DALE MYERS
tomnln
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b7f50909-b81a-47df...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Upon re-reading Myers' comments a few things become clear. He is under
> some presumption that critics are under some obligation to contact people
> before they criticize them. What a double-standard. How much time did the
> Clark Panel spend reviewing their findings with the autopsists before
> they, in effect, called them total incompetents and liars? I'll answer
> that. Zero. And how much time did Bugliosi spend reviewing his book with
> people like Doug Horne before he trashed them in his book (not
> coincidentally, co-written by Myers). I'll answer that one, too. Zero.
>
> The more Myers talks about this stuff, the deeper the hole he digs for
> himself. By admitting that the Beyond the Magic Bullet image was distorted
> because it was filmed at an angle, he is as much as admitting the hole
> Beyond the Magic Bullet project (pun intended) was a fraud. You see, he
> pointed out a bullet trajectory on this image with his hand, and this
> angle was added onto his image in post- production. This trajectory runs
> 10 degrees R-L, the trajectory from the sniper's nest into the limousine.
> On his undistorted Beyond Conspiracy image, however, the angle between
> Kennedy's back wound and Connally's armpit is only 7 degrees. In other
> words, the added-on bullet trajectory in Beyond the Magic Bullet JUST SO
> HAPPENS to sell that a shot coming from the sniper's nest would exit
> Kennedy's throat and hit Connally in the armpit, when a trajectory from
> the sniper's nest onto this same image, when left undistorted, would not.
Dale Myers is ASSociated with toad vaughan.
Todd W. Vaughan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Rossley is associated with stupity and a dirty whore.
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0c929093-4db2-4ff7...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
ALL in her own words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
You'd think that Dale would teach Toad how to lie in a more convincing
way.....
aeffects
oh-my..... one of our distinguished D.Myers researcher-gofer is
walking on the wild side.....
Someone call your mother/wife a dirty whore or sum-pin, son? Such
vehemence for an esteemed JFK assassination researcher...
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Toddy is associated with sheer cowardice... but so what?
Someday, he promises to refute the evidence he asked for concerning FBI
intimidation of eyewitnesses. I suspect that we'll have to ask his estate for
the refutation...
aeffects
> In article <71cae4ab-10d3-4eef-8f32-cd416326c...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
the ultimate slam.... "I suspect that we'll have to ask his estate for
the refutation..." I think you're right!
Todd W. Vaughan
LMFAO, this, coming fromt he guy whom I caught lying about what
Captain Ftritz said in his notes.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Refresh my memory Toad.....
Todd W. Vaughan
Hey Tort, I thought you claimsed some weeks back that you were leaving
ACJ?
>
> Someone call your mother/wife a dirty whore or sum-pin, son?
Yup. Tomnln has several times. Hell, Tort, he's even directly
threatened their lives. Can't you read? OR are you really just too
gutless to call out one of your own.
While I know all about your comprehension problems, I'll still vote
for gutless.
>Such
> vehemence for an esteemed JFK assassination researcher...- Hide quoted text -
No more time for you Tort, I gotta go change a Healy, er, diry diaper
I mean.
Todd W. Vaughan
Gladly.
AS I recall you claimed Fritz wrote in his notes that on Friday LHO
was claiming that he changed his shirt when he got to his rooming
house.
I told you that according to Fritz's notes LHO said no such thing
until Saturday.
You got your panties all in a bind and claimed I was wrong, I was
lying, etc or whatever...until I posted the link to the notes.
You then recanted, tail between your legs.
I'm not surprised you don't recall.
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <71cae4ab-10d3-4eef-8f32-cd416326c...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
This is a true classic, lil’ Benny, coming from the guy who is now
afraid to discuss (and seems to run away every time it’s brought up)
his uttlery ignorant Z-369 Yellow Pants Leg claim since it’s been
debunked, notably by Tim Brennan.
When you gonna take care of that boner, Benny Boy?
Or are you too busy take care of the boners in your Do Jo?
Oh, wait, I know the answer. We're all killfiled so you don't see the
posts.
Fucking coward.
Walt
OK ... Thanks for the reminder.... I thought that Fritz had wrote that
Oswald had changed his clothes in that first interrogation session.
What Fritz actually wrote was that Oswald changed his britches.
I was mistaken....That's NOT the same as lying, asshole.
It was in subsequent notes that It was noted by Fritz that Oswald told
him he changed both his shirt and trousers.
But being mistaken about what Fritz wrote doesn't alter the basic
FACTS...
Oswald changed his clothes in his room at 1026 N. Beckley a couple of
minutes after 1:00 pm. He told the interrogators that he had put the
dark brown shirt and dark gray trousers that he took off in a drawer
of his dresser. The cops found those clothes in that dresser drawer
later that day.
The FACT that Oswald was wearing DARK clothes at the time of the
shooting and witnesses said the 6th floor gunman was wearing LIGHT
colored clothes means that Oswald was NOT the man with the rifle on
the sixth floor.
You really need to learn to discern the difference between a mistake
and a lie. All humans lie and make mistakes..... You have to learn
that there is a difference
tomnln
toad vaughan wrote;
LMFAO, this, coming fromt he guy whom I caught lying about what
Captain Ftritz said in his notes.
I write;
LIES of toad vaughan>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
ALL in her own words.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
Todd W. Vaughan
You take the cake.
When I first pointed out that Firtz's notes did not say what you were
claiming they said, you called me a liar seven ways from Sunday.
Of course then you had to eat crow.
Now you're all upset about being called a liar.
Walt can dish it out, but Walt can't take it.
>
> It was in subsequent notes that It was noted by Fritz that Oswald told
> him he changed both his shirt and trousers.
Why be so ambiguous with your use of "subsequent" when you could be
precise?
The fact is that ONLY after Friday, and ONLY after they took his shirt
for evidence, did LHO on SATURDAY begin claiming he changed his shirt
in addition to his changing his pants.
>
> But being mistaken about what Fritz wrote doesn't alter the basic
> FACTS...
>
> Oswald changed his clothes in his room at 1026 N. Beckley a couple of
> minutes after 1:00 pm. He told the interrogators that he had put the
> dark brown shirt and dark gray trousers that he took off in a drawer
> of his dresser. The cops found those clothes in that dresser drawer
> later that day.
>
You just don't get it, do you.
> The FACT that Oswald was wearing DARK clothes at the time of the
> shooting and witnesses said the 6th floor gunman was wearing LIGHT
> colored clothes means that Oswald was NOT the man with the rifle on
> the sixth floor.
>
Show me a photo of Oswald taken on 22 Noivember 1963, priror to 1:00
pm, that shows what color clothes he was wearing.
> You really need to learn to discern the difference between a mistake
> and a lie. All humans lie and make mistakes..... You have to learn
> that there is a difference
Hello kettle.
David Von Pein
Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He
quickly put on the rust-brown shirt after stashing the rifle (not
bothering to button it up or tuck it in)--and LHO probably also used
the shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag on his way toward the stairs.
How in the world could "fresh" fibers from that shirt--or one just
like it--get themselves stuck under the butt plate, sans LHO utilizing
the shirt as a rag to wipe prints?
I suppose it's POSSIBLE that fibers could get jammed into the rifle
(somehow) via some other scenario -- but I'm still searching for a
more-reasonable scenario than the one I just laid out....and haven't
found it yet.
Todd W. Vaughan
> Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He
> quickly put on the rust-brown shirt after stashing the rifle (not
> bothering to button it up or tuck it in)--and LHO probably also used
> the shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag on his way toward the stairs.
Of course.
>
> How in the world could "fresh" fibers from that shirt--or one just
> like it--get themselves stuck under the butt plate, sans LHO utilizing
> the shirt as a rag to wipe prints?
>
> I suppose it's POSSIBLE that fibers could get jammed into the rifle
> (somehow) via some other scenario -- but I'm still searching for a
> more-reasonable scenario than the one I just laid out....and haven't
> found it yet.
When the DPD took his shirt from him late Firday night/early Saturday
morning when he was being arraigned for killing JFK, LHO realized that
they were taking it as evidence. Therefore during the next round of
questioning on Saturday morning he changes his story and claims he
changed his shirt in addtition to changing his pants.
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2e276ef7-8bf5-4d59...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> toad vaughan wrote;
>
> LMFAO, this, coming fromt he guy whom I caught lying about what
> Captain Ftritz said in his notes.
>
> I write;
>
> LIES of toad vaughan>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> ALL in her own words.
Your website as it currently exists contains lies.
You're a hypocrite.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
not even a good dance... geez! You need help son, mucho help!
David Von Pein
MISTER CRACKPIPE BELLOWED (without bothering to exhale after taking
his last toke):
>>> "not even a good dance... geez! You need help son, mucho help!" <<<
DVP (a non-Crackpipe-like individual) SAYS:
Yeah, a Mega-Kook named Healy (aka, Crackpipe) probably thinks it's
much more likely that the fresh shirt fibers from Oswald's arrest
shirt got jammed in the rifle by way of J. Edgar's boys "planting"
them there.
Or--maybe the Feds just MADE UP the whole silly business about fibers
being found wedged in the rifle. That's probably what happened...right
Healy-Pipe? I'd go with that answer.
After all, ALL of the rest of the evidence in the whole case was
manufactured too...right? So why not the shirt fibers as well?
Todd W. Vaughan
Please tell us David, why is what David suggested "a good dance"?
