz mean when he wrote "says 11-21-63" just before
>> "say two negr came in"?
>>
>He got the date wrong. 11/22/63 was not imprinted on everyone's mind
>yet....
Of course, since Bud can't have his faith rocked by the evidence, he must
*believe* that the date is correct.
>> > dcw
>>
>> > > Kelley: Said he ate lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
>> > > He described one of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other as
>> > > a short negro boy."
>>
>> > > =A0 This is what he told investigators.
>>
>> > Not necessarily, or even probably. =A0Fritz of the Notes and Bookhout
>> > say something else....
>>
>> > =A0It wasn`t that everybody was out
>>
>> > > to get him, he was just guilty is all.>=A0We know that Jarman and Nor=
>man entered the back door of the
>> > > > TSBD on their way to the fifth floor at cirat 12:25 /12:27. =A0We a=
>lso
>> > > > know that Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan saw a 165 / 175 pound, =
>35
>> > > > year old man, who had a sniper rifle and was dressed in LIGHT color=
>ed
>> > > > clothing standing behind the SW corner window, at THIS VERY
>> > > > TIME!!.... =A0 Oswald could not have been on the first floor observ=
>ing J
>> > > > &N pass by the lunchroom and behind the sixth fllor window ( dresse=
>d
>> > > > differently) at the same moment in time.
>>
>> > > > Is this too difficult for you to understand???? =A0Stupid!
>>
>> > > > Lying> maggots like Oswald will use such terms to leave themselves =
>wriggle
>> > > > > room when their accounts are scrutinized.
>>
>> > > > > > Someone needs to post a copy of page 622......Then we can watch=
> Dud,
>> > > > > > the lying maggot, try to wiggle and squirm away from Boohout's =
>report.
>>
>> > > > > > > Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything t=
>hat he did not put
>> > > > > > > in his report.
>>
>> > > > > > > You're lying again.
>>
>> > > > > > > You can't produce *ANY* quote from Donald
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 4, 8:17=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1cdc6d6a-559c-4645-92d3-135a19e9a...@q29g2000prj.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Sean Smiley says...
>>
>>
>> >> > > You ever wonder about the inclusion of the word "possibly" in that
>> >> > > sentence Walt? I mean, either you see someone or you don`t.
>>
>> >> > The Dud babbled:......" You ever wonder about the inclusion of the
>e
>> >> > or you don`t."
>>
>TY
>> >> > was there ( conditions existed) for Oswald to =3DA0observe Junior Ja=
>rman
>> >> > and Harold Norman enter the back door of the TSBD ( as they said the=
>y
>> >> > did) and walk past the lunchroom where Lee Oswald was eating his
>> >> > lunch.
>>
>> >> You`re a retard. Why would Oswald say he "possibly" saw these guys.
>>
>> >We don't know if that's Oswald's word or Bookhout's interpretation of
>> >something Oswald said.
>> >dcw
>>
>> Yep... that's true. And Bud continues to lie... he's pointed out *NO*
>> misrepresentation on Donald Willis' part concerning the Bookhout report.
>
>I think here he just misread or misremembered what I wrote.
>dcw
I've seen far too many "misremembered" posts by the trolls, I no longer take the
time to presume that they might be honest mistakes.
When you see 'em over and over again, and never an apology or retraction - it
becomes clear to me that they're simply lying.
I think Bud now regrets calling his lies to everyone's attention, but a lie is
what it is.
Notice that Bud hasn't retracted or apologized for claiming that you
misrepresented Bookhout's notes...
And yet, it's quite clear that what he said isn't the truth...
>> Why would a liar claim that Donald Willis misrepresented his sources, then
>> fail to provide any support for that claim?
>>
>> >> And if you want to know what Oswald actually told the authorities in
>> >> the interrogations you need to read the reports...
>>
>> >> Fritz: "Said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked
>> >> with him."
>>
>> >No, thankfully, in Fritz's case we have something written *before*
>> >that report--his note, which sounds nothing like that line in the
>> >report....
>> >dcw
>>
>> Bud likes to pick and choose... and refuse to admit that evidence exists
>> that contradicts what he's chosen to pick.
>>
>> >> Kelley: Said he ate lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
>> >> He described one of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other as
>> >> a short negro boy."
>>
>> >> This is what he told investigators.
>>
>> >Not necessarily, or even probably. Fritz of the Notes and Bookhout
>> >say something else....
>>
>> Yep... And Bud can't admit it.
