Fourty years after the WCR
Tom Di Eva
back to this newsgroup and no one is any closer to the truth.
To all the guys referring to the 26 volumes: When will any of you admit the
single bullet theory just can't be true. Why? Bullets that hit bones
shatter, they deform, they mushroom, they fragment, what they don't do is
stay in one piece.
What about Ruby's interview? The one where he says it's bigger than him and
we will never know the truth about what happened.
C'mon guys! The 26 volumes were written to pacify a grieving nation. The
House Select Committee on Assasinations exposed the WCR as having many
flaws. Wasn't there an acoustics expert that said there was a 95% or better
chance a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
No matter what you say about Jim Garrison at least he challenged the
official report which later on proved to be false. Same old newsgroup. How
about looking at all the facts and letting go of the WCR as the holy grail.
aeffects
hell, a few of us hope the Nutter's DON'T let go.... batting Lone
Nutter's around is the latest cyber-sport, excellent exercise!
Bud
Tom Di Eva wrote:
> Looks like the same old bunch of guys are still here after ten years I come
> back to this newsgroup and no one is any closer to the truth.
Yah, these conspiracy kooks haven`t moved an inch towards showing
this conspiracy they imagine.
> To all the guys referring to the 26 volumes: When will any of you admit the
> single bullet theory just can't be true. Why? Bullets that hit bones
> shatter, they deform, they mushroom, they fragment, what they don't do is
> stay in one piece.
Funny, other kooks are arguimg that the bullet that hit JFK`s skull
should not have broken up.
> What about Ruby's interview? The one where he says it's bigger than him and
> we will never know the truth about what happened.
The one where he worries that people will think he killed Oz on
behalf of interests of those who killed JFK? You know, the kook
position.
> C'mon guys! The 26 volumes were written to pacify a grieving nation.
Was that their mandate?
> The
> House Select Committee on Assasinations exposed the WCR as having many
> flaws. Wasn't there an acoustics expert that said there was a 95% or better
> chance a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
Since discredited.
> No matter what you say about Jim Garrison at least he challenged the
> official report which later on proved to be false.
He also showed how well conspiracy crap plays to a jury.
>Same old newsgroup. How
> about looking at all the facts and letting go of the WCR as the holy grail.
Any investigation worth the name would have concluded that Oz
killed two people that day. Kooks would have an investigation that
chased shadows forever.
Gil Jesus
> Looks like the same old bunch of guys are still here after ten years I come
> back to this newsgroup and no one is any closer to the truth.
>
> To all the guys referring to the 26 volumes: When will any of you admit the
> single bullet theory just can't be true. Why? Bullets that hit bones
> shatter, they deform, they mushroom, they fragment, what they don't do is
> stay in one piece.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzjW4gdMaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY
> What about Ruby's interview? The one where he says it's bigger than him and
> we will never know the truth about what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
> C'mon guys! The 26 volumes were written to pacify a grieving nation. The
> House Select Committee on Assasinations exposed the WCR as having many
> flaws. Wasn't there an acoustics expert that said there was a 95% or better
> chance a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspWgqJApYA
> No matter what you say about Jim Garrison at least he challenged the
> official report which later on proved to be false. Same old newsgroup. How
> about looking at all the facts and letting go of the WCR as the holy grail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7gQ4wy_ShE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1l3m3bfsS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6nDIxXIDDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLEhvT1tbII
Video links added to Mr. DiEva's posting.
http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
justm...@gmail.com
> On Oct 27, 12:54?am, "Tom Di Eva" <tomd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Looks like the same old bunch of guys are still here after ten years I come
> > back to this newsgroup and no one is any closer to the truth.
>
> > To all the guys referring to the 26 volumes: When will any of you admit the
> > single bullet theory just can't be true. Why? Bullets that hit bones
> > shatter, they deform, they mushroom, they fragment, what they don't do is
> > stay in one piece.
>
>
> > What about Ruby's interview? The one where he says it's bigger than him and
> > we will never know the truth about what happened.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
>
> > C'mon guys! The 26 volumes were written to pacify a grieving nation. The
> > House Select Committee on Assasinations exposed the WCR as having many
> > flaws. Wasn't there an acoustics expert that said there was a 95% or better
> > chance a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspWgqJApYA
>
> > No matter what you say about Jim Garrison at least he challenged the
> > official report which later on proved to be false. Same old newsgroup. How
> > about looking at all the facts and letting go of the WCR as the holy grail.