What's your take on this issue?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b0055db3-1b6a-4e3a...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He
> quickly put on the rust-brown shirt after stashing the rifle (not
> bothering to button it up or tuck it in)--and LHO probably also used
> the shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag on his way toward the stairs.
That THEORY (might?) be plausible IF IF the witnesses had described
the light colored shirt of the gunman as being a BUTTON FRONT shirt.
T- shirts are not button front shirts. To further shoot down your
THEORY Howard Brennan said that the gunmans trousers were a "shade
LIGHTER" than the light colored shirt of the gunman.
Oswald was wearing DARK GRAY trousers.
>
> How in the world could "fresh" fibers from that shirt--or one just
> like it--get themselves stuck under the butt plate, sans LHO utilizing
> the shirt as a rag to wipe prints?
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.... If oswald had
wiped down the Carcano that was found on the 6th floor with his shirt
that rough finish rifle would have had fibers all over it.
>
> I suppose it's POSSIBLE that fibers could get jammed into the rifle
> (somehow) via some other scenario -- but I'm still searching for a
> more-reasonable scenario than the one I just laid out....and haven't
> found it yet.
If you were familiar with the FACTS....You'd know that the FBI said
the fibers they found clinging to the buttplate of the rifle matched
the shirt that Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST. That's
NOT the shirt he was wearing at the TSBD that morning, and at the time
of the shooting. He changed his shirt in his room a couple of minutes
after 1:00pm. If Oswald had been an assassin those fibers should
have matched the shirt he left in the dresser drawer in his room.
tomnln
Of course.
PROVE IT !
You haven't Proven anything YET !
Try these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Afraid of gettin Burried like this one?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
You're a hypocrite.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY one Proven to be a LIAR is "you"
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
That's why you RUN from these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:9ec76ce7-de81-4c64...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tomnln,
Your website contains lies that have been pointed out to you that
remain uncorrected.
You're a hypocrite.
Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:152fe106-3bb8-4247...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 5:24 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He
> > quickly put on the rust-brown shirt after stashing the rifle (not
> > bothering to button it up or tuck it in)--and LHO probably also used
> > the shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag on his way toward the stairs.
>
> Of course.
>
>
>
> > How in the world could "fresh" fibers from that shirt--or one just
> > like it--get themselves stuck under the butt plate, sans LHO utilizing
> > the shirt as a rag to wipe prints?
>
> > I suppose it's POSSIBLE that fibers could get jammed into the rifle
> > (somehow) via some other scenario -- but I'm still searching for a
> > more-reasonable scenario than the one I just laid out....and haven't
> > found it yet.
>
> When the DPD took his shirt from him late Firday night/early Saturday
> morning when he was being arraigned for killing JFK, LHO realized that
> they were taking it as evidence. Therefore during the next round of
> questioning on Saturday morning he changes his story and claims he
> changed his shirt in addtition to changing his pants.
>
> PROVE IT !
All I have to prove is that he changed his story. That's documented by
Fritz's notes and the reports of others who were present.
It's all part of the "evidence/testimony, Tomnln, the "official
record" that you put so much faith in when it seems to support what
you want it to support.
Deal with it.
>
> You haven't Proven anything YET !
>
> Try these>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> Afraid of gettin Burried like this one?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
Hey Toad.... I think you'll agree that the ONLY interrogation session
that FBI agent James Hosty attended was the first one that started at
3:15 friday afternoon..... Since that's the ONLY one he attended he
could only have taken notes on that session. When he wrote his report
about that session he said ...Quote..."Oswald stated that he went home
by bus and CHANGED HIS CLOTHES and went to a movie."...Unquote. ( see
Hosty's report in appendix XI of WR)
So Oswald didn't change his story about changing his clothes. He told
the interrogators that he had changed his shirt and trouserts and put
them in a lower drawer in his dresser.... The cops found that shirt
and trousers in that dresser drawer later that afternoon.
Todd W. Vaughan
> On 4 May, 16:24, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He
> > quickly put on the rust-brown shirt after stashing the rifle (not
> > bothering to button it up or tuck it in)--and LHO probably also used
> > the shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag on his way toward the stairs.
>
> That THEORY (might?) be plausible IF IF the witnesses had described
> the light colored shirt of the gunman as being a BUTTON FRONT shirt.
> T- shirts are not button front shirts.
You once again leave out the fact the the collar of the t-shirt LHO
was wearing was worn and steteched and seen from a distance could have
given the impression that it was an open, button-down type of collar.
> To further shoot down your
> THEORY Howard Brennan said that the gunmans trousers were a "shade
> LIGHTER" than the light colored shirt of the gunman.
Hmm, do you allow for the possibility that Brennan could have been
wrong?
>
> Oswald was wearing DARK GRAY trousers.
>
>
>
> > How in the world could "fresh" fibers from that shirt--or one just
> > like it--get themselves stuck under the butt plate, sans LHO utilizing
> > the shirt as a rag to wipe prints?
>
> This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.... If oswald had
> wiped down the Carcano that was found on the 6th floor with his shirt
> that rough finish rifle would have had fibers all over it.
And you know this because you've done a micro study of the surface of
the carcano right, and an experiment with the actual carcano and the
actual shirt, right, detailing every nook and cranny that might catch
fibers?
Could you post your report on that study that you did?
>
>
>
> > I suppose it's POSSIBLE that fibers could get jammed into the rifle
> > (somehow) via some other scenario -- but I'm still searching for a
> > more-reasonable scenario than the one I just laid out....and haven't
> > found it yet.
>
> If you were familiar with the FACTS....You'd know that the FBI said
> the fibers they found clinging to the buttplate of the rifle matched
> the shirt that Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST.
Yup, which was the shirt he wore earlier in the day.
>That's
> NOT the shirt he was wearing at the TSBD that morning, and at the time
> of the shooting.
And you know this how?
> He changed his shirt in his room a couple of minutes
> after 1:00pm.
He didn"t begin telling this story until AFTER the DPD took the shirt
from his as evidence.
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:e24b1a0e-8e42-4f76...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Oh, real godd comeback. I especially like the unnecessary use of the
quotation marks.
The fact remains that your website as it currently exists contains
lies.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> That's why you RUN from these>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
toad wrote;
Tomnln,
Your website contains lies that have been pointed out to you that
remain uncorrected.
You're a hypocrite.
Todd
I write.
You're not just a Liar toad;
You're a Criminasl LIAR.
Already Proven by your own words HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
Making yourself a STUPID Criminal LIAR.
No wonder you RUN from these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Deal with it.
Tell the nice peple WHY you keep RUNNING from your own evidence/testimony
toad?
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Afraid of gettin your ass Kicked AGAIN like these?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Da toad is BUSTRED AGAIN ! ! !
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:793db5e4-ba4e-4d50...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
> > toad vaughan wrote;
>
> > LMFAO, this, coming fromt he guy whom I caught lying about what
> > Captain Ftritz said in his notes.
>
> > I write;
>
> > LIES of toad vaughan>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> > ALL in her own words.
>
> Your website as it currently exists contains lies.
>
> You're a hypocrite.
>
>
> The ONLY one Proven to be a LIAR is "you"
Oh, real godd comeback. I especially like the unnecessary use of the
quotation marks.
The fact remains that your website as it currently exists contains
lies.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> That's why you RUN from these>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------н------------------------------------------------------
YOUR OWN LYING WORDS TOAD>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
That's WHY you RUN from these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
ps;
Keep coming back Loser;
We "don't have Nixon to Kick around any more"
At least barber & spencer were smart enough to RUN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard..." <<<
Which must REALLY be a stellar accomplishment, considering the endless
unsupportable/incoherent tripe that gushes forth from as Super-Clown
named Walter Cakebread, huh?
I should be honored.
>>> "If oswald [sic] had wiped down the Carcano that was found on the 6th floor with his shirt{,} that rough finish rifle would have had fibers all over it." <<<
Walt evidently thinks that an article of clothing (like a well-worn
shirt, which CE150 certainly was) would have HAD to shed its fibers
all over an item it was touching by merely moving that shirt across
the surface of the other item (i.e., Oswald's C2766 rifle).
Somebody better remind me, then, to stop using old T-shirts and other
old articles of clothing as dust rags (which I currently DO use, every
day of the week). Because apparently, per Walt's lunacy, every surface
in my house that has been touched by those dust rags made out of old
clothes should now be covered with clothing fibers (which, of course,
is not the case at all).
The only reason ANY fibers were found on the rifle is (probably)
because they were literally PULLED from the shirt by way of Oswald's
(probable) haste as he fled the Sniper's Nest to the NW corner of the
6th Floor.
In his haste to wipe as many prints as he could (although he was
stupid and forgot the trigger guard), the shirt must have caught in
the butt plate in some way, so as to pull a few fibers out of the
garment.
>>> "If you were familiar with the FACTS..." <<<
Another classic "POT/KETTLE" moment coming as it does from an
evidence-
skewing idiot like Mr. PastryLoaf.
>>> "...You'd know that the FBI said the fibers they found clinging to the buttplate of the rifle matched the shirt that Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST." <<<
Hey! Walt got one right! Somebody pinch me!
>>> "That's NOT the shirt he was wearing at the TSBD that morning..." <<<
Yes, it was.
>>> "...and at the time of the shooting." <<<
He probably WASN'T "wearing" the brown shirt at the "time of the
shooting", that's correct.