>>
>> >> It wasn`t that everybody was out
>> >> to get him, he was just guilty is all.
>> >> > We know that Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the
>> >> > TSBD on their way to the fifth floor at cirat 12:25 /12:27. =3DA0We =
>also
>> >> > know that Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan saw a 165 / 175 pound, 3=
>5
>> >> > year old man, who had a sniper rifle and was dressed in LIGHT colore=
>d
>> >> > clothing standing behind the SW corner window, at THIS VERY
>> >> > TIME!!.... =3DA0 Oswald could not have been on the first floor obser=
>ving =3D
>> >J
>> >> > &N pass by the lunchroom and behind the sixth fllor window ( dressed
>> >> > differently) at the same moment in time.
>>
>> >> > Is this too difficult for you to understand???? =3DA0Stupid!
>>
>> >> > Lying> maggots like Oswald will use such terms to leave themselves w=
>rig=3D
>> >gle
>> >> > > room when their accounts are scrutinized.
>>
>> >> > > > Someone needs to post a copy of page 622......Then we can watch =
>Dud=3D
>> >,
>> >> > > > the lying maggot, try to wiggle and squirm away from Boohout's r=
>epo=3D
>> >rt.
>>
>> >> > > > > Donald Willis did not represent Bookhout as saying anything th=
>at =3D
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 3, 10:18=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 12:23=A0am, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 3, 11:23=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Hey troll! You asserted that Donald Willis misrepresented what Book=
>hout said.
>>
>> > > > Here's a relevant quote from the original post:
>>
>the TSBD,
>> > > > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through th=
>e room during
>> > > > this period. (WR p622/Bookhout)
>>
>lis used this
>> > > > quote from Bookhout to misrepresent anything.
>>
>and
>> > > Norman *inside* the Domino room. Willis uses it to put them *outside*
>> > > the domino room.
>>
>> > Speaking of misrepresenting, Bud.... Here's what I wrote:
>>
>> > *alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's
>> > "walking
>> > through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was
>> > closer,
>> > ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own!
>>
>> him of what Oswald said. What was said in the interviews could
>> resemble this...
>>
>>
>> =A0 Oswald: I was eating lunch alone in the lunchroom.
>>
>> =A0 Fritz: Did anyone see you there?
>>
>> =A0 Oswald: Maybe Junior and some short negro came in and ate, I`m not
>> sure.
>>
>> =A0 An exchange like this would satisfy all the accounts, with Fritz,
>> Kelley and Bookout explaining the same exchange differently.
>
>Sorry, no. Fritz had Oswald say he "ate lunch with some of the
>colored boys...." If the above exchange did happen, Fritz distorted
>it in his report.
>dcw
>
> That some
>> exchange like this is what actually occurred is much, much more likely
>> than the amazing and extraordinary idea that a bunch of law
>> enforcement officials from diverse agencies were risking their lives
>> and livelihoods to frame an innocent man (what is there to support
>> this other than a great desire to pretend Oswald is innocent?).
>
>I think Oswald had been delegated some duty on the first floor--
>possibly slowing down cops entering from the front door.... I think,
>collaterally, of course, that he was innocent of shooting from the 6th
>floor.
It's amusing... I'd have no problems whatsoever with Oswald being a shooter,
along with, of course, other shooters - AS THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
But the evidence simply doesn't show Oswald pulling a trigger. When you dig into
the WCR's evidence, when you *really* look at it... it just dissolves away.
>> >=A0Both phrases
>> > suggest,
>> > further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--
>> > in or
>> > near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
>>
>> =A0 Did they say they went into the Domino room?
>>
>> > > > But you can't... you've been caught in a lie.
Ben Holmes
Sean Smiley says...
>
>On Jul 4, 3:26=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 11:24=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <03002d91-dcb8-4cb0-b67f-8c7fb431d...@b39g2000prd.googlegrou=>> > >On Jul 3, 2:23=3DA0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot
>> > >CUT
>> > >> > Chuckle! =3DA0You mean like Fritz's report? =3DA0The same Fritz wh=
>o earlier
>> > >> > wrote no such thing in his *NOTES*??
>> > >> > dcw
>>
>> > >> How do you know? Fritz`s notes were written by Fritz for Fritz. Not
>> > >> so you could determine what was said, but to remind himself.
>>
>> > >That reminds me of the funniest moment from the '08 Presidential
>> > >campaign, when the McCain people asserted that McCain did not speak
>> > >for the campaign!