>
How sweet, I bet he feels real special now knowing that you've added
your worthless 2 cents to his post.
aeffects
wrote:
> On Oct 27, 6:06 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 12:54?am, "Tom Di Eva" <tomd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Looks like the same old bunch of guys are still here after ten years I come
> > > back to this newsgroup and no one is any closer to the truth.
>
> > > To all the guys referring to the 26 volumes: When will any of you admit the
> > > single bullet theory just can't be true. Why? Bullets that hit bones
> > > shatter, they deform, they mushroom, they fragment, what they don't do is
> > > stay in one piece.
>
>
> > > What about Ruby's interview? The one where he says it's bigger than him and
> > > we will never know the truth about what happened.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
>
> > > C'mon guys! The 26 volumes were written to pacify a grieving nation. The
> > > House Select Committee on Assasinations exposed the WCR as having many
> > > flaws. Wasn't there an acoustics expert that said there was a 95% or better
> > > chance a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspWgqJApYA
>
> > > No matter what you say about Jim Garrison at least he challenged the
> > > official report which later on proved to be false. Same old newsgroup. How
> > > about looking at all the facts and letting go of the WCR as the holy grail.
>
>
> > Video links added to Mr. DiEva's posting.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
> How sweet, I bet he feels real special now knowing that you've added
> your worthless 2 cents to his post.
yep, nothing like hearing it from a source, eh, hon? Knocks you
Nutter's right out of the box (pardon the pun).... tsk-tsk
robc...@netscape.com
> Tom Di Eva wrote:
> > Looks like the same old bunch of guys are still here after ten years I come
> > back to this newsgroup and no one is any closer to the truth.
>
> Yah, these conspiracy kooks haven`t moved an inch towards showing
> this conspiracy they imagine.
I do you show or tell anything to people who are deaf, dumb and
blind? You LNers don't have a magic bullet to stand on.
>
> > To all the guys referring to the 26 volumes: When will any of you admit the
> > single bullet theory just can't be true. Why? Bullets that hit bones
> > shatter, they deform, they mushroom, they fragment, what they don't do is
> > stay in one piece.
>
> Funny, other kooks are arguimg that the bullet that hit JFK`s skull
> should not have broken up.
You did't even understand what we were saying, do you? This is why
you are snowed by the WCR because you can't comprehend anything for
yourself. The discussion on that post was, why did one bullet hit two
people and cause 7 wounds including shatter two bones and come out
virtually intact, while the other bullet from the same batch and gun
hit a skull bone and shattered totally? Other than the assassin
dipping the one bullet in "magic formula" I can't think of one.
> > What about Ruby's interview? The one where he says it's bigger than him and
> > we will never know the truth about what happened.
>
> The one where he worries that people will think he killed Oz on
> behalf of interests of those who killed JFK? You know, the kook
> position.
Answer some question for me. Why did the two reporters and his first
lawyer who were in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 prior to the shooting
of LHO all die so quickly? One was killed by a chop to the neck. Why
did the judge and two A.D.A.s that handled the Ruby case all die
strangely too? If Ruby was so innocent and just protecting Jackie,
why all the deaths? You won't answer but I thought I'd get it out
there anyway. Facts like these make you guys run, blabber insults or
just skip the reply.
>
> > C'mon guys! The 26 volumes were written to pacify a grieving nation.
>
> Was that their mandate?
Of course not, their mandate was to not investigate or follow any
leads that showed anyone other than LHO doing it. See Hoover/
Katzenbach memo.
>
> > The
> > House Select Committee on Assasinations exposed the WCR as having many
> > flaws. Wasn't there an acoustics expert that said there was a 95% or better
> > chance a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
>
> Since discredited.
By who? If they had not put that last bit in at the last minute about
the fourth shot you guys would be blowing HSCA trumpets all the time.
>
> > No matter what you say about Jim Garrison at least he challenged the
> > official report which later on proved to be false.
>
> He also showed how well conspiracy crap plays to a jury.
Really, I thought Clay Shaw got off.
>
> >Same old newsgroup. How
> > about looking at all the facts and letting go of the WCR as the holy grail.