At 12:30 exactly, the brown shirt of Oswald's was probably lying at
his feet in the Sniper's Nest (or was resting on a nearby box carton,
or on the floor).
>>> "He {POPE OZ THE FIRST} changed his shirt in his room a couple of minutes after 1:00pm." <<<
No way. No how. And nobody can ever prove he changed any clothing at
Beckley on 11/22/63.
Common sense dictates he didn't. (Plus CE150....and the fresh fibers
matching CE150 found on the rifle.)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0270a.htm
>>> "If Oswald had been an assassin{,} those fibers should have matched the shirt he left in the dresser drawer in his room." <<<
What the hell?
Walt now seems to knows for a FACT (somehow) that Oswald left a shirt
in his "dresser drawer" on 11/22/63.
Is this anything like your crystal-ball-gazing determination that
Oswald "ran a comb through his hair" while he was in his room, Walt?
Yeah...it must be that crystal ball at work again.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
No matter how many times you whack the trolls over the head, they'll keep right
on lying about the evidence.
They have to... it doesn't support their mythology.
Walt
>
> >>> "If Oswald had been an assassin{,} those fibers should have matched the shirt he left in the dresser drawer in his room." <<<
>
> What the hell?
>
> Walt now seems to knows for a FACT (somehow) that Oswald left a shirt
> in his "dresser drawer" on 11/22/63.
If you could read.... Then you would also know that Oswald left the
dark brown shirt in a lower dresser drawer in his room at 1026 N
Beckley at 1:00pm that day.
Oswald told the interrogators that he went to his room and changed his
clothes. (The interrogators jumped on that bit of information
because they thought they had evidence that Oswald changed his clothes
to change his appearance) Later that afternoon the cops found the
DARK brown shirt and gray trousers in the dresser drawer just as
Oswald had said. On page two of the list of of articles picked in
Oswald's room the last two items are:....
1 brown shirt with button-down collar
1 pair grey trousers and other miscellaneous clothing.
1
Walt
> In article <793db5e4-ba4e-4d50-a9d6-13af9b7e6...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Yes yer right, Ben .... Von Pea Brain and company are utterly
PATHETIC.
I'd be embarrassed to lie and try to refute FACTS that are
irrefutable.
Surely they know that they are making fools of themselves....
aeffects
> MISTER CRACKPIPE BELLOWED (without bothering to exhale after taking
> his last toke):
>
where did you learn that language... Dad or Timmy reading true life
stories to you again? I'm mean what else is there to do Indiana, right?
David Von Pein
>>> "1 brown shirt with button-down collar." <<<
So what?
What's your point? That LHO changed from one brown shirt into another
brown shirt on 11/22?
Some defense there for Sweet Lee?
If that's not your point...then what IS the point of bringing up stuff
about a BROWN SHIRT being found in a drawer on Beckley?
In short -- It proves absolutely nothing.
And it certainly doesn't do your defense of Oswald any good.
Walt
> >>> "1 brown shirt with button-down collar." <<<
>
> So what?
>
> What's your point? That LHO changed from one brown shirt into another
> brown shirt on 11/22?
>
> Some defense there for Sweet Lee?
>
> If that's not your point...then what IS the point of bringing up stuff
> about a BROWN SHIRT being found in a drawer on Beckley?
Hey Pea Brain.... If you'd take a minute to learn the FACTS.... You'd
know that the FBI said that the FIBERS found on the butt of the rifle
matched the shirt Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME of his arrest. If
that's true then those fresh fibers had to have got on the rifle AFTER
both the rifle and the shirt were in the custody of the police,
because the shirt he was wearing AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST was NOT the
shirt he was wearing at the time of the shooting.
Hey Pea Brain....I could use a good laugh right now...so cam you tell
me again about your THEORY that Oswald tppk off his shirt and wiped
down the rough finish rifle but neglected to wipe down the most
obvious smooth metal surface, leaving someone elses finger prints on
that trigger guard.
aeffects
trolls will be trolls, Todd. Dancing is all they know.... And when
your paid to dance, ya DANCE! No surprise there.... As far as Myers is
concerned, where is his Lightwave files?
David Von Pein
Nobody's prints except LHO's were on the trigger guard, Mr. Kook. And
that's mainly because nobody except Lee Harvey Oswald ever possessed,
touched, used, fired, or handled MC Rifle C2766 from late March 1963
through 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
And there has been no evidence to the contrary to show that my above
paragraph is a false one.
But feel free to skew the evidence yet some more (as is your custom).
Walt
> Nobody's prints except LHO's were on the trigger guard, Mr. Kook.
Of course you know that there were PARTIAL prints found on the trigger
guard.... The person who deposited them was never identified.
But the fact that there were partial prints found IS the very point
which shows how stupid you are.....
You claimed that Oswald wiped down the rifle with his shirt.
If a man were to wipe down a rifle to eliminate any prints THE PRIMARY
area whould be the smooth metal areas of the rifle....and yet there
were partial prints found one one of those primary areas....Which
means the rifle wasn't wiped down, and you are an idiot.
David Von Pein
>>> "Of course you know that there were PARTIAL prints found on the trigger guard.... The person who deposited them was never identified." <<<
I'll solve this easy one for you --- They were Oswald's.
Todd W. Vaughan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt.
LOL!
So simple and one dimensional is your thinking.
In your haste you’ve forgotten to add to LHO’s original claim of
changed JUST HIS PANTS the fact that we know he also put on a jacket.
So that equals well with changing clothes, with no need for him to
have changed his shirt, even IF we are to take Hosty literally and
believe that LHO said he “changed his clothes”.
And if he did say he “changed his clothes”, why would Firtz record
that he only said he changed his pants? It makes no sense, Walt. I’m
sure you’ll agree that Hosty’s notes are nowhere as detailed as
Fritz’s, and Hosty’s report is no where as detailed as Fritz. Further,
Firtz was the one asking the questions and to whom LHO was directing
his replies, not Hosty.
And what is every person in the world to say if they want to convey
the idea that they changed a singular item of clothing but don’t want
to go into detail? That they changed their “cloth”? Of course not,
some just simply say they changed clothes. Surely you know this Walt,
it’s Everyday Life 101.
Regardless, in the end your claim that Oswald “told the interrogators
that he had changed his shirt and trouserts(sic)” is not true for the
Friday interrogation session – Fritz clearly reported that LHO only
said he changed his pants. Nothing you can do or say will ever change
that fact.
Nice try though.
Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <793db5e4-ba4e-4d50-a9d6-13af9b7e6...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben,
I guess you too forgot to add to LHO’s original claim of changed his
pants the fact that he also put on a jacket.
As I told Walt, that equals well with changing clothes, with no need
for him to have changed his shirt, even IF we are to take Hosty
literally.
Besides, Fritz clearly reported that LHO only said he changed his
pants. Nothing you can do or say will ever change that fact.
So who’s lying about the evidence, Ben?
Looks to me like it’s YOU lying about people supposedly lying about
evidence.
Which of course makes you..wait for it…a liar.
Have a good night.
Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
>
> - Show quoted text -
David,
Just as I suspected.
As always, no support for your claim, never a modicum of a discussion
of the facts. Just Healy Hyperbole.
At least you’re consistent.
P.S. And BTW, your Dale Myers monologue is beyond getting old. If you
really wanted to contact him, you know how. Tell us how it works out.
David Von Pein
>>> "Fritz clearly reported that LHO only said he changed his pants." <<<
Which, of course, would have been the LAST article of clothing someone
IN A BIG HURRY would want to take the time to (needlessly) change,
because in addition to the pants, the trouser-changer would
(naturally) need to take off his shoes and then put them back on and
re-lace them (if the shoes were of the "laced" variety, that is) after
putting on the fresh pair of pants.
And all of this would take some measure of time. And we know Ozzie was
"in a hurry" (E. Roberts).
But, then too, maybe we should start believing that Oswald shit his
pants after realizing he had actually killed JFK with his third shot,
which tore the President's head off. (Did the police find any soiled
undies and/or trousers at 1026 North Beckley Avenue on 11/22/63?
AFAIK, they did not.)
Todd W. Vaughan
David,
Even though LHO claimed on Friday to have changed his pants, I'm not
so sure he did.
Why would he make such a claim if he didn't change them?
I don't have that quite figured out yet, but there is a mystery
regarding his pants at the rooming house that no one has touched on
that I know of.
Todd
Walt
Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the bus and she said he was all dirty......
That's the reason he changed his shirt and trousers.....
Mystery solved....Thank you
>
> Todd- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
Walt,
Uh, you're not welcome.
That's not even close to what I'm referring to.
I never said there was a mystery as to why he would have changed his
pants.
Try actually reading the words that I write before going off on some
half-cocked Walt-O-Meal theory.
What I wrote was "there is a mystery regarding his pants at the
rooming house that no one has touched on
that I know of."
And still no one has.
Todd
>
>
>
>
>
> > Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "Even though LHO claimed on Friday to have changed his pants, I'm not so sure he did." <<<
As you can tell, it's my opinion (and my guess) that Oswald did not
change ANY clothing at all on Nov. 22). There was simply no need to
change clothes (IMO), esp. knowing the rushed state he was obviously
in.
Plus, as has already been mentioned, by slipping on his jacket over
his shirt, he has, in essence, changed his outward appearance somewhat
(clothing-wise) right there. No need to change anything else
(particularly his pants).