>>
>> > >And, Bud, we do know what Fritz wrote in his Notes, whatever he meant
>> > >by it. Cold shower, now, guy....
>> > >dcw
>>
>> > This is how LNT'ers handle *ALL* the evidence... if it supports the WCR,
>> > all well and good... if it fails to support the WCR, then evidence isn't
>> > really evidence... or it doesn't mean the obvious.
>>
>> <snicker> You`re joking, right?
Snicker away, moron. The evidence of my assertion is all around.
>> *We* treat the evidence based on
>> whether it support our ideas?
Of course! Are you stupid?
>> Why is dw trashing the evidence from
>> Fritz`s and Kelley`s reports that goes against his silly theories?
He is, unlike you, attempting to put CONTRADICTORY evidence in it's proper
place.
>> He
>> does what conspiracy retards have been doing for ages with this case,
>> if somebody in authority gives evidence that goes against their silly
>> ideas they just say that person must be part of the conspiracy (no
>> support needed).
Nah... that's *YOUR* assertion... not something that any CT'er would claim. The
actual conspiracy was quite small in numbers.
>> > It's a twisted world that LNT'ers live in.
>>
>> =A0 Lets look at the conspiracy retard world...
>>
>> The people who were entrusted to protect the President were out to
>> kill him.
Give us a *CREDIBLE* non-conspiratorial explanation for the stripping of Secret
Service protection that day.
(But you'll simply refuse to admit that any such security stripping took place -
you'll simply lie.)
>> The people entrusted with determining who killed him were all
>> trying to hide who killed him.
Well, they clearly weren't looking for the truth.
Why not explain why a policeman who was less than a dozen feet away at the time
of the murder, and who was looking DIRECTLY at JFK - wasn't questioned.
But you can't.
You can't provide a credible, non-conspiratorial answer.
>> The Dallas police, who should be wanting to bring the murderer of
>> one of their own to justice are really try to pin the murder on an
>> innocent man (thereby letting his true murderer get away with it).
Nope... not needed.
>> Ordinary citizens are saying they saw Oswald kill people, or saw him
>> with a gun running from a murder when they really didn`t.
You're lying.
>> Friends of Kennedy are aiding in the cover-up of his murderers,
>> helping them avoid justice.
They provably did. At the intimidation of the FBI of course, but this
HISTORICALLY HAPPENED.
And all you can do is lie about it.
>> Professionals in many different fields and walks of life are risking
>> their lives and livelihoods framing an innocent man.
Where's the risk? The very people who would have investigated and prosecuted
WERE THE ONES INTIMIDATING EVERYONE TO FOLLOW THE GAME PLAN.
>> Up is always down in the conspiracy retard world and *were* twisted?
>>
>Well, ask yourself who's using the words silly, retards, silly,
>retard, & retard, in that order. Name-calling smacks of
>desperation....
>dcw
Unless, of course, you're faced with a blatant liar. Then you simply call 'em
anything you want - because they deserve no better. Or at least, that's my
theory.
Did you notice how many lies Bud strung together above? I went into no detail,
because Bud knows the details, as do most long-time readers of this forum... but
when Bud has to lie repeatedly, you know he's getting desperate.
>> > >> > > >He said he saw two colored employees pass by the lunchroom
>> > >> > > > while he was eating lunch.
>>
>> > >> > > =3DA0 No, you need to read the Bookout quote better.
>>
>> > >> > > =3DA0 =3DA0"Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunc=
>h room at=3D
>> > > the
>> > >> > > TSBD,
>> > >> > > alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through=
> the
>> > >> > > room during
>> > >> > > this period."
>>
>> > >> > > =3DA0 The only room mentioned is the "lunchroom". If another roo=
>m was
>> > >> > > brought up it would be identified. Therefore, according to Booko=
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
Yep... Bud can't be honest about the evidence to save his life. I'd be willing
to bet that if I held a .45 to his head, he's *STILL* assert that LNT'er factoid
with a straight face...
LNT'ers lie so much - it becomes second nature.
(Still haven't seen a quote of Carrico's to save Bugliosi's lying assertion.)
Bud
> In article <74bffc89-7d4d-4df8-be57-da9629777...@g3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Not only didn`t I retract it, I went so far as to show that he had.
Bud
> In article <8c62cc92-7b7f-485d-a03d-74cbab5fc...@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,
Anyone notice that Ben hasn`t acknowledged that Donald Willis did?
> >But, fortunately, it's in English, not shorthand, & the note sounds
> >nothing like the line in the report. I don't think there's one word
> >in the first that finds its way into the second....