>
> Any investigation worth the name would have concluded that Oz
> killed two people that day. Kooks would have an investigation that
> chased shadows forever.
Like the WC's investigation where the flow of information was
controlled by Dulles and Hoover?
David Von Pein
>>> "See...Katzenbach memo." <<<
The 11/25/63 Katzenbach memo says that "ALL THE FACTS" re. Oswald and
the assassination should be MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.
Some "cover-up" memo that was, huh?
Another interesting non-conspiratorial portion of the Katzenbach memo
is this part......
"I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as
soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination."
Do CTers think that Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach was
really talking in some kind of secret "code" or something when he said
that a "complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination" should be made public "as soon as possible"?
I.E., Was Katzenbach REALLY saying that only a "phony" or a "fake" FBI
report re. Oswald and the assassination should be made public? Because
if Katzenbach really knew about Oswald's rumored involvement with the
FBI (and CIA), and Katz was "in" on some cover-up operation from the
get-go, he certainly wouldn't REALLY want the FBI to release a
"complete and thorough" report re. Oswald...now would he?
Vincent Bugliosi puts it this way in his JFK book......
"The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and
Warren's desire to squelch RUMORS that had no basis in fact into
Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the FACTS of the
assassination.
"But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then
that they had to spell out that ONLY false rumors, rumors without a
stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the
benefit of the American public?
"How could they have known back then that there would actually
be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald
Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding
to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a
conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be
intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature
of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their
good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vince
Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History"
The Katz memo......
Footnote -- Full credit needs to go to Bud here for emphasizing in his
previous posts the Katz memo's "All the facts" language. An excellent
observation, as are all of Bud's kook-smashing observations.
Of course, I suppose the CT-Kooks will shrug off Katzenbach's words as
just another "ruse" of some sort by the people covering up the facts
surrounding the assassination.
But if Katzenbach's November 25th memo to Mr. Moyers had, indeed,
truly been "conspiratorial" in some fashion, then the CTers have an
even bigger (logical) question to answer:
WHY THE HELL WOULD KATZENBACH WRITE SUCH A CRAZY MEMO IN THE FIRST
PLACE IF HE WAS "IN" ON THE "COVER-UP PLOT"??
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193523717.4...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "Really, I thought Clay Shaw got off." <<<
<chuckle time>
That was Bud's whole point, for Pete sake.
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Oct 27, 4:40 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Tom Di Eva wrote:
> > > Looks like the same old bunch of guys are still here after ten years I come
> > > back to this newsgroup and no one is any closer to the truth.
> >
> > Yah, these conspiracy kooks haven`t moved an inch towards showing
> > this conspiracy they imagine.
>
> I do you show or tell anything to people who are deaf, dumb and
> blind? You LNers don't have a magic bullet to stand on.
I see you didn`t even try to contest what I said.
> > > To all the guys referring to the 26 volumes: When will any of you admit the
> > > single bullet theory just can't be true. Why? Bullets that hit bones
> > > shatter, they deform, they mushroom, they fragment, what they don't do is
> > > stay in one piece.
> >
> > Funny, other kooks are arguimg that the bullet that hit JFK`s skull
> > should not have broken up.
>
> You did't even understand what we were saying, do you?
It`s difficult when you contradict yourselves so. On one hand, you
are saying bullets "deform, mushroom, fragment", and on the other hand
contest that they should do this.
> This is why
> you are snowed by the WCR because you can't comprehend anything for
> yourself. The discussion on that post was, why did one bullet hit two
> people and cause 7 wounds including shatter two bones and come out
> virtually intact, while the other bullet from the same batch and gun
> hit a skull bone and shattered totally? Other than the assassin
> dipping the one bullet in "magic formula" I can't think of one.
Most kooks have trouble thinking.
> > > What about Ruby's interview? The one where he says it's bigger than him and
> > > we will never know the truth about what happened.
> >
> > The one where he worries that people will think he killed Oz on
> > behalf of interests of those who killed JFK? You know, the kook
> > position.
>
> Answer some question for me.
Doubtful. You just misrepresented Ruby`s intent by what he said,
and when I pointed it out, you bounced to a different subject. I`m not
following you around putting out the fores you light. I think you
should stay an idiot.