Plus: How would changing from one pair of dark-colored pants to
another pair of dark trousers have possibly aided his getaway in any
"Changed Appearance" fashion? It wouldn't have aided in that way at
all.
>>> "Why would he {LHO} make such a claim {about changing his "trousers"} if he didn't change them?" <<<
IMO and FWIW -- Lee Oswald might have made such a statement to the
police about "changing clothes" (whether it be his pants, his shirt,
or otherwise) as merely an excuse for why he went back to his room AT
ALL on November 22nd after leaving work.
It was, via that theory, simply a "cover" story used by Oswald, to
cover-up for the real reason he went to his roominghouse--with that
real reason being (of course): to retrieve his revolver.
Plus there was the alternate reason, too, of grabbing his jacket,
which was an item that served two post-assassination purposes for Mr.
Oswald that day -- it enabled him to alter his outward appearance
slightly; and, even more importantly, it served as a piece of clothing
which could help hide the revolver that LHO stuck in his pants.
Without the jacket, I'd have to think the gun would be a highly-
visible item sticking out of the waistband of his pants.
My $0.02.
David Von Pein
>>> "Mrs Bledsoe saw him on the bus and she said he was all dirty." <<<
Please note the "pick & choose" quality Walt displays here.
Normally when speaking about Mary E. Bledsoe's testimony, the CTers
enjoy trashing her from pillar to post as a completely-unreliable
witness.
But in this "all dirty" instance, Walt The Kook is more than happy to
prop up the words of "unreliable" Mrs. Bledsoe.
A typical conspiracy-happy kook....using typical kook rules.
Todd W. Vaughan
> >>> "Even though LHO claimed on Friday to have changed his pants, I'm not so sure he did." <<<
>
> As you can tell, it's my opinion (and my guess) that Oswald did not
> change ANY clothing at all on Nov. 22). There was simply no need to
> change clothes (IMO), esp. knowing the rushed state he was obviously
> in.
>
> Plus, as has already been mentioned, by slipping on his jacket over
> his shirt, he has, in essence, changed his outward appearance somewhat
> (clothing-wise) right there. No need to change anything else
> (particularly his pants).
>
> Plus: How would changing from one pair of dark-colored pants to
> another pair of dark trousers have possibly aided his getaway in any
> "Changed Appearance" fashion? It wouldn't have aided in that way at
> all.
>
> >>> "Why would he {LHO} make such a claim {about changing his "trousers"} if he didn't change them?" <<<
>
> IMO and FWIW -- Lee Oswald might have made such a statement to the
> police about "changing clothes" (whether it be his pants, his shirt,
> or otherwise) as merely an excuse for why he went back to his room AT
> ALL on November 22nd after leaving work.
>
> It was, via that theory, simply a "cover" story used by Oswald, to
> cover-up for the real reason he went to his roominghouse--with that
> real reason being (of course): to retrieve his revolver.
But the only problem is that he didn't deny getting the revovler - in
fact he readily admitted it.
>
> Plus there was the alternate reason, too, of grabbing his jacket,
> which was an item that served two post-assassination purposes for Mr.
> Oswald that day -- it enabled him to alter his outward appearance
> slightly;
Possibly.
>and, even more importantly, it served as a piece of clothing
> which could help hide the revolver that LHO stuck in his pants.
> Without the jacket, I'd have to think the gun would be a highly-
> visible item sticking out of the waistband of his pants.
Not so much with his shirt untucked.
Don't forget the simplest of reasons - it would also get cold that
night, and he might need thejacket if he avoided capture that long.
>
> My $0.02.
David Von Pein
>>> "Even though LHO claimed on Friday to have changed his pants, I'm not so sure he did." <<<
Addendum.....
Todd,
I think I took the meaning of this post a different way earlier.
I'm thinking (now) that you're saying you're not so sure Oswald even
CLAIMED to have changed his pants.
Am I reading that correctly...or not?
David Von Pein
>>> "But the only problem is that he didn't deny getting the revovler - in fact he readily admitted it." <<<
True. But he probably didn't want to admit to having gone home JUST to
get his gun -- "because when a boy has a gun, you know, he just
carries it".
The "changing clothes" tale fits better with Oswald's cover story
intentions....rather than telling the cops the truth:
"Yeah, sure I went home. I went there to get my gun and at least
15 bullets too....because I knew I might need to shoot it out with
some cops later in the day. But, so what, Fritz?! You can't prove that
just because I stuffed my pockets full of extra S&W .38 ammunition,
that really meant I was planning on using those bullets! C'mon, Fritz,
you know how it is here in Texas--when a boy has a lot of extra
bullets lying around, he just carries them in his pocket. That's all.
You know how boys are."
:)
Todd W. Vaughan
NO, I beleive that he made the claim. I just don't know if he actually
changed them.
David Von Pein
>>> "Not so much with his shirt untucked." <<<
Very true. So simple, I didn't even think of that.
(Self-imposed "Duh" time.)
Todd W. Vaughan
> On 4 May, 19:46, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Nobody's prints except LHO's were on the trigger guard, Mr. Kook.
>
> Of course you know that there were PARTIAL prints found on the trigger
> guard.... The person who deposited them was never identified.
Yes he was, as they were identified as Oswald's.
>
> But the fact that there were partial prints found IS the very point
> which shows how stupid you are.....
>
> You claimed that Oswald wiped down the rifle with his shirt.
>
> If a man were to wipe down a rifle to eliminate any prints THE PRIMARY
> area whould be the smooth metal areas of the rifle....and yet there
> were partial prints found one one of those primary areas....Which
> means the rifle wasn't wiped down, and you are an idiot.
Or it means the rilfe was wiped down but in such haste, some areas
were missed..and you're an idiot (for thinking in 1 dimension, like
always)
Or it means the rifle was wiped down, all except for the last area
touched before it was hidden
which obvioulsy couldn't be wiped down...and you're still an idiot
(for still thinking
in 1 dimension, like always)
Hell, anyway you look at it, you're an idiot.
>
> And
>
>
>
> > that's mainly because nobody except Lee Harvey Oswald ever possessed,
> > touched, used, fired, or handled MC Rifle C2766 from late March 1963
> > through 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
>
> > And there has been no evidence to the contrary to show that my above
> > paragraph is a false one.
>
> > But feel free to skew the evidence yet some more (as is your custom).- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Which audio/video tapes can I find Oswald's comments that you CLAIM???
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbfac4b4-b5d1-44b9...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f41f6275-6065-430c...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Which audio/video tape is that CLAIM on toad?
Walt
> On May 4, 9:10 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On 4 May, 19:46, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nobody's prints except LHO's were on the trigger guard, Mr. Kook.
I think you'd better check yer bible (the Warren Report) because
there were NO IDENTIFIABLE prints found on the trigger guard of the
rifle.
So either you're mistaken or you're a liar.....which is it??
> > Of course you know that there were PARTIAL prints found on the trigger
> > guard.... The person who deposited them was never identified.
>
> Yes he was, as they were identified as Oswald's.
>
>
>
> > But the fact that there were partial prints found IS the very point
> > which shows how stupid you are.....
>
> > You claimed that Oswald wiped down the rifle with his shirt.
>
> > If a man were to wipe down a rifle to eliminate any prints THE PRIMARY
> > area whould be the smooth metal areas of the rifle....and yet there
> > were partial prints found one one of those primary areas....Which
> > means the rifle wasn't wiped down, and you are an idiot.
>
> Or it means the rilfe was wiped down but in such haste, some areas
> were missed..and you're an idiot (for thinking in 1 dimension, like
> always)
>
> Or it means the rifle was wiped down, all except for the last area
> touched before it was hidden
> which obvioulsy couldn't be wiped down...and you're still an idiot
> (for still thinking
> in 1 dimension, like always)
A person wiping down the Mannlicher Carcano to eliminate finger
prints would know that the unvarnished wooden and oily stock wouldn't
hold any finger prints, so it would be unnecessary to wipe the rough
wooden surfaces, he would concentrate on the smooth metal parts of the
rifle, like the barrel, the scope, and the trigger guard.
The FACT that the trigger guard had a couple of partial prints on it
is mute evidence that the rifle wasn't wiped down and it's also shows
that you're position was proposed by an unthinking fool.
>
> Hell, anyway you look at it, you're an idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
> > And
>
> > > that's mainly because nobody except Lee Harvey Oswald ever possessed,
> > > touched, used, fired, or handled MC Rifle C2766 from late March 1963
> > > through 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
>
> > > And there has been no evidence to the contrary to show that my above
> > > paragraph is a false one.
>
> > > But feel free to skew the evidence yet some more (as is your custom).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
> > On 4 May, 19:46, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nobody's prints except LHO's were on the trigger guard, Mr. Kook.
>
> > Of course you know that there were PARTIAL prints found on the trigger
> > guard.... The person who deposited them was never identified.
>
> Yes he was, as they were identified as Oswald's.
>
>
>
> > But the fact that there were partial prints found IS the very point
> > which shows how stupid you are.....
>
> > You claimed that Oswald wiped down the rifle with his shirt.
>
> > If a man were to wipe down a rifle to eliminate any prints THE PRIMARY
> > area whould be the smooth metal areas of the rifle....and yet there
> > were partial prints found one one of those primary areas....Which
> > means the rifle wasn't wiped down, and you are an idiot.
>
> Or it means the rilfe was wiped down but in such haste, some areas
> were missed..and you're an idiot (for thinking in 1 dimension, like
> always)
>
Toad V wrote: " Or it means the rifle was wiped down, all except for
the last area touched before it was hidden which obvioulsy couldn't be
wiped down..."
Thank you Toad, for showing the whole wide world just how shallow
thinking you LNer's are. The partial unidentifiable print that was
found on the trigger guard .......And you have just stated that that
was the "last area touched before it was hidden" ... How did you come
up with this asinine idea?? Why would you think that the trigger
guard would be the last area touched?? I could use a good chuckle, so
please explain......
and you're still an idiot (for still thinking in 1 dimension, like
always)
Hell, anyway you look at it, you're an idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
> > And
>
> > > that's mainly because nobody except Lee Harvey Oswald ever possessed,
> > > touched, used, fired, or handled MC Rifle C2766 from late March 1963
> > > through 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.
>
> > > And there has been no evidence to the contrary to show that my above
> > > paragraph is a false one.
>
> > > But feel free to skew the evidence yet some more (as is your custom).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
You seem to be forgetting a "minor" detail.....( as usual you try to
avoid the details) Not only did Oswald tell the cops he changed his
clothes before going to the theater, he told them where he put those
clothes that he took off. They found that shirt and trousers a
couple of hours after his arrest, in the dresser drawer just as Oswald
had told them.
Yer desperation is really showing here Pea Brain..... You been forced
to abandon and renounce your bible. The Warren Report says that
Oswald went to his room and changed his clothes, but now in your
desperation you're backing away from the gospel. This isn't good
Von Pea Brain, pretty soon you'll be renouncing the entire bible.
Walt
> On May 4, 6:07 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On 4 May, 16:24, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He
> > > quickly put on the rust-brown shirt after stashing the rifle (not
> > > bothering to button it up or tuck it in)--and LHO probably also used
> > > the shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag on his way toward the stairs.
>
> > the light colored shirt of the gunman as being a BUTTON FRONT shirt.
> > T- shirts are not button front shirts.
>
> You once again leave out the fact the the collar of the t-shirt LHO
> was wearing was worn and steteched and seen from a distance could have
> given the impression that it was an open, button-down type of collar.
>
> > To further shoot down your
> > THEORY Howard Brennan said that the gunmans trousers were a "shade
> > LIGHTER" than the light colored shirt of the gunman.
>
> Hmm, do you allow for the possibility that Brennan could have been
> wrong?
>
>
>
> > Oswald was wearing DARK GRAY trousers.
>
> > > How in the world could "fresh" fibers from that shirt--or one just
> > > like it--get themselves stuck under the butt plate, sans LHO utilizing
> > > the shirt as a rag to wipe prints?
>
> > wiped down the Carcano that was found on the 6th floor with his shirt
> > that rough finish rifle would have had fibers all over it.
>
> And you know this because you've done a micro study of the surface of
> the carcano right, and an experiment with the actual carcano and the
> actual shirt, right, detailing every nook and cranny that might catch
> fibers?
>
> Could you post your report on that study that you did?
>
>
>
> > > I suppose it's POSSIBLE that fibers could get jammed into the rifle
> > > (somehow) via some other scenario -- but I'm still searching for a
> > > more-reasonable scenario than the one I just laid out....and haven't
> > > found it yet.
>
> > the fibers they found clinging to the buttplate of the rifle matched
> > the shirt that Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST.
>
> Yup, which was the shirt he wore earlier in the day.
>
> >That's
> > NOT the shirt he was wearing at the TSBD that morning, and at the time
> > of the shooting.
>
> And you know this how?
>
> > He changed his shirt in his room a couple of minutes
> > after 1:00pm.
>
> He didn"t begin telling this story until AFTER the DPD took the shirt
> from his as evidence.
Toad, You are either a bare faced liar, or an ignoramus. Hosty
attended ONLY the FIRST interrogation of Oswald.....That
interrogation session started at 3:15, 11 / 22 / 63. Hosty wrote in
his report for that session that Oswald told them he went home and
changed his clothes.
>
>
>
> > If Oswald had been an assassin those fibers should
> > have matched the shirt he left in the dresser drawer in his room.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> >>> "Of course you know that there were PARTIAL prints found on the trigger guard.... The person who deposited them was never identified." <<<
>
> I'll solve this easy one for you --- They were Oswald's.
Ol Pea Brain now thinks he can identify finger prints without ever
seeing them....Yer a KOOK Pea Brain..... Here's an excerpt from The
FBI finger print expert, Sabastian Latona's testimony..........
Mr. Eisenberg.
And did you examine this weapon to test--did you examine this weapon
to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints
on it?
Mr. Latona.
I examined the weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable
latent prints on the weapon.
Mr. Eisenberg.
When did you receive the weapon?
Mr. Latona.
On the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And when did you proceed to make your examination?
Mr. Latona.
I proceeded to make my examination that same day that I received it.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you tell us what techniques you used?
Mr. Latona.
Well, the technique that I used first was simply to examine it
visually under a magnifying glass, a hand magnifying glass, primarily
for the purpose of seeing, first of all, whether there were any
visible prints. I might point out that my attention had been directed
to the area which we refer to as the trigger guard on the left side of
the weapon, Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. Eisenberg.
The trigger-guard area?
Mr. Latona.
The trigger-guard area.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Which actually, in the case of this particular weapon, is the area in
which the magazine is inserted at the 'top; is that correct? You are
looking at the weapon now, and the magazine comes out the bottom of
what is called the trigger-guard area, which would be a trigger guard
on another weapon.
Mr. Latona.
That's correct. There had been placed over that area a piece of
cellophane material. My attention had been directed to it, to the
effect that a prior examination had been made of that area, and that
there were apparently certain latent prints available visible under
that area. I first examine most prints to see----
Mr. Dulles.
Who placed the cellophane material there, in your opinion?
Mr. Latona.
Well, I was told--my information was simply that the Dallas Police
Department had done so. I have no personal knowledge as to who did it,
other than information that the Dallas Police had examined the weapon
and they had found these visible marks on there, that they had
developed the prints.
Now, by what means they did it, I do not know, but I would assume they
used a gray powder.
Mr. Dulles.
What was the purpose of putting the cellophane there?
Mr. Latona.
To protect the prints while the rifle was intransit to the FBI.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, when you received it with the cellophane cover, what portion did
it cover?
Mr. Latona.
Closest to the trigger area.
Mr. Eisenberg.
On the trigger guard, closest to the trigger area?
Mr. Latona.
That's right.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Was that on the right or left side of the weapon?
Mr. Latona.
Left side.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And was there a print visible to you underneath the cellophane?
Mr. Latona.
I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination
disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and
characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting
identification or a determination that the print was not identical
with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the
latent prints which were there were of no value.
Now, I did not stop there.
MY OPINION SIMPLY WAS THAT THE LATENT PRINTS WHICH WERE THERE WERE OF
NO VALUE.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Before we leave those prints, Mr. Latona, had those been developed by
the powder method?
Mr. Latona.
Yes; they had.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Was that a gray powder?
Mr. Latona.
I assumed that they used gray powder in order to give them what little
contrast could be seen. And it took some highlighting and sidelighting
with the use of a spotlight to actually make those things discernible
at all.
Representative Ford.
As far as you are concerned.
Mr. Latona.
That's right.
Mr. Dulles.
Is is likely or possible that those fingerprints could have been
damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?
Mr. Latona.
No, sir ; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the prints just
like they were. There had, in addition to this rifle and that paper
bag, which I received on the 23d--there had also been submitted to me
some photographs which had been taken by the Dallas Police Department,
at least alleged to have been taken by them, of these prints on this
trigger guard which they developed. I examined the photographs very
closely and I still could not determine any latent value in the
photograph.
robcap...@netscape.com
"Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He
quickly put on the rust-brown shirt after stashing the rifle (not
bothering to button it up or tuck it in)--and LHO probably also used
the shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag on his way toward the stairs."
So now DVP is saying he wiped a gun clean, put his shirt back on and
then found a place to stash the rifle, AND ran down multiple flights
of stairs, AND purchased a coke all in 90 seconds. LHO meet "The
Flash."
"How in the world could "fresh" fibers from that shirt--or one just
like it--get themselves stuck under the butt plate, sans LHO utilizing
the shirt as a rag to wipe prints?"
Like you don't know, come on. Someone rubbing the shirt on the rifle
later on is the likely scenario IF fibers were really found, but like
most of the "evidence" claimed to be so this is something we DON'T
know for a fact.
"I suppose it's POSSIBLE that fibers could get jammed into the rifle
(somehow) via some other scenario -- but I'm still searching for a
more-reasonable scenario than the one I just laid out....and haven't
found it yet."
Please, like you really have given it some thought. The fibers were
planted or claimed to have been found is the likely scenarios. There
is no other explanation since the fibers matched a shirt he was NOT
wearing at the time of the shooting.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 4, 2:07 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2e276ef7-8bf5-4d59...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 3, 3:35 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 3 May, 00:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In case McAdams don't post this one.