> >dcw
>
> Bud is desperately nitpicking anything he can...
>
> What he *can't* do is tell the truth.
I did tell the truth, which is why you can`t accept it. Notes of
this kind are written for the benefit of the person writing the note,
not so other people reading the note can determine what was said.
> >> If you think you know what Fritz means by what he writes in his
> >> notes, what did Fritz mean when he wrote "says 11-21-63" just before
> >> "say two negr came in"?
>
> >He got the date wrong. 11/22/63 was not imprinted on everyone's mind
> >yet....
>
> Of course, since Bud can't have his faith rocked by the evidence, he must
> *believe* that the date is correct.
<snicker> I just used that to show that dw has no special insight
into what Fritz meant by what he wrote. If you were man enough to come
out from behind your killfilter and engage me on this I would ask you
what Fritz meant by "says 11-21-63" in his notes and you could sputter
some nonsense like he did. Heres a link to page 3 of Fritz`s notes...
http://jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz3-5.jpg
Bud
> In article <a594d04f-9ed9-41da-9ac0-13d29fa64...@y13g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
<snicker> Yah, right. Not to be confused with a retard scouring the
evidence trying to find a loophole for his beloved patsy.
> >> He
> >> does what conspiracy retards have been doing for ages with this case,
> >> if somebody in authority gives evidence that goes against their silly
> >> ideas they just say that person must be part of the conspiracy (no
> >> support needed).
>
> Nah... that's *YOUR* assertion... not something that any CT'er would claim. The
> actual conspiracy was quite small in numbers.
Still another idea you could defend if your life depended on it.
> >> > It's a twisted world that LNT'ers live in.
>
> >> =A0 Lets look at the conspiracy retard world...
>
> >> The people who were entrusted to protect the President were out to
> >> kill him.
>
> Give us a *CREDIBLE* non-conspiratorial explanation for the stripping of Secret
> Service protection that day.
What was the conspiratorial reason for stripping it away in the
other cities Kennedy rode with no agents on the back of the limo?
> (But you'll simply refuse to admit that any such security stripping took place -
> you'll simply lie.)
No, I will point out that you are retarded, so you phrase things
dishonestly. Why was Kennedy in the limo at all, wouldn`t he have been
safer in the trunk? Everything is a balance between risk and other
considerations. Couldn`t it be considered an insult to the south that
he didn`t ride with SS on the back of the limo up north? Didn`t
Hinkley manage to put a bullet into Reagan when he was surrounded by
security?
And if the so-called "stand down" was ordered by someone with
foreknowledge of the impending assassination, why have you conspiracy
retards failed to locate this thread, pull on it, and lay the
conspiracy bare? Seems a natural and easy starting point, yet you
kooks have gone nowhere with it, why is that? Could it be that there
just isn`t anywhere to go?
But these are ideas, so therefore out of your league.
> >> The people entrusted with determining who killed him were all
> >> trying to hide who killed him.
>
> Well, they clearly weren't looking for the truth.
>
> Why not explain why a policeman who was less than a dozen feet away at the time
> of the murder, and who was looking DIRECTLY at JFK - wasn't questioned.
It`s likely he wasn` looking directly at Kennedy. And judging from
what he said to reporters afterwards his impressions of what occurred
really couldn`t have been of any help to the Warren Commission.
> But you can't.
>
> You can't provide a credible, non-conspiratorial answer.
And you can`t show that his not being called was for the purpose of
covering up. That won`t stop you from making that empty claim, though.
> >> The Dallas police, who should be wanting to bring the murderer of
> >> one of their own to justice are really try to pin the murder on an
> >> innocent man (thereby letting his true murderer get away with it).
>
> Nope... not needed.
Whatever that means.
> >> Ordinary citizens are saying they saw Oswald kill people, or saw him
> >> with a gun running from a murder when they really didn`t.
>
> You're lying.
Really? Markham didn`t say she saw Oswald kill Tippit? Brennan
didn`t say he saw Oswald kill Kennedy? The two Davis girls, Callaway,
Scoggins and others in Oak Cliff didn`t say they saw Oswald fleeing
the scene with a gun? I think it`s you who is lying.
> >> Friends of Kennedy are aiding in the cover-up of his murderers,
> >> helping them avoid justice.
>
> They provably did.
Then prove it.
> At the intimidation of the FBI of course, but this
> HISTORICALLY HAPPENED.
Only in the twisted world of conspiracy kook imagination.