> Why did the two reporters and his first
> lawyer who were in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 prior to the shooting
> of LHO all die so quickly? One was killed by a chop to the neck. Why
> did the judge and two A.D.A.s that handled the Ruby case all die
> strangely too? If Ruby was so innocent and just protecting Jackie,
> why all the deaths? You won't answer but I thought I'd get it out
> there anyway. Facts like these make you guys run, blabber insults or
> just skip the reply.
> >
> > > C'mon guys! The 26 volumes were written to pacify a grieving nation.
> >
> > Was that their mandate?
>
> Of course not, their mandate was to not investigate or follow any
> leads that showed anyone other than LHO doing it. See Hoover/
> Katzenbach memo.
The one that suggests getting all the facts out to the public
quickley?
> > > The
> > > House Select Committee on Assasinations exposed the WCR as having many
> > > flaws. Wasn't there an acoustics expert that said there was a 95% or better
> > > chance a shot was fired from the grassy knoll?
> >
> > Since discredited.
>
> By who? If they had not put that last bit in at the last minute about
> the fourth shot you guys would be blowing HSCA trumpets all the time.
The HSCA conclude that Oswald, and Oswald alone did all the damage
to the people in the limo. If you want to believe there was a shot by
someone else that missed everything like the HSCA concluded, be my
guest.
> > > No matter what you say about Jim Garrison at least he challenged the
> > > official report which later on proved to be false.
> >
> > He also showed how well conspiracy crap plays to a jury.
>
> Really, I thought Clay Shaw got off.
Exactly.
> > >Same old newsgroup. How
> > > about looking at all the facts and letting go of the WCR as the holy grail.
> >
> > Any investigation worth the name would have concluded that Oz
> > killed two people that day. Kooks would have an investigation that
> > chased shadows forever.
>
> Like the WC's investigation where the flow of information was
> controlled by Dulles and Hoover?
What do you think the "I" in FBI stands for?
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "See...Katzenbach memo." <<<
>
> The 11/25/63 Katzenbach memo says that "ALL THE FACTS" re. Oswald and
> the assassination should be MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.
>
> Some "cover-up" memo that was, huh?
Yeah, it is. As of Nov. 25th, just 3 days after the killing of JFK he
is stating in a memo that it must be made to appear LHO was the sole
assassin and had no compatriots. They didn't even announce the WC
until the 29th or 30th, but he is already saying the American people
need to know it was one guy. If this isn't a coverup I don't know
what is.
>
> Another interesting non-conspiratorial portion of the Katzenbach memo
> is this part......
>
> "I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as
> soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
> assassination."
>
> Do CTers think that Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach was
> really talking in some kind of secret "code" or something when he said
> that a "complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
> assassination" should be made public "as soon as possible"?
No code here, what does this mean? "The public must be satisfied that
Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have conferderates who are
still at large; and the evidence was such that he would have been
convicted at trial." All this just 3 days after the assassination.
And we are supposed to believe they really looked at anyone else?
>
> I.E., Was Katzenbach REALLY saying that only a "phony" or a "fake" FBI
> report re. Oswald and the assassination should be made public? Because
> if Katzenbach really knew about Oswald's rumored involvement with the
> FBI (and CIA), and Katz was "in" on some cover-up operation from the
> get-go, he certainly wouldn't REALLY want the FBI to release a
> "complete and thorough" report re. Oswald...now would he?
No one is saying that here, but who knows he would do what was told of
him. The main premise used to force all of these people to go along
was for the good of the country. To avoid a WWIII, which we now know
was a bunch of junk as he also states in there that they need more a
basis to rebutt allegations regarding a communist conspiracy.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi puts it this way in his JFK book......
Who cares what he says.
>
> "But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then
> that they had to spell out that ONLY false rumors, rumors without a
> stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the
> benefit of the American public?
Do you know what the basis was for the WC to use for their
"investigation"? It was Hoover's report!!! It was completed by
11/24/63!!!!!! They made everything fit this "theory" that was
developed within 48 hours of JFK's death. Wow!!!!
>
> "How could they have known back then that there would actually
> be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald
> Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding
> to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a
> conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be
> intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature
> of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their
> good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vince
> Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History"
I don't know, but the fact they did do all that stuff made it easy to
make those accusations.
>
> The Katz memo...... Already read it and you are obviously reading a different memo than me.
> Footnote -- Full credit needs to go to Bud here for emphasizing in his
> previous posts the Katz memo's "All the facts" language. An excellent
> observation, as are all of Bud's kook-smashing observations.
Ah look, the nutjobs are congratulating each other on their insanity.
>
> Of course, I suppose the CT-Kooks will shrug off Katzenbach's words as
> just another "ruse" of some sort by the people covering up the facts
> surrounding the assassination.
If anyone can read and comprehend beyond a 3rd grade level they will
see the memo is an outline for finding LHO as the only viable suspect
withing 3 days of the president's death. Unbelievable. How did he
get to be Deputy Attorney General? This had to be the fasted "close"
of a case in his career.
>
> But if Katzenbach's November 25th memo to Mr. Moyers had, indeed,
> truly been "conspiratorial" in some fashion, then the CTers have an
> even bigger (logical) question to answer:
>
> WHY THE HELL WOULD KATZENBACH WRITE SUCH A CRAZY MEMO IN THE FIRST
> PLACE IF HE WAS "IN" ON THE "COVER-UP PLOT"??
Probably because they never thought anyone would see it????????? And
we wouldn't have without the years of effort and money spent by people
like Harold Weisberg. His efforts created the FOIA for the benefit of
us all.
robc...@netscape.com
Chuckle time? You get crazier by the day. No it wasn't his point.
Nice try. He said Garrison brought this trail because it played to a
jury so well. My point is Shaw got off so it couldn't have played that
well. Garrison brought the case because he was trying to show in a
limited way that this killing went beyond one man. But after
character assassination and threats to the jury he didn't get the
results we all needed.
aeffects
Davey boy has a very, VERY difficult time with JFK assassination
related facts. If daBugliosi doesn't say it, it dosen't exist....
Ben Holmes
says...
Oh, that's not *completely* true. I pointed out that Bugliosi was too cowardly
to answer the '16 Smoking Guns', and DVP simply asserted that he had... with no
page cites, of course.
So there *are* times where Bugliosi kept absolutely quiet, and DVP thought he
was singing like a lark...
aeffects
> In article <1193608460.806794.34...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
of course.... he quotes mostly himself, no cites needed -- pure bush
league....
Bud
You have him killfiled, you fucking retard. He did answer, with
references to Bug`s book, but you couldn`t see his response because
you have him killfiled. Once more, since you seem to struggle with the
concept, people can respond, but you don`t see those responses
because... you have him killfiled. If a tree falls in the forest, and
Ben has his head up his ass, does either make a sound?
David Von Pein
Why are you saying this? Better learn the case a little better, Robby.
The FBI Report wasn't completed in just 48 hours. It took 17 days, and
was released on December 9, 1963 (and due to its haste, it contains a
number of errors as well, which is one of the main reasons why the WC
decided they needed to investigate the case further, rather than
merely rubber-stamping that quickly-prepared 12/9/63 FBI Report).
But even if the final FBI Report HAD been released on 11/24/63 (which
it wasn't)....so what? The majority of the hard, substantive facts
surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the 2 murders he was
charged with were most certainly on the table and fully knowable
within that initial 48-hour time period anyway.
The DPD, in fact, knew they had JFK's and J.D. Tippit's killer within
24 to 36 hours of the murders, which is why we have such bold
statements being made on live television on November 23 from the likes
of District Attorney Henry Wade ("I figure we have enough evidence to
convict him") and Captain Will Fritz ("This case is cinched!").
And nothing has changed those first-day Oswald-Did-It facts right up
to this very day in 2007.
THE FBI'S EARLY MISTAKES:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7835a5f11f2d5dcd
David Von Pein
"That was Bud's whole point, for Pete sake."
ROB THEN SAID:
"You get crazier by the day. No it wasn't his point. Nice try. He said
Garrison brought this trail [sic; trial] because it played to a jury
so well."
DVP NOW SAYS:
You must be retarded. (Are you related to Ben?)
Bud's exact quote was:
"He {Garrison} also showed how well conspiracy crap plays to a jury."
Rob somehow thinks Bud meant (via those words) that the "conspiracy
crap" brought in front of the Shaw jury by Mega-Kook Jim Garrison
REALLY DID "PLAY WELL" TO THAT SHAW JURY.
Obviously Bud meant just the opposite (which he further illustrated
with his one-word retort of "Exactly" in a later post)....i.e., the
conspiracy crap did NOT play well to the Shaw jury, because the Shaw
jury saw through Garrison's crap and took less than 1 hour to acquit
Mr. Shaw.
(Why on Earth this hunk of obviousness even needs to be telestrated
with magic marker for Robert is anyone's guess.) ~shrug~
David Von Pein
As Bud has asserted many times previously....Ben must certainly be
retarded. (That would explain a lot I suppose.)
The fact is (as I've stated previously, in the 8/19/07 post linked
below): Vince Bugliosi positively goes into extensive detail on every
one of the so-called "16 Smoking Guns" that were created by Jim
Fetzer.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17f7219e09435dfb
But Ben (being a rabid kook of the First Order) for some reason thinks
that if Vince doesn't have a specific CHAPTER in his book entitled
"Debunking Fetzer's 16 'Smoking Guns'", it must mean that VB hasn't
addressed ANY of those "Smoking Guns" ANYWHERE within the 2,800+ pages
of "Reclaiming History".
But Ben is wrong. The "Guns" (which aren't even smoldering embers, let
alone the huge conspiracy-proving "Smoking Guns" that Ben seems to
believe each one of them is) have been addressed in various chapters
within Mr. Bugliosi's ultra-comprehensive JFK book.
Ben almost certainly HAS to know that Vince has addressed these so-
called "Guns"....but he'll keep complaining that VB hasn't addressed a
single one of them.
Why does Ben keep saying things like that, you ask? Well, the likely
answer to that question is: Because Ben is a Mega-Kook who WANTS a
conspiracy in the JFK case. (And Ben's retarded too.)
'Nuff said.
BTW, when giving Fetzer's "Smoking" list another glance just now (and
here it is below).....
http://www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
.....I can state with 100% certainty (having read 100% of "Reclaiming
History" in May and June of 2007) that Mr. Bugliosi thoroughly debunks
each and every one of Fetzer's "Guns" in his book "RH". No question
about it.
I don't have exact "RH" page cites at my fingertips at the moment for
each of those 16 silly "Smokers" (and a few are ultra-stupid, btw),
but I can definitely say that VB gets into the details of each of the
points that Fetzer brings up.
And it's certainly not like any of these allegations and theories that
are on Fetzer's "Smoking" list are brand-new (or "Never Before
Discussed") either.
And I'm pretty sure several of those "Guns" come up in my large "RH"
book review too, linked below (yes, yet again). .....
bigdog
I'll let go of the WCR when somebody comes up with a better
explaination. It hasn't happened in 43 years and it won't happen in
another 43 years or another 100 years. Conspiracy theorists are dead
in the water and have been for decades and most them know it but won't
admit it. They are going nowhere and taking their sweet time about
getting there. The Warren Commision needed less than a year to nail
down this case. The CTs have tried for 43 years to prove it wrong and
haven't even come close and never will. You guys will never learn the
truth as long as you keep running away from it.
Tom Di Eva
since you ignore THE TRUTH. When bullets hit bone they shatter, mushroom,
deform, fragment and what they don't do is stay in one piece. Test bullets
fire from the same rifle all showed deformities, fragmentation, mushrooming
and shattering when hitting just one bone. The WCR chose to ignore expert
testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzjW4gdMaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193657915.4...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Sam Brown
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193657915.4...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Only a Ctist could have started this lame thread. Just what exactly is
"fourty"? It was always forty where I went to skool.
>
tomnln
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47268a52$0$6689$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
HAHAHAHAHA
sam went to DYKE SKOOL.
Sam Brown
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cywVi.457$bQ5...@newsfe20.lga...
Um, I spelt it that way on purpose................
You fucking moron. ROTFLMFAO!
>
Ben Holmes
No you won't. "multiple shooters"... it's that simple. Corroborated BY THE
EVIDENCE.
You've already been shown to be a liar, why would anyone believe that you're
open-minded, and willing to be shown anything?
>> It hasn't happened in 43 years and it won't happen in
>> another 43 years or another 100 years. Conspiracy theorists are dead
>> in the water and have been for decades and most them know it but won't
>> admit it.
Sadly, simply not true. In fact, poll numbers have been going *UP* in favor of
a belief in conspiracy... and there's not much you can do about it.
For when you can't answer the evidence, and the evidence doesn't favor you, then
you'd better come up with something... and you've had over 40 years to do so...
get cracking...
>> They are going nowhere and taking their sweet time about
>> getting there. The Warren Commision needed less than a year to nail
>> down this case.
No, they needed less than a year to produce a stamp on the FBI report.
They knew, right from the beginning; that the FBI had already made up their
minds... although they may not have known that the FBI had decided within a day.
>> The CTs have tried for 43 years to prove it wrong and
>> haven't even come close and never will. You guys will never learn the
>> truth as long as you keep running away from it.
Funny how someone willing to lie about the truth actually can *use* that word!
tomnln
Sam Brown
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
Bud
The used quill and parchment when Tom went to school.
Bud
Tom Di Eva wrote:
> Yes, 43 years of the magic bullet theory. I will state it again for you
> since you ignore THE TRUTH. When bullets hit bone they shatter, mushroom,
> deform, fragment and what they don't do is stay in one piece. Test bullets
> fire from the same rifle all showed deformities, fragmentation, mushrooming
> and shattering when hitting just one bone.
Did those tests get all the details of the event correct? Where
those bullets fired directly at bone, and did the WC conclude
Connally`s wrist was hit directly with a bullet?
Bud
Not good enough, unless you think the WC could have said "One
shooter... it`s that simple". You need to offer explainations of all
aspects of the case, as the WC did. How did people come to say Oz shot
a cop an hour after the assassination? Why was he arrested with a gun,
why did he hit the arresting officer? How did his rifle get to the 6th
floor of the TSBD? Get your detailed explaination of the aspects of
the case that can be compared to the WC`s, or explain why you can`t.
> Corroborated BY THE
> EVIDENCE.
Then let`s see your detailed scenario spelled out, to see if it can
withstand the scrutiny the WC`s findings have been subjected to.
> You've already been shown to be a liar, why would anyone believe that you're
> open-minded, and willing to be shown anything?
Ben is projecting again, what he wrote fits him to a "T".
> >> It hasn't happened in 43 years and it won't happen in
> >> another 43 years or another 100 years. Conspiracy theorists are dead
> >> in the water and have been for decades and most them know it but won't
> >> admit it.
>
> Sadly, simply not true. In fact, poll numbers have been going *UP* in favor of
> a belief in conspiracy... and there's not much you can do about it.
Support this assertion, kook. And while your at it, support the
claim you made previously that they are going up *yearly*.
> For when you can't answer the evidence, and the evidence doesn't favor you, then
> you'd better come up with something... and you've had over 40 years to do so...
> get cracking...
Our explaination is on the table. So far you`ve presented nothing to
compare it with.
> >> They are going nowhere and taking their sweet time about
> >> getting there. The Warren Commision needed less than a year to nail
> >> down this case.
>
> No, they needed less than a year to produce a stamp on the FBI report.
>
> They knew, right from the beginning; that the FBI had already made up their
> minds... although they may not have known that the FBI had decided within a day.
As probably did most of the Dallas police. When the picture of the
man holding the murder weapon was found amongst the man`s possessions,
and it was found he was worked where the shots were fired from, and he
was a political malcontent, most investigators worth their salt should
know who the killer was. Any that sat around trying to figure out how
these things could be true and the suspect not be the killer shouldn`t
be investigating crime.
> >> The CTs have tried for 43 years to prove it wrong and
> >> haven't even come close and never will. You guys will never learn the
> >> truth as long as you keep running away from it.
>
> Funny how someone willing to lie about the truth actually can *use* that word!
Yet you do.
tomnln
Wanna address THESE?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1193742080.1...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Tom Di Eva
Plaza that shows what really happened. Thank you Mr. Zapruder.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1193740345.1...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
> When Tom went to school Abraham Zapruder made a film of the events in Dealy
> Plaza that shows what really happened. Thank you Mr. Zapruder.
>
It validates the autopsy findings that JFK was shot from behind. It
dovetails with all the other evidence that clearly demonstrate Oswald
was the shooter. The only shooter.