>
> > > > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:b7f50909-b81a-47df...@r9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > Upon re-reading Myers' comments a few things become clear. He is under
> > > > > some presumption that critics are under some obligation to contact
> > > > > people
> > > > > before they criticize them. What a double-standard. How much time did
> > > > > the
> > > > > Clark Panel spend reviewing their findings with the autopsists before
> > > > > they, in effect, called them total incompetents and liars? I'll answer
> > > > > that. Zero. And how much time did Bugliosi spend reviewing his book
> > > > > with
> > > > > people like Doug Horne before he trashed them in his book (not
> > > > > coincidentally, co-written by Myers). I'll answer that one, too. Zero.
>
> > > > > The more Myers talks about this stuff, the deeper the hole he digs for
> > > > > himself. By admitting that the Beyond the Magic Bullet image was
> > > > > distorted
> > > > > because it was filmed at an angle, he is as much as admitting the hole
> > > > > Beyond the Magic Bullet project (pun intended) was a fraud. You see,
> > > > > he
> > > > > pointed out a bullet trajectory on this image with his hand, and this
> > > > > angle was added onto his image in post- production. This trajectory
> > > > > runs
> > > > > 10 degrees R-L, the trajectory from the sniper's nest into the
> > > > > limousine.
> > > > > On his undistorted Beyond Conspiracy image, however, the angle between
> > > > > Kennedy's back wound and Connally's armpit is only 7 degrees. In other
> > > > > words, the added-on bullet trajectory in Beyond the Magic Bullet JUST
> > > > > SO
> > > > > HAPPENS to sell that a shot coming from the sniper's nest would exit
> > > > > Kennedy's throat and hit Connally in the armpit, when a trajectory
> > > > > from
> > > > > the sniper's nest onto this same image, when left undistorted, would
> > > > > not.
>
> > > > Dale Myers is ASSociated with toad vaughan.
>
> > > You'd think that Dale would teach Toad how to lie in a more convincing
> > > way.....
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > toad vaughan wrote;
>
> > LMFAO, this, coming fromt he guy whom I caught lying about what
> > Captain Ftritz said in his notes.
>
> > I write;
>
> > LIES of toad vaughan>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> > ALL in her own words.
>
"Your website as it currently exists contains lies."
Prove it. Let's see some facts showing his information is lies.
>
> You're a hypocrite.
>
>
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Yes yer right Fritz did say in his hand scribbled notes that Oswald
changed his "britches". Fritz was a bumpkin, who was not the most
articulate person in Texas. Who knows what he meant by the term
"britches".... Hosty was far more educated, and articulate, and he
said that Oswald told them he changed his clothes. And since the cops
found BOTH a brown shirt and a pair of gray trousers in the dresser
drawer a reasonable person would conclude that Hosty's report is the
more factual.....
Your simply showing your desperation by trying to change the facts....
>
> Nice try though.
>
> Todd- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
Don't tell me DVP is admitting that the WCR is *WRONG?*
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>>
>> > On 4 May, 16:24, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Oswald very likely shot JFK while wearing only his white T-shirt. He
>> > > quickly put on the rust-brown shirt after stashing the rifle (not
>> > > bothering to button it up or tuck it in)--and LHO probably also used
>> > > the shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag on his way toward the stairs.
>>
>> > That THEORY (might?) be plausible IF IF the witnesses had described
>> > the light colored shirt of the gunman as being a BUTTON FRONT shirt.
>> > T- shirts are not button front shirts.
>>
>> You once again leave out the fact the the collar of the t-shirt LHO
>> was wearing was worn and steteched and seen from a distance could have
>> given the impression that it was an open, button-down type of collar.
>>
>> > THEORY Howard Brennan said that the gunmans trousers were a "shade
>> > LIGHTER" than the light colored shirt of the gunman.
>>
>> Hmm, do you allow for the possibility that Brennan could have been
>> wrong?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Oswald was wearing DARK GRAY trousers.
>>
>> > > How in the world could "fresh" fibers from that shirt--or one just
>
>> > > the shirt as a rag to wipe prints?
>>
>> > This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.... If oswald had
>> > wiped down the Carcano that was found on the 6th floor with his shirt
>> > that rough finish rifle would have had fibers all over it.
>>
>> And you know this because you've done a micro study of the surface of
>> the carcano right, and an experiment with the actual carcano and the
>> actual shirt, right, detailing every nook and cranny that might catch
>> fibers?
>>
>> Could you post your report on that study that you did?
>>
>>
>>
>> > > I suppose it's POSSIBLE that fibers could get jammed into the rifle
>> > > (somehow) via some other scenario -- but I'm still searching for a
>> > > more-reasonable scenario than the one I just laid out....and haven't
>> > > found it yet.
>>
>> > If you were familiar with the FACTS....You'd know that the FBI said
>> > the fibers they found clinging to the buttplate of the rifle matched
>>
>> Yup, which was the shirt he wore earlier in the day.
>>
>> >That's
>> > NOT the shirt he was wearing at the TSBD that morning, and at the time
>> > of the shooting.
>>
>> And you know this how?
>>
>> > after 1:00pm. =A0
>>
>> He didn"t begin telling this story until AFTER the DPD took the shirt
>> from his as evidence.
>
>Toad, You are either a bare faced liar, or an ignoramus. Hosty
>attended ONLY the FIRST interrogation of Oswald.....That
>interrogation session started at 3:15, 11 / 22 / 63. Hosty wrote in
>his report for that session that Oswald told them he went home and
>changed his clothes.
Toddy's been lying for so long that he no longer realizes what's truth, and
what's the mythology he believes.
>> > If Oswald had been an assassin those fibers should
>> > have matched the shirt he left in the dresser drawer in his room.- Hide =
Todd W. Vaughan
You're really behind the curve on this one Walt.
It's because of the "lay" of the fingerprints on the left side of the
trigger housing. It gives one an insight as to how the rifle was last
handled as it was placed where it was found, especially when combined
with a clue from the paraffin tests.
Don't worry Walt, I don't expect you to understand or believe it.
You're too much of a one dimensional thinker.
Todd W. Vaughan
> On 4 May, 22:42, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 9:10 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 4 May, 19:46, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Nobody's prints except LHO's were on the trigger guard, Mr. Kook.
>
> I think you'd better check yer bible (the Warren Report) because
> there were NO IDENTIFIABLE prints found on the trigger guard of the
> rifle.
> So either you're mistaken or you're a liar.....which is it??
Neither. The FBI, who reported this to the WC had only 2 photographs
of the prints to work with.
But when you have ALL 5 of tthe photographs of the prints to work
with, and use ALL of them in the comparison process, the prints are
idenfied as LHO's.
I take it your don't have the book First Day Evidence, and/or that you
missed the Frontline show. Otherwise you'd be aware of these facts.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Of course you know that there were PARTIAL prints found on the trigger
> > > guard.... The person who deposited them was never identified.
>
> > Yes he was, as they were identified as Oswald's.
>
> > > But the fact that there were partial prints found IS the very point
> > > which shows how stupid you are.....
>
> > > You claimed that Oswald wiped down the rifle with his shirt.
>
> > > If a man were to wipe down a rifle to eliminate any prints THE PRIMARY
> > > area whould be the smooth metal areas of the rifle....and yet there
> > > were partial prints found one one of those primary areas....Which
> > > means the rifle wasn't wiped down, and you are an idiot.
>
> > Or it means the rilfe was wiped down but in such haste, some areas
> > were missed..and you're an idiot (for thinking in 1 dimension, like
> > always)
>
> > Or it means the rifle was wiped down, all except for the last area
> > touched before it was hidden
> > which obvioulsy couldn't be wiped down...and you're still an idiot
> > (for still thinking
> > in 1 dimension, like always)
>
> A person wiping down the Mannlicher Carcano to eliminate finger
> prints would know that the unvarnished wooden and oily stock wouldn't
> hold any finger prints, so it would be unnecessary to wipe the rough
> wooden surfaces, he would concentrate on the smooth metal parts of the
> rifle, like the barrel, the scope, and the trigger guard.
Walt, the mind reader - he knows the thougths of everyone, and can
predict their actions for any given situation. Step right up folks,
only two bits.
Hey Walt, what am I thinking right now?
How 'bout now?
Now?
What about now?
>
> The FACT that the trigger guard had a couple of partial prints on it
> is mute evidence that the rifle wasn't wiped down and it's also shows
> that you're position was proposed by an unthinking fool.
Wow, what twisted logic.
It's only evidence that the trigger housing didn't get wiped down or
was the last area LHO touched.
Todd W. Vaughan
When I said "He didn't begin telling this story until AFTER the DPD
took the shirt
from his as evidence." the "He" at the beginning refers to LHO, not
Hosty, if that's what you were thinking.
If that's what you were thinking, it's clear who the ignoramus is.
If that's not what you were thinking, and regardless of whatever you
were thinking, Fritz's notes of the same interrogation that Hosty
attended show that LHO said he changed his "trousers", PERIOD, with no
mentions of a shirt. He (LHO) didn"t begin saying he changed his shirt
until AFTER the DPD took the shirt from his as evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If Oswald had been an assassin those fibers should
> > > have matched the shirt he left in the dresser drawer in his room.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <f9998316-f83e-4bda-9e45-16bce5a52...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Ben,
Good, you want to get into the discussion.
Please tell everyone what Fritz's notes from Friday, 22 November 1963
say about LHO changing his clothes.
Then tell us what Fritz's notes from Saturday, 23 November 1963 say
about LHO changing his clothes.
That will get us started and we can go from there.
Todd
>
>
>
> >> > If Oswald had been an assassin those fibers should
> >> > have matched the shirt he left in the dresser drawer in his room.- Hide =
> >quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Da toad;
BUSTED AGAIN !
Look for it on the website.>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:f9998316-f83e-4bda...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:c64e9372-ddf0-4ffd...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > toad vaughan wrote;
>
> > LMFAO, this, coming fromt he guy whom I caught lying about what
> > Captain Ftritz said in his notes.
>
> > I write;
>
> > LIES of toad vaughan>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> > ALL in her own words.
toad wrote;
"Your website as it currently exists contains lies."
Robcap wrote;
Prove it. Let's see some facts showing his information is lies.
Looks like EVERYONE kbnows toad is a LIAR ! ! !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd W. Vaughan
Goddamn you're a dumb one. Disingenuous as well.
The DPD found ALL of the clothes in LHO's room when they searched it,
along with everything else in the room. They didn't just find some
specific ones that he told them about and that they then went and
looked for.
The fact remains that on Friday LHO told Fritz that he changed his
pants and nothing else. By Saturday he had changed his story adding
that he had changed his shirt. This was after the DPD took the shirt
as evidence late Friday night/early Saturday morning.
That you fail to understand the significance of this is a result of
your belief that "your boy" LHO is innocent.
He's not.
Too bad you can't see that.
>
> Yer desperation is really showing here Pea Brain..... You been forced
> to abandon and renounce your bible. The Warren Report says that
> Oswald went to his room and changed his clothes, but now in your
> desperation you're backing away from the gospel. This isn't good
> Von Pea Brain, pretty soon you'll be renouncing the entire bible.- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
lookie here... the whiner is still whining... evidently you found
another that doesn't buy your boys WCR... Goddamn your dumb.
disengenuous as well.... LMAO
aeffects
maybe you ought to get Dale Myers here to clear this up.... better
yet, maybe that 20 year old admitted lesbian impersonator, perhaps it
can do the deed for you....
David Von Pein
Maybe a fingerprint expert might know this instantly when looking at
the rifle...but I sure as heck wouldn't automatically have KNOWN that
the stock wouldn't hold any prints. Why in the world would a "lay"
person automatically assume such a thing?
In fact, I would have thought the rifle stock would "hold" prints much
more so than a paper sack (like CE142). But the rough paper bag does
hold prints. That's always been a bit of a surprise to me.
I'm glad the bag DID hold some prints though...because it is one of
THE most solid pieces of "OSWALD WAS POSITIVELY IN THE SNIPER'S NEST"
evidence in the whole case....because it places OSWALD'S OWN FINGERS
at the exact window where a gunman was murdering the President.
And, normally, where a person's fingers (and palms) are located,
you'll generally find the rest of the person there as well. (Last time
I checked on that anyway.)
David Von Pein
>>> "The Warren Report says that Oswald went to his room and changed his clothes." <<<
Where in the WR does it specifically say that Oswald changed his
"shirt", Walt?
And the shirt is really the only "clothing" item of any importance in
this discussion. To hell with the pants. Who cares about whether he
"changed" his pants or not? I doubt very much he did, because it's
just STUPID to take time to do so...but it's totally unimportant, of
course.
aeffects
> >>> "A person wiping down the Mannlicher Carcano to eliminate finger prints would know that the unvarnished wooden and oily stock wouldn't hold any finger prints, so it would be unnecessary to wipe the rough wooden surfaces..." <<<
>
> Maybe a fingerprint expert might know this instantly when looking at
> the rifle...but I sure as heck wouldn't automatically have KNOWN that
> the stock wouldn't hold any prints. Why in the world would a "lay"
> person automatically assume such a thing?
>
> In fact, I would have thought the rifle stock would "hold" prints much
> more so than a paper sack (like CE142). But the rough paper bag does
> hold prints. That's always been a bit of a surprise to me.
>
> I'm glad the bag DID hold some prints though...because it is one of
> THE most solid pieces of "OSWALD WAS POSITIVELY IN THE SNIPER'S NEST"
> evidence in the whole case....because it places OSWALD'S OWN FINGERS
> at the exact window where a gunman was murdering the President.
LMFAO! This is better than Saturday morning cartoons.....
Walt
Yes....It pisses you off that a dumb SOB like me can present facts
that make you look even dumber...doesn't it??
Oswald told the interrogators that he changed his clothes before going
to the theater, he told them where he put those clothes that he took
off. They found that shirt and trousers a couple of hours after his
arrest, in the dresser drawer just as Oswald had told them.
Hosty was there and recorded what Oswald said and put it in his
report.
The next day ( sat 11 /23 /63 ) Secret Service inspector Thomas
Kelley attended the 10 :30 AM interrogation of Oswald....Here's what
Kelley wrote in his report. Quote.... " He (Oswald) said he went home,
changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a drawer. This was a
red shirt, and he put it with his dirty clothes. He described the
shirt as having a button down color and of a reddish color. The
trousers were gray colored."
Here's what FBI agent James Bookhout wrote in his report for that same
session.....Quote ..." He (Oswald) stated that after arriving at his
apartment he changed his shirt and trousers because they were dirty.
He described the dirty clothes as being a reddish colored long
sleeved, shirt with a button down collar, and gray trousers. He
indicated that he placed these articles of clothing in the lower
drawer of his dresser.
Oswald said his clothes were dirty...just as Mrs Bledsoe described
them.
>
> The fact remains that on Friday LHO told Fritz that he changed his
> pants and nothing else.
Not true.....Fritz jotted down that Oswald told him and Hosty and
Bookhout that he changed his "Britches". Fritz simply didn't record
accurately what Oswald said. Hosty and Bookhout recorded that Oswald
said he changed his CLOTHES.... The next Day Bookhout was present at
the 10:30 am interrogation session when Oswald described the dirty
clothes he had taken off. If Oswald had changed his story from
removing his trousers to removing both his shirt and trousers Bookhout
would have noticed the change......because they noted that Oswald had
told them on Friday that he rode the bus home but then corrected that
by saying that he had got off the bus and took a CITY cab home and the
fare was .85 cents.
( William Whaley drove for YELLOW cab, not CITY cab, and the
passenger he took to Oakcliff paid 95 cents)
By Saturday he had changed his story adding
> that he had changed his shirt. This was after the DPD took the shirt
> as evidence late Friday night/early Saturday morning.
>
> That you fail to understand the significance of this is a result of
> your belief that "your boy" LHO is innocent.
I just deal with the FACTS..... You on the other hand try to avoid
those FACTS because you're a gutless liar who is afraid to face the
truth.
>
> He's not.
>
> Too bad you can't see that.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yer desperation is really showing here Pea Brain..... You been forced
> > to abandon and renounce your bible. The Warren Report says that
> > Oswald went to his room and changed his clothes, but now in your
> > desperation you're backing away from the gospel. This isn't good
> > Von Pea Brain, pretty soon you'll be renouncing the entire bible.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
It ALL Started HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:470f82e4-3ffe-421b...@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
must be one of those 3AM I can't find my drugs insights...
David Von Pein
>>> "They found that shirt and trousers a couple of hours after his arrest, in the dresser drawer just as Oswald had told them." <<<
And Oswald couldn't POSSIBLY have known where HIS OWN CLOTHES were
located within HIS OWN RENTED ROOM...could he now?
>>> "Fritz jotted down that Oswald told him and Hosty and Bookhout that he changed his "Britches"." <<<
And to a kook like Walter, "Britches" [sic] don't equal "pants".
Go figure.
>>> "Whaley drove for YELLOW cab, not CITY cab." <<<
Maybe Walt should read Whaley's own testimony regarding this
matter....
Mr. BALL. Whom do you work for?
Mr. WHALEY. City Transportation Company.
Maybe Whaley meant to say "Yellow", instead of the word "City" there.
Huh, Mr. Retard?
>>> "Oswald said his clothes were dirty...just as Mrs. Bledsoe described them." <<<
That's funny...I thought Anybody-But-Oswald type kooks like you were
always of the opinion that Lee Oswald was NEVER ON McWATTERS' BUS AT
ALL on November 22, 1963.
But now Walt (an ABO Mega-Kook, of course) seems to want to believe
that Oswald was on that bus.
Better check your "ABO Guide", Walt. You're not supposed to wander off
into "Oswald Was On The Bus After All" territory. You should know
better than that.
After all, ALL of the "official" evidence having anything to do with
"King Oz Of Patsyville" is supposedly "fake" or "altered" in some way,
shape, or form. And that includes that crazy made-up story about
Oswald being on Cecil McWatters' bus.
>>> "I just deal with the FACTS." <<<
You've just got to love kooks like Walt....if only for sheer audacity
and gonad size (and that's all, of course).
I wouldn't trust Walt C. to tell me what day of the week it was....let
alone trust him with providing any of the "facts" surrounding the
assassination of America's thirty-fifth Chief Executive.
Todd W. Vaughan
Well then, David, let's you and me discuss the issue.
Tell me, what evidence do you have to support the contention that LHO
changed his pants and his shirt at the rooming house?
> Goddamn your dumb.
> disengenuous as well.... LMAO
Wow, original. Jump, boy, jump.
>
>
>
> > The DPD found ALL of the clothes in LHO's room when they searched it,
> > along with everything else in the room. They didn't just find some
> > specific ones that he told them about and that they then went and
> > looked for.
>
> > The fact remains that on Friday LHO told Fritz that he changed his
> > pants and nothing else. By Saturday he had changed his story adding
> > that he had changed his shirt. This was after the DPD took the shirt
> > as evidence late Friday night/early Saturday morning.
>
> > That you fail to understand the significance of this is a result of
> > your belief that "your boy" LHO is innocent.
>
> > He's not.
>
> > Too bad you can't see that.
>
> > > Yer desperation is really showing here Pea Brain..... You been forced
> > > to abandon and renounce your bible. The Warren Report says that
> > > Oswald went to his room and changed his clothes, but now in your
> > > desperation you're backing away from the gospel. This isn't good
> > > Von Pea Brain, pretty soon you'll be renouncing the entire bible.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
Yes, pants, trousers.
But not a shirt.
>Fritz simply didn't record
> accurately what Oswald said.
OH REALLY, and you know this how?
>Hosty and Bookhout recorded that Oswald
> said he changed his CLOTHES....
Don't try to make it look like there are seperate Hosty and Bookhout
records of what LHO said.
Hosty took the notes and therefore probably authored the report.
Bookout likely just signed it.
>The next Day Bookhout was present at
> the 10:30 am interrogation session when Oswald described the dirty
> clothes he had taken off. If Oswald had changed his story from
> removing his trousers to removing both his shirt and trousers Bookhout
> would have noticed the change......because they noted that Oswald had
> told them on Friday that he rode the bus home but then corrected that
> by saying that he had got off the bus and took a CITY cab home and the
> fare was .85 cents.
You don't know what Bookhout would have or would not have thought.
>
> ( William Whaley drove for YELLOW cab, not CITY cab, and the
> passenger he took to Oakcliff paid 95 cents)
Well, there you go, Walt. Another instance of LHO LYING.
Damn you're dumb.
>
> By Saturday he had changed his story adding
>
> > that he had changed his shirt. This was after the DPD took the shirt
> > as evidence late Friday night/early Saturday morning.
>
> > That you fail to understand the significance of this is a result of
> > your belief that "your boy" LHO is innocent.
>
> I just deal with the FACTS..... You on the other hand try to avoid
> those FACTS because you're a gutless liar who is afraid to face the
> truth.
Really. Tell me where I've lied, Walt. Be specific.
Todd W. Vaughan
Time after time now you've suggested I ask Dale something for you or
that I contact him and get his Lightwave files for you or that get him
to come here and clear something up for you.
What the fuck's the matter with you, Dave? You know how to contact
Dale. What's keeping YOU from doing so. Why do you need ME to do what
YOU could do yourself. Are you just afraid or what?
If you want to talk to Dale then stop acting like a little pussy and
go to his web site and email him.
Todd W. Vaughan
> On May 5, 12:16 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "A person wiping down the Mannlicher Carcano to eliminate finger prints would know that the unvarnished wooden and oily stock wouldn't hold any finger prints, so it would be unnecessary to wipe the rough wooden surfaces..." <<<
>
> > Maybe a fingerprint expert might know this instantly when looking at
> > the rifle...but I sure as heck wouldn't automatically have KNOWN that
> > the stock wouldn't hold any prints. Why in the world would a "lay"
> > person automatically assume such a thing?
>
> > In fact, I would have thought the rifle stock would "hold" prints much
> > more so than a paper sack (like CE142). But the rough paper bag does
> > hold prints. That's always been a bit of a surprise to me.
>
> > I'm glad the bag DID hold some prints though...because it is one of
> > THE most solid pieces of "OSWALD WAS POSITIVELY IN THE SNIPER'S NEST"
> > evidence in the whole case....because it places OSWALD'S OWN FINGERS
> > at the exact window where a gunman was murdering the President.
>
> LMFAO! This is better than Saturday morning cartoons.....
Always with nothing to contribute. No disussion or mention of the
evidence, no attempt at insight or analysis, nothing.
You're a know-nothing David. You don't know squat about this case and
it shows with every post you make.
>
>
>
> > And, normally, where a person's fingers (and palms) are located,
> > you'll generally find the rest of the person there as well. (Last time
> > I checked on that anyway.)- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
I supposed you'd know.
Walt
I wouldn't classify a simply seemingly unimportant ommission a "lie"
At the Time Oswald probavly didn't think it was all that important to
tell the cops everything he's done in detail. I probably would have
done the same thing. I mean at 3:15 that afternoon what the hell
difference did it make if he gave a detailed account of his every
move. At the time he didn't realize that he was going to have to give
every tiny detail of his actions for that entire day. If I'd have
been in his shoes at the time I probably would have simply said I
caught a bus home also. ....because I wouldn't have thought it very
important to say I got off the bus and took a taxi.
You can call that lying it you want...and technically it is a form of
lying, but I don't consider it in the same league with the lies that
you support.
Walt
> >>> "They found that shirt and trousers a couple of hours after his arrest, in the dresser drawer just as Oswald had told them." <<<
>
> And Oswald couldn't POSSIBLY have known where HIS OWN CLOTHES were
> located within HIS OWN RENTED ROOM...could he now?
>
> >>> "Fritz jotted down that Oswald told him and Hosty and Bookhout that he changed his "Britches"." <<<
>
> And to a kook like Walter, "Britches" [sic] don't equal "pants".
>
> Go figure.
>
> >>> "Whaley drove for YELLOW cab, not CITY cab." <<<
>
> Maybe Walt should read Whaley's own testimony regarding this
> matter....
>
> Mr. BALL. Whom do you work for?
> Mr. WHALEY. City Transportation Company.
>
> Maybe Whaley meant to say "Yellow", instead of the word "City" there.
> Huh, Mr. Retard?
>
> >>> "Oswald said his clothes were dirty...just as Mrs. Bledsoe described them." <<<
>
> That's funny...I thought Anybody-But-Oswald type kooks like you were
> always of the opinion that Lee Oswald was NEVER ON McWATTERS' BUS AT
> ALL on November 22, 1963.
THAT'S Where you get more screwed up.....You attempt to lump all CT's
together as a cohesive group. I'm sure there are people who don't
believe that Johnson's hand picked "Blue Ribbon" committee handed us
the truth in the Warren Report, who don't believe Lee Oswald was on
Cecil
Mc Watter's bus that day..... But they are in the minority of the CT
faction.
And in reality we have only the not too reliable word of Mrs Bledsoe
to verify Oswald's claim that he was on that bus. Personally I see
no reason for Oswald to lie about being on Mc Watter's bus. He told
the interrogators that he had rode a bus home in the very first
interrogation session, when he was merely relating what he'd done
after he left work, and there was a transfer in one of his shirt
pockets. I've always thought that the cops found that transfer in the
shirt pocket of the shirt he left in the dresser drawer and NOT in the
pocket of the shirt he was wearing at the time of that first
interrogation.
There are photos of the bus transfer which show that it has not been
crumpled or folded. If he had had that transfer in his pocket at the
time of his arrest it would have been sticking up out of that pocket
in plain view.
The cops wrestled him around by his shirt when they were removing him
from the theater, and if he'd been running around Oakcliff in that 75
degree, humid weather, that Transfer would have been damp and easily
crumpled. It shows no sign of having been crumpled. Furthermore
Since the cops went through his pockets to find his wallet they surely
would have noticed that transfer sticking up out of his shirt pocket.
And even if they had ignored that transfer in his shirt pocket it
would have been in clear view for Fritz, or Hosty, or Bookhout, to see
during that first interrogation. Since he told them he had ridden the
bus home they could have seen that bus transfer in his shirt
pocket.
Though there is no way to prove that the transfer was left behind in
the shirt pocket in the dresser drawer, I believe that that is where
the cops found that transfer.
Walt
> >>> "A person wiping down the Mannlicher Carcano to eliminate finger prints would know that the unvarnished wooden and oily stock wouldn't hold any finger prints, so it would be unnecessary to wipe the rough wooden surfaces..." <<<
>
> Maybe a fingerprint expert might know this instantly when looking at
> the rifle...but I sure as heck wouldn't automatically have KNOWN that
> the stock wouldn't hold any prints. Why in the world would a "lay"
> person automatically assume such a thing?
I'd wager that 99% of the men who have been in the military would know
that the finish on the wooden stocks ofmilitary rifles will not hold
finger prints.... It's a pity that you're an ignoramus about what
thousands of others know by experience.
>
> In fact, I would have thought the rifle stock would "hold" prints much
> more so than a paper sack (like CE142). But the rough paper bag does
> hold prints. That's always been a bit of a surprise to me.
Brown paper is pretty absorbant it will readily absorb oil and water.
There is oil on a persons finger tips that with be absorbed by brown
paper.
However that oil will migrate fairly rapidly into the paper and the
print will become just a blob on the paper. Depending on the
condition of the paper temerture and other factors the finger print
will desolve into an unrecognizable blob fairly rapidly.
>
> I'm glad the bag DID hold some prints though...
It DID??? Are you sure??have you seen those "finger prints"???
because it is one of
> THE most solid pieces of "OSWALD WAS POSITIVELY IN THE SNIPER'S NEST"
> evidence in the whole case....because it places OSWALD'S OWN FINGERS
> at the exact window where a gunman was murdering the President.
>
> And, normally, where a person's fingers (and palms) are located,
> you'll generally find the rest of the person there as well. (Last time
> I checked on that anyway.)
Yer gettin ta be a regular Sherlock Holmes.....