> And all you can do is lie about it.
>
> >> Professionals in many different fields and walks of life are risking
> >> their lives and livelihoods framing an innocent man.
>
> Where's the risk? The very people who would have investigated and prosecuted
> WERE THE ONES INTIMIDATING EVERYONE TO FOLLOW THE GAME PLAN.
Yah, thats the twisted world conspiracy retard ideas require. The
problem is that no such world exists outside of feverish kook
imagination.
> >> Up is always down in the conspiracy retard world and *were* twisted?
>
> >Well, ask yourself who's using the words silly, retards, silly,
> >retard, & retard, in that order. Name-calling smacks of
> >desperation....
> >dcw
>
> Unless, of course, you're faced with a blatant liar. Then you simply call 'em
> anything you want - because they deserve no better. Or at least, that's my
> theory.
Mine too. Yet you cry about ad hominem when I do it to you.
> Did you notice how many lies Bud strung together above? I went into no detail,
> because Bud knows the details, as do most long-time readers of this forum... but
> when Bud has to lie repeatedly, you know he's getting desperate.
More empty claims from a coward who hides from me behind his
killfilter, how impressive.
Bud
> In article <f2c1e7e4-b72c-438e-9bbe-5695af733...@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 4, 6:35=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> The last time someone inside the building saw
> >> Oswald was before lunch.
>
> >WRONG AGAIN LIAR:
>
> >No less than 4 witnesses reported seeing Oswald on the first floor
> >between 11:45 am and 12:15 pm
>
> >The sightings by these four witnesses of Oswald on the first floor at
> >the same time Arnold Rowland saw a man on the sixth floor with a rifle
> >in his hands, make it impossible for Oswald to have been that man.
>
> >http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/lunchroom_encounter.htm
>
> Yep... Bud can't be honest about the evidence to save his life. I'd be willing
> to bet that if I held a .45 to his head, he's *STILL* assert that LNT'er factoid
> with a straight face...
>
> LNT'ers lie so much - it becomes second nature.
Retards look at the evidence, and they don`t know what they are
looking at. People don`t go around with a mental clock counting down
all the events in their lives. Retards are always trying to represent
"soft" information as solid.
Walt
> On Jul 4, 8:43 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <f2c1e7e4-b72c-438e-9bbe-5695af733...@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Gil Jesus says...
>
> > >On Jul 4, 6:35=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> The last time someone inside the building saw
> > >> Oswald was before lunch.
>
> > >WRONG AGAIN LIAR:
>
> > >No less than 4 witnesses reported seeing Oswald on the first floor
> > >between 11:45 am and 12:15 pm
>
> > >The sightings by these four witnesses of Oswald on the first floor at
> > >the same time Arnold Rowland saw a man on the sixth floor with a rifle
> > >in his hands, make it impossible for Oswald to have been that man.
>
> > >http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/lunchroom_encounter.htm
>
> > Yep... Bud can't be honest about the evidence to save his life. I'd be willing
> > to bet that if I held a .45 to his head, he's *STILL* assert that LNT'er factoid
> > with a straight face...
>
> > LNT'ers lie so much - it becomes second nature.
>
> Retards look at the evidence, and they don`t know what they are
> looking at. People don`t go around with a mental clock counting down
> all the events in their lives.
That's true....( unusal from a liar).... BUT.... Why didn't you think
of this when you questioned Oswald's memory about seeing two colored
employees enter the back door and walk past him in the lunchroom.
Bookhout reported that Oswald said that he remember possibly two
colored emplyees walked through the room ,and possibly one of those
employees was caller "Junior". Oswald said that he didn't know the
other man's name but he would be able to recognize him.
There's no doubt that Oswald KNEW that "Junior" Jarman and Harold
Norman walked through that lunchroom at about 12:25. And the only
way he could have known that was by actually seeing them enter the
back door and walk through the lunchroom. There was no "possibly"
about it...... He said he recognized both of them, and knew Jarman's
nick name and he said he could identify Jarman's companion who we know
was Harold Norman. That's pretty damned solid information.....and if
the authorities hadn't been focused on framing Oswald all they had to
do was check with "Junior" to verify Oswald's account. Of course
this is just one example of the cops ignoring information and
twisting it by saying Oswald claimed he ate lunch with two colored men
in the lunchroom.
Retards are always trying to represent
> "soft" information as solid.
>
>
>
> > (Still haven't seen a quote of Carrico's to save Bugliosi's lying assertion.)
>
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -