info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oswald's "Sole Guilt" - Refuted #2
363 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Dec 11, 2017, 11:36:49 AM12/11/17
to
> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
extremely likely that he owned it.
Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
is downright silly.
Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
scene. The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
the murder happening at 1:15.
The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
the bullets to the gun...
I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
by believers...
Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
Let the running begin...
David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
David's posts... watch for it!
And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
"Dud" lies about it.
> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
extremely likely that he owned it.
Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
is downright silly.
Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
scene. The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
the murder happening at 1:15.
The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
the bullets to the gun...
I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
by believers...
Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
Let the running begin...
David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
David's posts... watch for it!
And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
"Dud" lies about it.
donald willis
Dec 11, 2017, 3:44:43 PM12/11/17
to
1) Sergeants Henslee & Hill insure that the word "automatic" isn't used at the Hearings
After the assassination of JFK, the Dallas Police Department handled much of the evidence in Dealey and Oak Cliff--shells, bullets, rifle, revolver all passed through the DPD. (Property Clerk's Invoice 11/26/63, CE 2003 pp262-263) Can we trust the authenticity of its findings re this evidence?
Shedding some light on this question is another piece of evidence--the first major transcription of the DPD radio logs, dubbed Sawyer Exhibits A & B and transcribed by DPD radio dispatcher Sgt. G.D. Henslee (12/5/63). We'll look at key entries and notations in the exhibits. Almost exclusively, the Warren Commission utilized A & B when questioning members of the DPD.
1) "Shells at the scene indicate the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol." (v21p397 The sender of this 1:40 transmission is noted, in longhand, as "Westbrook-Batchelor/550-2". Apparently, neither of these individuals was ever questioned about this transmission, though both testified before the Commission.
Only one witness was questioned about it--Sgt. Gerald Hill. And only incidentally, because Hill admitted to using the call number 550-2 for a later transmission (v7p57). Hill attributed the 1:40, 550-2 transmission to one R.D. Stringer (p57), for unclear reasons. The phrase "automatic .38" is not spoken during Hill's interview, nor apparently during any Commission session.
From the 8/11/64 FBI transcription of the DPD radio logs: "The shell at the scene indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol." The sender of this transmission is identified as "Sergeant G. Hill" (CE 1974p810). No Westbrook, Batchelor, or Stringer. Does the FBI know something that the DPD doesn't about its own radio logs?
Apparently. The Dallas Police radio tapes "prove that Hill was the officer who made the [1:40] transmission. In a 1986 interview, Hill admitted being the cop behind the strange broadcast...." (Dale Myers, "With Malice", p260).
Hill's 1964 denial re the "automatic" transmission permitted him to testify, "[Officer] Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the grass...." (v7p48) Yes, he's describing the non-automatic pistol which he explicitly ruled out in his transmission. His later admission that he sent the latter not only contradicts his original denial, but also his testimony here that Poe told him about some "dropped... jackets". It also contradicts Poe's own testimony re a suspect witnessed "unloading his pistol as he ran" (v7p68).
Unfortunately, Hill testified on April 8, 1964, Poe on April 9th, and the FBI transcription was not completed until August 11th. Thus, the true story of the shells has effectively been lost to us.
Bud
Dec 11, 2017, 5:00:07 PM12/11/17
to
On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> extremely likely that he owned it.
Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers. Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> extremely likely that he owned it.
> Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
> This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
> NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
> doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
> ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
> any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
> That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
> is downright silly.
> Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
> scene.
> The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
> intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
> evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
> have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
> mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
> place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
> Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier.
> Helen
> Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
> the murder happening at 1:15.
> The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
> killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
> have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
> And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
> the bullets to the gun...
> I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
> THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
> ... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
> testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
> by believers...
>
> Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
> Let the running begin...
>
> David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
> certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
> was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
> truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
> David's posts... watch for it!
> And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
> "Dud" lies about it.
Ben Holmes
Dec 11, 2017, 5:49:01 PM12/11/17
to
You probably missed what I said was "beyond dispute" - that is, the
EVIDENCE for an automatic. That was a radio transmission by (as I
recall) Sgt Hill.
It's *that* fact that is beyond dispute.
Whether or not an automatic was one of the weapons used could be
logically argued... so it wouldn't be "beyond dispute."
My opinion is that at least one of the weapons used *was* an
automatic. I find it virtually inconceivable that Sgt. Hill made such
a mistake.
David Von Pein
Dec 12, 2017, 4:57:11 AM12/12/17
to
Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) ordered a .38 revolver for $29.95. And Seaport Traders mailed him a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver worth that exact amount -- $29.95. And Michaelis Exhibit No. 2 proves this fact:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0318b.htm
Here are two of my Tippit-related articles linked below, providing all kinds of proof showing that Oswald ordered the V510210 revolver and that Oswald murdered Police Officer J.D. Tippit with that exact gun:
Lee Harvey Oswald's Revolver:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html
Helen Markham's Bus:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0318b.htm
Here are two of my Tippit-related articles linked below, providing all kinds of proof showing that Oswald ordered the V510210 revolver and that Oswald murdered Police Officer J.D. Tippit with that exact gun:
Lee Harvey Oswald's Revolver:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html
Helen Markham's Bus:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
David Von Pein
Dec 12, 2017, 6:39:16 AM12/12/17
to
HELEN MARKHAM'S BUS
(AND THE MURDER OF J.D. TIPPIT)....
BUD SAID:
The bus schedules indicate the bus stopped at [Helen Markham's] stop
around 1:26:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11524&relPageId=7
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Vincent Bugliosi, following Helen Markham's testimony, puts the bus at 1:15.
Bugliosi even argues that he knows of the 1:12 time, and DOESN'T BELIEVE that Helen Markham would say 1:15 for a 1:12 bus. (Of course, honest readers can easily disagree with such a silly assertion.)
Vincent Bugliosi would dismiss **even more strongly** a 1:26 bus time... if Bugliosi thought three minutes was enough to dismiss the 1:12 time, HE'D BE TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE A FOOL FOR ACCEPTING AN 11-MINUTE DIFFERENCE.
(Which, by the way, most folks would refer to as a 1:25 time...)
So who's telling the lie?
Clearly - Bugliosi must be lying if "Bud" is telling the truth.
So tell us "Bud," why do you think Bugliosi was lying?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Let's see what Mr. Bugliosi actually said about the "bus schedule" topic.....
--- Quote On: ---
"Although an FBI report (CD 630[h]) says that Helen Markham’s bus, per the Dallas Transit System, came by each day “at about 1:12 p.m.,” not 1:15 p.m., I tend to doubt the 1:12 time for two reasons. Number one, the FBI never nailed down which of two separate buses Markham could have taken at Jefferson and Patton, not asking her what corner at the intersection she got on her bus.
Apparently, only one of the buses was scheduled to come by at 1:12, and the FBI never even alluded to the existence of another bus that stopped at a different corner of the intersection and would also have taken Markham downtown by a more indirect route (Myers, 'With Malice', p.597 footnote 154; CD 1128, p.3). Much more importantly, Markham, when asked by Warren Commission counsel, “You know what time you usually get your bus, don’t you?” she answered “1:15” (3 H 306).
And in an earlier FBI interview she said the bus came by at 1:15 p.m. (CD 630[c], p.1). Why in the world would she say 1:15 if it was 1:12? We know that Markham was not a bright woman, but she was smart enough to hold down a job as a waitress, where one has to deal with numbers on a customer’s bill, and smart enough to get to work every day.
It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 44 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
So clearly, you agree that "Bud" has labeled Vincent Bugliosi a liar.
"Bud" is desperately arguing that the bus came at 1:26.
Either "Bud" or Bugliosi is lying...
Who is it, David?
Who's lying?
BUD SAID:
Perhaps he [Vince Bugliosi] wasn't aware of the bus schedule.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Where on any of these bus schedules does it say "1:26", Bud? I can't seem to find that time shown anywhere.
BUD SAID:
It doesn't say, it indicates. This post provides the support:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/DfAImX9BK7c/K3N9-KC3KGEJ
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Ten-Four. Thanks.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Yep... one liar covering up for another.
Tell us David, why do you believe that "Bud" can label Bugliosi a liar and get away with it?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have no idea why you, Ben Holmes, think anyone has to label Bugliosi a "liar" in this "bus schedule" regard. It seems to me that Vince pretty much AGREES with Bud's analysis on this thing --- i.e., both Bud and Vince B. agree that Helen Markham must not have actually been trying to catch a "1:12" bus. Both Bud and Vince think she caught her usual bus LATER than 1:12.
Why are you so anxious to hang a "liar" label on Vincent Bugliosi at every turn in the road? He didn't "LIE" at all about this bus schedule thing. He was giving his OPINION about Markham's testimony and FBI statements. And those opinions make a lot of sense to me. Why doesn't this VB logic make sense to you, Ben?....
"It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You're a GUTLESS liar...
If Bugliosi doesn't agree with Helen Markham on a THREE MINUTE DIFFERENCE, there's no possible way that he'd agree with a difference almost FOUR TIMES LARGER.
Tell us David - why would you pretend that Bugliosi would accept an Eleven minute difference when he refused to accept a three minute difference?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If presented with the analysis that Bud provided earlier, Vince Bugliosi would very likely have been able to accept the "1:26" timing for Markham's bus arrival.
The reason why Bugliosi had trouble accepting the 1:12 time is because if that time were ACTUALLY CORRECT, it would mean that Mrs. Markham would have missed her bus most of the time (if we're to also accept as fact that she caught her bus at 1:15 PM each day). And how likely is it that she was constantly missing the 1:12 bus because she just refused to get there in time? Not very likely, is it?
So, of course, Vince could very easily accept a wider differential in time, because it would mean Markham wouldn't be missing her bus every single day.
Makes sense, doesn't it Holmes? Or would you rather continue your daily habit of being an obnoxious prick by calling me a "GUTLESS liar" one or two more times before this day is done?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Yep... liars are capable of justifying ANYTHING.
Bugliosi made it quite clear what his reasoning was...
You're simply too dishonest to acknowledge it.
Bugliosi would be ashamed of you...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're nuts. Bugliosi's reasoning in rejecting the 1:12 time is just as he stated in his book....
"I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that [1:12 PM] time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- VB
Now, who would routinely get to a bus stop at 1:15 to try and catch a 1:12 bus? That's why Bugliosi had doubts about the "1:12" time.
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway. And the FBI report in CD630 clearly indicates that "the bus is scheduled to pass this point [at Patton and Jefferson] at about 1:12 PM and every ten minutes thereafter".
So it's fairly clear that if Mrs. Markham didn't catch the 1:12 bus, she could have caught another bus at about 1:22 or 1:32. And since she didn't have to be at work until 2:30 PM, there was plenty of time to spare, even if she had to take one of those later busses.
But it makes no sense for her to regularly get to the bus stop at 1:15 if she was really trying to catch a 1:12 bus. That's crazy.
BUD SAID:
David, I think you are making a mistake relying on that "a bus every 10 minutes" information. Nowhere will you find buses running every 10 minutes during non-peak service. Here in Philly the buses run about 20-25 minutes during peak morning and evening service, and 40-45 minutes during non-peak times.
Think about it, that would be 4 buses running northbound into downtown Dallas and 4 buses running southbound during non-peak service. 8 drivers and eight buses in transit during non-peak service on a single route, the system would be bankrupt.
The Lancaster 55 bus schedule showing a bus every hour off-peak is much more reasonable, and it explains why Markham left so early. The next bus came around an hour later, and would likely drop her off near her work after 2:30.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, Bud, I've got to admit that what you just said makes a lot of sense. But if you are correct, then somebody needs to go and yell at the FBI or the Dallas Transit System, because one or the other got something very fouled up in Commission Document No. 630, which clearly indicates that FBI agent Robert M. Barrett, on March 16, 1964, was informed by the Dallas Transit System that a bus could be boarded at Patton & Jefferson "about every ten minutes...during the afternoon hours of every weekday".
Should we ask for Bob Barrett's resignation? :-)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
The evidence *against* the theory that Oswald shot Tippit is quite extensive.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In actuality, the "EVIDENCE" to show that Oswald was innocent of shooting Officer Tippit is NON-EXISTENT.
The actual "evidence" (as opposed to the "evidence" that only exists in a CTer's imagination) is providing the conclusive PROOF that Lee Oswald--and only Lee Oswald--was the killer of J.D. Tippit.
Only a freakish conspiracy theorist bent on mangling the true facts could possibly even begin to believe otherwise.
~Mark VII~
~Hammer stroke~
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You knew that the time [for the Tippit murder] specified by the Warren Commission was 1:16.
They could easily have stated 1:14, or 1:15... but they didn't. They had reasons for their decision to select 1:16.
And you know that reason, don't you?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes. The Warren Commission incorrectly thought that it was Domingo Benavides who had made the citizen's call at 1:17 or 1:18 on Tippit's police radio. [See Warren Report, Page 166.] But it was really T.F. Bowley, of course, who made that radio call, which was done only AFTER Benavides had been pumping the mike for about 90 seconds. And that mike-pumping began at 1:16 PM.
The Warren Commission was apparently relying only on the truncated transcript of the Dallas Police radio tapes that appears on Page 52 of CE1974, which is a transcript that has several radio transmissions omitted, as well as having a "long pause" of 15 seconds omitted (as we can see when comparing CE1974 with this more complete version of the DPD radio tapes)....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
The Commission, therefore, failed to take into account the extra 90 seconds of microphone clicking and pumping that was done by Benavides, which I don't think was even discovered until the 1990s when Dale Myers talked about it in his 1998 book.
Ergo, the actual shooting time had to be sometime BEFORE 1:16, because Benavides' "pumping" begins at exactly 1:16. But the WC wasn't accounting for the extra time required for Benavides' mike pumping (because the Commission wasn't even aware of it in 1964).
Dale Myers Quote On:
"Beginning at 1:16 p.m., a microphone is keyed a number of times on channel one of the Dallas police tapes, as if someone were 'pumping' the microphone button of a police radio. This continues for a little over 90 seconds, right up until the time passing motorist T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. .... Considering the timing of the sounds heard in the Dallas police radio recordings, and the corroborating accounts of three witnesses, the murder of Tippit probably occurred about 90 seconds prior to Benavides' bungled attempt to notify the dispatcher. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that J.D. Tippit was shot at approximately 1:14:30 p.m." -- Dale K. Myers; Pages 86-87 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit"
BEN HOLMES SAID:
IT'S **STILL** A FACT THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION PUT THE MURDER OF TIPPIT AT 1:16.
BUD SAID:
I put it a minute or so later. I think the time was a lot closer to 1:18 than 1:16.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't think that's possible, Bud. Domingo Benavides was already inside Tippit's patrol car "clicking" the mike on the radio by 1:16. And Bowley's radio call was at approximately 1:17:45 to 1:18, so Bowley TOO was using the radio by 1:18 (and only AFTER Benavides' bungled attempt to use that same radio).
So the murder had to have occurred prior to 1:16. Exactly how long before 1:16 is the hard thing to figure out. Benavides wasn't timing his every move that day, so we can never know for sure exactly how long it took him to get inside Tippit's car after the murder occurred, but Benavides did tell the Warren Commission that he stayed in his truck for "a few minutes" after the shooting took place....
"I set [sic] there for just a few minutes to kind of, I thought he went in back of the house or something. At the time, I thought maybe he might have lived in there and I didn't want to get out and rush right up. He might start shooting again." -- Domingo Benavides; April 2, 1964
There is also Benavides' 1967 interview with CBS News [below], in which he says about the same thing that he told the Warren Commission three years earlier. In the 1967 interview, Domingo said he remained in his truck long enough for Oswald "to get around the house" on the corner of Tenth & Patton, and then Domingo said he sat in his truck "for maybe a second or two" after he saw the gunman (Oswald) go around the corner....
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOX2xpV3F3MmFuaGc/view
And there is the Dallas Police radio log, which indicates that Benavides started pumping (or clicking) the microphone on Tippit's radio at "1:16 p.m." (according to Dale Myers' extensive research on this topic [see the quote from Myers I cited earlier]; and I respect Dale's research abilities very much). So, if that is indeed the case, then J.D. Tippit was most certainly shot PRIOR to 1:16 PM.
I would, however, be very interested, Bud, to hear your account of the precise timing of J.D. Tippit's murder. How did you arrive at this conclusion, Bud?....
"I think the time was a lot closer to 1:18 than 1:16."
Over the years, I have grown to value your opinion, Bud, every bit as much as I value the opinions of some of my other favorite "LNers" (such as Mr. Myers, Vince Bugliosi, and Jean Davison, among others). So I'd be very interested in your "Tippit Timing" theory. Thank you.
BUD SAID:
You could be right, I was going by the dialog. I was unaware of the clicking, I was going by the transcripts only. Sounds reasonable [to say that Tippit was shot prior to 1:16 PM].
...You should be distrustful of witness time estimates. Oswald moved quick, not quite running across the Davis's lawn, probably only took less than 30 seconds to cut across and out of sight.
Like I said, I was going by the transcripts of when the first contact with the police dispatcher was made. The time given earlier was 1:16, but that doesn't mean that the time didn't change to 1:17 one second after the 1:16 time was given. As far as I know there are no tones or anything to establish passing minutes, only the dispatcher updates, which could [be] at the beginning, middle or end of the minute. I was using this source....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
....and you can see where the 1:16 time is given. Then there are quite a lot of exchanges. Then it says there is a 15-second pause before the call comes in from the Tippit scene.
But like I said, I was unaware of the clicking on the radio, I was going by when the transcript had the call come in.
I was looking at [William] Scoggins' testimony and he said he called in the shooting to the cab driver dispatcher as soon as it occurred. They probably keep pretty good time, that was a missed opportunity to get information. Of course I wish they would have interviewed the bus driver of Markham's bus so he could say when his bus reached Markham's stop also.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thanks for providing your explanation, Bud.
And, yes, it would have been nice to have some additional testimony (or affidavits) from some of the bus drivers in Dallas who drove the Jefferson/Patton bus route. Any one of those drivers could likely have confirmed or refuted the FBI report by Bob Barrett in which he claims that a bus would stop at Jefferson & Patton every ten minutes.
But, then too, there's always going to be something that slips between the cracks and doesn't get done in a large-scale massive case like the JFK/Tippit/Oswald murder investigations.
Another really big "missed opportunity", IMO, was when the Warren Commission had Jackie Kennedy on the witness stand in June of 1964. She could have provided so much detailed information about the precise LOCATION of President Kennedy's head wounds (since she was literally "trying to hold his head on" during the frantic drive to Parkland Hospital). But, unfortunately, such a golden opportunity went down the drain.
Hindsight is always perfect, though, isn't it?
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
PROVEN FACT --- Lee Harvey Oswald Murdered J.D. Tippit.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You're lying again, David.
No such thing has *EVER* been "proven."
The fact that you and the Warren Commission consistently lie about the time of the murder shows that you realize just how weak your case actually is.
Indeed, there's a number of inconsistencies that show that your theory just doesn't fit.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Allow me to restate the obvious once again....
"Even with some anomalies and discrepancies in the timelines and the "Remington" vs. "Winchester" bullet shells, the totality of evidence hangs Oswald for Tippit's murder and always has. And anyone saying otherwise just flat-out does not want to face the reality that exists within that "totality" of evidence."
-- DVP; June 2013
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Allow me to restate the obvious for *anyone* reading...
YOU'RE LYING, DAVID VON PEIN!!!
There was never a trial for the Tippit murder, there was *NEVER* any cross examination of the evidence, there's MASSIVE problems in both the evidence and the chain of custody for the evidence.
YOU COULDN'T CONVICT HITLER OF MURDERING A SINGLE JEW WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE IN THE TIPPIT CASE.
The fact that you're lying is also demonstrated by your unwillingness to engage in debate on this topic.
Such AMAZING cowardice!!!
And anyone claiming that it's a "proven fact" that Oswald murdered Tippit is lying so blatantly that it's amazing that you aren't struck by lightning.
Tell us David, how do you hope to convince anyone with blatant lies?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You really shouldn't be looking into the Kennedy and Tippit cases, Ben. You're totally incapable of properly assessing the evidence in either case. That couldn't be more obvious to everyone.
I hear toy boats make a nice hobby.
David Von Pein
April 14, 2017
April 15-16, 2017
April 17, 2017
April 17, 2017
================================
RELATED DISCUSSION....
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Your logic goes something like this:
We know Oswald shot Tippit because he was caught with the revolver in his hand at the Theater, and if we know he shot Tippit then we know he shot him between 1:14-1:15 because any sooner and he wouldn't have been humanly able to get there, and we know he got there because we know he shot him, and if we know he shot him then we know that Helen Markham's regular bus didn't take her to work every day at 1:12pm.
[...]
You are full of crap, Davey.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You are the one who is "full of crap", Lee Farley.
Mrs. Helen Markham wasn't due at work at her job at the "Eat Well Restaurant" until 2:30 PM on 11/22/63.
2:30 PM, Lee. That gave her plenty of time to get to work on time even if she missed the bus at 1:12. The busses left every ten minutes along that route on Jefferson Boulevard. So she could have easily gotten on the 1:22 bus and had ample time to get to her job before 2:30 (even if she normally did want to make the 1:12 bus each day).
And I'd be willing to bet you my next disinfo check that Mrs. Markham didn't always make the 1:12 bus every day.
Why do I say that?
Because the fact is -- She simply didn't NEED to make the specific 1:12 bus in order to get to work by 2:30.
I'd wager that there were many days when she had to settle for the 1:22 bus, or the 1:32....which would still give her plenty of time to get to work by 2:30 (even if the bus was practically crawling every step of the way).
-------------------------
HELEN MARKHAM -- "Eat Well Restaurant, 1404 Main Street, Dallas, Tex."
JOE BALL -- "Were you working there on November 22, 1963?"
MARKHAM -- "I was."
BALL -- "What hours did you work?"
MARKHAM -- "I was due at work from 2:30 in the evening until 10:30 at night." *
* Mrs. Markham really meant to say "2:30 in the afternoon", of course, since 2:30 PM is far from being "in the evening". But I would imagine that some conspiracy theorists want to bite her head off for making that simple error.
1964 INTERVIEW WITH HELEN MARKHAM:
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Let me say this reeeeeeeeal sloooooow for you.
Markham had a regular bus. The regular bus was 1:12. She said (UNDER OATH) that she left at her regular time so she could catch her regular bus. Got that? What is it that you fail to grasp on this point?
I don't give a flying rat's ass what you believe about whether she could have gotten a later bus. Keep what you believe to yourself.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It'd be nice if you would follow that same advice. Because the things you believe should, indeed, be kept to yourself (due to their built-in silliness).
LEE FARLEY SAID:
How do you know she [Markham] didn't mean to say she was due at work at 1:30 in the afternoon? Do you have the Dobb's timekeeping records under your pillow? But don't worry. It's irrelevant. She told us what time she left for work. A little after 1:00pm.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And "a little after 1:00" perfectly fits with Markham witnessing Oswald killing Tippit at 1:14-1:15.
And if she really meant "1:30", then her "in the evening" comment is even more absurd, because 1:30 is even further away from "evening" than is 2:30. (Maybe Farley didn't think of that angle, though.)
It's interesting that it doesn't bother CTers like Lee Farley that Markham's positive IDing of LHO is corroborated by the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (the bullet shells from LHO's gun, which are shells that prove LHO was the killer, since he still had that same gun on him 35 minutes later).
So, what do the conspiracy clowns do (as always) -- they'll blame the DPD, and say they switched the shells. And they'll even go so far down Patsy Avenue as to pretend that the cops PLANTED Revolver V510210 on Oswald (or just entered that gun into the evidence chain later on).
That's how far off the rails a person needs to go in order to buy into the notion that Lee Oswald was innocent of killing Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
But Lee Farley is perfectly willing to go that far off the rails. And he has. (What a surprise.)
LEE FARLEY SAID:
You'll always be haunted by the fact that Helen Markham left her house between 1:04-1:07pm and T.F. Bowley's watch will, for the rest of time, be at 1:10pm when he looked at it.
Which means Tippit was killed between 1:07pm and 1:09pm. And that being the case, Oswald didn't do it and your stinking and so-called best evidence is shown up for what it truly is -- fraudulent.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It doesn't mean anything of the sort, Lee.
Since ALL of the times associated with Oswald's movements after he fled the Book Depository are merely ESTIMATES (and, undeniably, they ARE only estimates and approximations), we cannot say with 100% certainty that Earlene Roberts' timing of how long Oswald stayed inside his Beckley Avenue room is spot-on perfect.
In fact, common sense, coupled with some of Mrs. Roberts' own testimony, would indicate that Oswald was only in his room for a very few seconds--one minute at most. Here's why I say that:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html
So, even if Tippit was killed at 1:07 or 1:09 (or whatever time close to 1:00 you want to come up with), we're really only talking about a very few minutes in real time here. Oswald might very well have left his roominghouse BEFORE 1:00 PM, which would have placed him at Tenth and Patton earlier than 1:14-1:15.
My own opinion (coupled with the excellent and detailed research done on the Tippit murder by author Dale K. Myers) is that Tippit was probably killed at 1:14 to 1:15 PM. But it could conceivably have been earlier, because (as noted) the timing of Lee Harvey Oswald's movements after 12:30 PM is not firmly fixed in stone. And it never was. We can only guess as to the EXACT times.
But, in the final analysis of J.D. Tippit's murder, the hard physical evidence simply HAS to trump all other evidence.
And just because conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Lee Farley want to believe that the physical evidence in the Tippit case is "fraudulent" (to use Farley's own term), that doesn't mean that everybody is required to accept such far-fetched notions.
And it's a particularly far-fetched notion in the Tippit case, due to the fact that a DPD officer had been slain. Therefore, according to the theories of people like DiEugenio and Farley, apparently a bunch of cops in charge of investigating the murder of their fellow officer, decided to just IGNORE the real evidence at the scene and, instead, they decided they were going to frame an innocent schnook named Lee Oswald.
Do you realize how silly that proposition is?
I wonder if James DiEugenio or Lee Farley (or any other conspiracist) really do realize how silly that theory truly is. And it certainly is just a "theory". Because no CTer on the planet has proven that ANY evidence that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald in either the JFK or Tippit murder cases is "fraudulent".
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Come now, David. What you propose is contrary to the official version of events. The Warren Commission had to use every trick in the book to get Oswald to Beckley by 1:00 p.m. To the point of getting William Whaley to make a liar out of himself on his second appearance. I don't care how long he was in his room.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But it could be very important, because the Warren Commission's estimated times were being based on Earlene Roberts being RIGHT when she said that Oswald was in his room for "3 or 4 minutes".
But just look at what ELSE Earlene Roberts said:
JOSEPH BALL -- "How long did he [Oswald] stay in the room?"
EARLENE ROBERTS -- "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes. Just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it." (Emphasis added by DVP.)
------------
So, from Mrs. Roberts' OWN MOUTH, we have her saying that Lee Oswald likely wasn't in his room any longer than it would take "to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".
Also take note of the words "maybe" and "I guess" in Roberts' Warren Commission testimony there.
In other words, she was GUESSING. That's all. She wasn't timing Oswald with a stopwatch.
And I kinda doubt that it would take 3-4 minutes to just get a jacket. In fact, via the re-enactment done in the 1978 television movie "Ruby & Oswald", it took the actor playing Oswald a mere 22 seconds to do all the things that we're fairly certain Oswald did while he was in his room on 11/22/63 -- e.g., grab his gun and put his jacket on.
But even if the Warren Commission's estimates are correct (with LHO leaving 1026 Beckley at precisely 1:03), there was still time enough for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder site by 1:14 or 1:15 (which is the best estimate for when Tippit's murder took place, being based primarily on the Dallas Police radio tapes, which indicate that T.F. Bowley's call to the DPD occurred at 1:18, which followed about 90 seconds of microphone "pumping" by Domingo Benavides prior to Bowley taking the mike).
We know that the trip from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton can be done in about 11 minutes. Several people have done it in just that amount of time. (Plus, we can't possibly know how fast Oswald was walking, or exactly what route he took to get there.)
Let me ask you this, Lee:
Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Benavides waited for NINE MINUTES to grab Tippit's radio and start pumping the mike?
And via the most commonly believed scenario among CTers of Tippit being killed at 1:06, you've got Benavides waiting for about TEN FULL MINUTES to get on that radio.
Frankly, Lee, that's goofy. Benavides didn't wait any nine or ten minutes before grabbing that microphone. And you know he didn't.
Hence, via the DPD tapes (and common sense, plus Domingo Benavides' testimony), Tippit was likely shot at about 1:14 or 1:15.
A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
You said you can still get him [Oswald] there for 1:06-1:09. Show me.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure:
Earlene Roberts was very likely wrong about her "3 or 4 minutes" estimate. Oswald, just like Frederic Forrest in the 1978 movie scene I linked to, probably was in his cubbyhole of a room for about 30 seconds, and not anywhere near three or four minutes.
David Belin & Co. walked the distance from Neely & Beckley to 1026 Beckley in 5 minutes & 45 seconds.
If Oswald had moved considerably faster than Belin's "walking" pace, he could have shaved some time off of Belin's re-creation time and could have likely been inside his room by about 12:57.
He's in his room for 30 seconds, then heads for Tenth Street.
He can positively get to Tenth & Patton in about 11 minutes (that's been done by Dave Perry and others in past reconstructions).
That puts him beside Tippit's patrol car at precisely 1:09. Which, as mentioned, would also have to mean that Domingo Benavides stood beside Tippit's police car picking lint out of his belly button for SEVEN MINUTES before using the police radio. And that is not a reasonable thing to believe, IMO.
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Why did Ted Callaway have to ask Domingo Benavides which way the killer went if he saw him and spoke to him?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's an easy one, Lee:
Since Callaway didn't actually SEE THE MURDER take place, Callaway was merely confirming that the person he saw with a gun on Patton Avenue was, indeed, the ONE AND ONLY KILLER of Officer Tippit.
Callaway, at the time, had no way of knowing if there were one, two, or more killers. So it doesn't seem strange that he would want to confirm (in his own mind) that "THE KILLER" escaped down Patton. And he did confirm that via Benavides.
I achieved my goal though -- Because I just knew beyond all doubt that one or more of you conspiracy theorists here at the "Education Forum" would try to paint Ted Callaway as a bald-faced liar. And I was 100% correct. You actually think Callaway DIDN'T see anyone run past him on Patton on 11/22/63. Beautiful.
And I see that DiEugenio decided to wait until Farley posted his inane remarks about Callaway before he chimed in with his confirmation that he, too, disbelieves Callaway.
Two conspiracy mongers for the price of one. Not a bad day's work.
Now, let's move on to William Scoggins (another witness who verifies the presence of Lee Harvey Oswald on Tenth Street during the Tippit murder):
Just exactly how are you guys going to attempt to discredit Mr. Scoggins in order to pretend that your #1 Patsy for all Nov. 22 murders was totally innocent?
I can't wait to hear the CT brilliance.
[...]
Do [CTers] think both Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard were liars? They really WEREN'T together when Oswald passed by?
And actually, come to think of it, Guinyard is a good witness for the proposition that Oswald was still, indeed, "kicking out shells" out of his gun all the way down Patton, which means that a FIFTH shell might very well have been ejected farther down the street from the corner of 10th & Patton, which would be consistent with Oswald firing five shots (as Callaway always maintained), with one of the shells never being recovered.
I've never heard of anybody hunting for shells far down Patton Avenue. Have you? It's quite possible that a shell was dropped there by Oswald and never found.
DUKE LANE SAID:
Even if – and it is a HUGE "if" – any shells and/or bullets can be conclusively tied to that revolver, which they cannot, the ONLY reason to suppose that the gun "was obviously in perfect working order at approx. 1:14-1:15 PM" is because Oswald can't have gotten to 10th & Patton much sooner than that.
The fact of the matter is that the shooting took place several minutes earlier than that, at approximately 1:08. If you work your way backwards from the 1:16 citizen radio call (unquestionably – and now officially – by Temple F. "Tom" Bowley), including that by the time Bowley got there, a "crowd" had already formed after the shooting, it cannot have happened as late as some would like to believe it did.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There's so much proof that Oswald murdered Tippit, it's mind-boggling. And it's the BEST kind of evidence too -- ballistics (and yes, the bullet shells are irrevocably tied to LHO's gun, and why you're saying otherwise is a huge mystery; but you couldn't be more wrong on that point, as confirmed by Nicol, Frazier, Killion, and Cunningham....and others from the HSCA too) .... plus the fact that Oswald still had the murder weapon in his OWN HANDS just 35 minutes after the murder .... plus MULTIPLE eyewitnesses who said it was OSWALD, not somebody else, who either killed Tippit or fled the scene immediately afterward.
Just stay in fantasy land on this, Duke. That's where you apparently feel most comfortable.
GREG PARKER SAID THIS:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/18411-where-is-the-checkmo-for-oswalds-10/&page=11#comment-240810
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Greg,
All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.)
The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened:
"The only pistol at the TT [Texas Theater] was one that the police were trying to force upon him."
Tell me, Greg, just exactly WHY would a reasonable jury even BEGIN to believe such a thing occurred?
Also:
Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder?
Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.
Hogwash. All of it.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
BOTH the Warren Commission AND the HSCA were satisfied that Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Revolver V510210 and Rifle C2766.
Do [conspiracy theorists] really want to think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA (14 years apart, with a different group of investigators and committee members and lawyers) didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they concluded that Lee Oswald bought and possessed both of those weapons?
Do conspiracy theorists REALLY believe that?
Amazing if they do.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
As I have often said, the sale of the handgun and the rifle were things that were pretty much accepted by the first generation of critics. They should not have been. They are simply too full of holes for any rational person to accept at face value.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you, Jimbo, as a "Patsy" believer, really should be accepting the undeniable fact that Oswald ordered and took possession of both the rifle and the revolver (and it is a conclusive fact that those two items were ordered and possessed by LHO, despite the weird protestations of the conspiracists like Jim DiEugenio.).
Why should you believe that?
Because, as I mentioned to you previously (and this is only garden-variety common sense of the first order) -- It makes much more logical sense in a frame-up (or "Patsy") theory to have your make-believe conspirators running around attempting to frame Oswald with HIS OWN GUNS, versus the incredibly complicated and laughable cloak-and-dagger version of events surrounding the gun purchases that you want to believe is true.
Don't you agree, James?
So why don't you stop pretending Oswald never even had C2766 or V510210 in his hands at all in the year 1963....because there's ample proof you are dead wrong, including photos showing him holding the Carcano (yes, I know you want to pretend those pics are frauds too), and the little fact that Oswald was caught with the revolver in his hands in the theater.
Seems to me you'd be wise to go back to siding with those first-generation critics and just admit what is obviously the truth -- Oswald owned the two guns.
And then your make-believe Patsy plot is easier to swallow too.
Of course, there are still many bumps in the Patsy road even if you accept the guns as being Oswald's -- e.g.: You'd still have to totally ignore all the lies told by your patsy on Nov. 21 and 22. And you'd still have to totally ignore Oswald's own incriminating actions on Nov. 22.
But I'm sure you're up to that easy task of ignoring (or mangling) all of that unimportant stuff, right Jimmy?
David Von Pein
November 25—December 16, 2011
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
(AND THE MURDER OF J.D. TIPPIT)....
BUD SAID:
The bus schedules indicate the bus stopped at [Helen Markham's] stop
around 1:26:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11524&relPageId=7
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Vincent Bugliosi, following Helen Markham's testimony, puts the bus at 1:15.
Bugliosi even argues that he knows of the 1:12 time, and DOESN'T BELIEVE that Helen Markham would say 1:15 for a 1:12 bus. (Of course, honest readers can easily disagree with such a silly assertion.)
Vincent Bugliosi would dismiss **even more strongly** a 1:26 bus time... if Bugliosi thought three minutes was enough to dismiss the 1:12 time, HE'D BE TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE A FOOL FOR ACCEPTING AN 11-MINUTE DIFFERENCE.
(Which, by the way, most folks would refer to as a 1:25 time...)
So who's telling the lie?
Clearly - Bugliosi must be lying if "Bud" is telling the truth.
So tell us "Bud," why do you think Bugliosi was lying?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Let's see what Mr. Bugliosi actually said about the "bus schedule" topic.....
--- Quote On: ---
"Although an FBI report (CD 630[h]) says that Helen Markham’s bus, per the Dallas Transit System, came by each day “at about 1:12 p.m.,” not 1:15 p.m., I tend to doubt the 1:12 time for two reasons. Number one, the FBI never nailed down which of two separate buses Markham could have taken at Jefferson and Patton, not asking her what corner at the intersection she got on her bus.
Apparently, only one of the buses was scheduled to come by at 1:12, and the FBI never even alluded to the existence of another bus that stopped at a different corner of the intersection and would also have taken Markham downtown by a more indirect route (Myers, 'With Malice', p.597 footnote 154; CD 1128, p.3). Much more importantly, Markham, when asked by Warren Commission counsel, “You know what time you usually get your bus, don’t you?” she answered “1:15” (3 H 306).
And in an earlier FBI interview she said the bus came by at 1:15 p.m. (CD 630[c], p.1). Why in the world would she say 1:15 if it was 1:12? We know that Markham was not a bright woman, but she was smart enough to hold down a job as a waitress, where one has to deal with numbers on a customer’s bill, and smart enough to get to work every day.
It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 44 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
So clearly, you agree that "Bud" has labeled Vincent Bugliosi a liar.
"Bud" is desperately arguing that the bus came at 1:26.
Either "Bud" or Bugliosi is lying...
Who is it, David?
Who's lying?
BUD SAID:
Perhaps he [Vince Bugliosi] wasn't aware of the bus schedule.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Where on any of these bus schedules does it say "1:26", Bud? I can't seem to find that time shown anywhere.
BUD SAID:
It doesn't say, it indicates. This post provides the support:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/DfAImX9BK7c/K3N9-KC3KGEJ
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Ten-Four. Thanks.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Yep... one liar covering up for another.
Tell us David, why do you believe that "Bud" can label Bugliosi a liar and get away with it?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have no idea why you, Ben Holmes, think anyone has to label Bugliosi a "liar" in this "bus schedule" regard. It seems to me that Vince pretty much AGREES with Bud's analysis on this thing --- i.e., both Bud and Vince B. agree that Helen Markham must not have actually been trying to catch a "1:12" bus. Both Bud and Vince think she caught her usual bus LATER than 1:12.
Why are you so anxious to hang a "liar" label on Vincent Bugliosi at every turn in the road? He didn't "LIE" at all about this bus schedule thing. He was giving his OPINION about Markham's testimony and FBI statements. And those opinions make a lot of sense to me. Why doesn't this VB logic make sense to you, Ben?....
"It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You're a GUTLESS liar...
If Bugliosi doesn't agree with Helen Markham on a THREE MINUTE DIFFERENCE, there's no possible way that he'd agree with a difference almost FOUR TIMES LARGER.
Tell us David - why would you pretend that Bugliosi would accept an Eleven minute difference when he refused to accept a three minute difference?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If presented with the analysis that Bud provided earlier, Vince Bugliosi would very likely have been able to accept the "1:26" timing for Markham's bus arrival.
The reason why Bugliosi had trouble accepting the 1:12 time is because if that time were ACTUALLY CORRECT, it would mean that Mrs. Markham would have missed her bus most of the time (if we're to also accept as fact that she caught her bus at 1:15 PM each day). And how likely is it that she was constantly missing the 1:12 bus because she just refused to get there in time? Not very likely, is it?
So, of course, Vince could very easily accept a wider differential in time, because it would mean Markham wouldn't be missing her bus every single day.
Makes sense, doesn't it Holmes? Or would you rather continue your daily habit of being an obnoxious prick by calling me a "GUTLESS liar" one or two more times before this day is done?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Yep... liars are capable of justifying ANYTHING.
Bugliosi made it quite clear what his reasoning was...
You're simply too dishonest to acknowledge it.
Bugliosi would be ashamed of you...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're nuts. Bugliosi's reasoning in rejecting the 1:12 time is just as he stated in his book....
"I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that [1:12 PM] time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- VB
Now, who would routinely get to a bus stop at 1:15 to try and catch a 1:12 bus? That's why Bugliosi had doubts about the "1:12" time.
My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway. And the FBI report in CD630 clearly indicates that "the bus is scheduled to pass this point [at Patton and Jefferson] at about 1:12 PM and every ten minutes thereafter".
So it's fairly clear that if Mrs. Markham didn't catch the 1:12 bus, she could have caught another bus at about 1:22 or 1:32. And since she didn't have to be at work until 2:30 PM, there was plenty of time to spare, even if she had to take one of those later busses.
But it makes no sense for her to regularly get to the bus stop at 1:15 if she was really trying to catch a 1:12 bus. That's crazy.
BUD SAID:
David, I think you are making a mistake relying on that "a bus every 10 minutes" information. Nowhere will you find buses running every 10 minutes during non-peak service. Here in Philly the buses run about 20-25 minutes during peak morning and evening service, and 40-45 minutes during non-peak times.
Think about it, that would be 4 buses running northbound into downtown Dallas and 4 buses running southbound during non-peak service. 8 drivers and eight buses in transit during non-peak service on a single route, the system would be bankrupt.
The Lancaster 55 bus schedule showing a bus every hour off-peak is much more reasonable, and it explains why Markham left so early. The next bus came around an hour later, and would likely drop her off near her work after 2:30.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, Bud, I've got to admit that what you just said makes a lot of sense. But if you are correct, then somebody needs to go and yell at the FBI or the Dallas Transit System, because one or the other got something very fouled up in Commission Document No. 630, which clearly indicates that FBI agent Robert M. Barrett, on March 16, 1964, was informed by the Dallas Transit System that a bus could be boarded at Patton & Jefferson "about every ten minutes...during the afternoon hours of every weekday".
Should we ask for Bob Barrett's resignation? :-)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
The evidence *against* the theory that Oswald shot Tippit is quite extensive.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In actuality, the "EVIDENCE" to show that Oswald was innocent of shooting Officer Tippit is NON-EXISTENT.
The actual "evidence" (as opposed to the "evidence" that only exists in a CTer's imagination) is providing the conclusive PROOF that Lee Oswald--and only Lee Oswald--was the killer of J.D. Tippit.
Only a freakish conspiracy theorist bent on mangling the true facts could possibly even begin to believe otherwise.
~Mark VII~
~Hammer stroke~
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You knew that the time [for the Tippit murder] specified by the Warren Commission was 1:16.
They could easily have stated 1:14, or 1:15... but they didn't. They had reasons for their decision to select 1:16.
And you know that reason, don't you?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes. The Warren Commission incorrectly thought that it was Domingo Benavides who had made the citizen's call at 1:17 or 1:18 on Tippit's police radio. [See Warren Report, Page 166.] But it was really T.F. Bowley, of course, who made that radio call, which was done only AFTER Benavides had been pumping the mike for about 90 seconds. And that mike-pumping began at 1:16 PM.
The Warren Commission was apparently relying only on the truncated transcript of the Dallas Police radio tapes that appears on Page 52 of CE1974, which is a transcript that has several radio transmissions omitted, as well as having a "long pause" of 15 seconds omitted (as we can see when comparing CE1974 with this more complete version of the DPD radio tapes)....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
The Commission, therefore, failed to take into account the extra 90 seconds of microphone clicking and pumping that was done by Benavides, which I don't think was even discovered until the 1990s when Dale Myers talked about it in his 1998 book.
Ergo, the actual shooting time had to be sometime BEFORE 1:16, because Benavides' "pumping" begins at exactly 1:16. But the WC wasn't accounting for the extra time required for Benavides' mike pumping (because the Commission wasn't even aware of it in 1964).
Dale Myers Quote On:
"Beginning at 1:16 p.m., a microphone is keyed a number of times on channel one of the Dallas police tapes, as if someone were 'pumping' the microphone button of a police radio. This continues for a little over 90 seconds, right up until the time passing motorist T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. .... Considering the timing of the sounds heard in the Dallas police radio recordings, and the corroborating accounts of three witnesses, the murder of Tippit probably occurred about 90 seconds prior to Benavides' bungled attempt to notify the dispatcher. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that J.D. Tippit was shot at approximately 1:14:30 p.m." -- Dale K. Myers; Pages 86-87 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit"
BEN HOLMES SAID:
IT'S **STILL** A FACT THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION PUT THE MURDER OF TIPPIT AT 1:16.
BUD SAID:
I put it a minute or so later. I think the time was a lot closer to 1:18 than 1:16.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't think that's possible, Bud. Domingo Benavides was already inside Tippit's patrol car "clicking" the mike on the radio by 1:16. And Bowley's radio call was at approximately 1:17:45 to 1:18, so Bowley TOO was using the radio by 1:18 (and only AFTER Benavides' bungled attempt to use that same radio).
So the murder had to have occurred prior to 1:16. Exactly how long before 1:16 is the hard thing to figure out. Benavides wasn't timing his every move that day, so we can never know for sure exactly how long it took him to get inside Tippit's car after the murder occurred, but Benavides did tell the Warren Commission that he stayed in his truck for "a few minutes" after the shooting took place....
"I set [sic] there for just a few minutes to kind of, I thought he went in back of the house or something. At the time, I thought maybe he might have lived in there and I didn't want to get out and rush right up. He might start shooting again." -- Domingo Benavides; April 2, 1964
There is also Benavides' 1967 interview with CBS News [below], in which he says about the same thing that he told the Warren Commission three years earlier. In the 1967 interview, Domingo said he remained in his truck long enough for Oswald "to get around the house" on the corner of Tenth & Patton, and then Domingo said he sat in his truck "for maybe a second or two" after he saw the gunman (Oswald) go around the corner....
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOX2xpV3F3MmFuaGc/view
And there is the Dallas Police radio log, which indicates that Benavides started pumping (or clicking) the microphone on Tippit's radio at "1:16 p.m." (according to Dale Myers' extensive research on this topic [see the quote from Myers I cited earlier]; and I respect Dale's research abilities very much). So, if that is indeed the case, then J.D. Tippit was most certainly shot PRIOR to 1:16 PM.
I would, however, be very interested, Bud, to hear your account of the precise timing of J.D. Tippit's murder. How did you arrive at this conclusion, Bud?....
"I think the time was a lot closer to 1:18 than 1:16."
Over the years, I have grown to value your opinion, Bud, every bit as much as I value the opinions of some of my other favorite "LNers" (such as Mr. Myers, Vince Bugliosi, and Jean Davison, among others). So I'd be very interested in your "Tippit Timing" theory. Thank you.
BUD SAID:
You could be right, I was going by the dialog. I was unaware of the clicking, I was going by the transcripts only. Sounds reasonable [to say that Tippit was shot prior to 1:16 PM].
...You should be distrustful of witness time estimates. Oswald moved quick, not quite running across the Davis's lawn, probably only took less than 30 seconds to cut across and out of sight.
Like I said, I was going by the transcripts of when the first contact with the police dispatcher was made. The time given earlier was 1:16, but that doesn't mean that the time didn't change to 1:17 one second after the 1:16 time was given. As far as I know there are no tones or anything to establish passing minutes, only the dispatcher updates, which could [be] at the beginning, middle or end of the minute. I was using this source....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
....and you can see where the 1:16 time is given. Then there are quite a lot of exchanges. Then it says there is a 15-second pause before the call comes in from the Tippit scene.
But like I said, I was unaware of the clicking on the radio, I was going by when the transcript had the call come in.
I was looking at [William] Scoggins' testimony and he said he called in the shooting to the cab driver dispatcher as soon as it occurred. They probably keep pretty good time, that was a missed opportunity to get information. Of course I wish they would have interviewed the bus driver of Markham's bus so he could say when his bus reached Markham's stop also.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thanks for providing your explanation, Bud.
And, yes, it would have been nice to have some additional testimony (or affidavits) from some of the bus drivers in Dallas who drove the Jefferson/Patton bus route. Any one of those drivers could likely have confirmed or refuted the FBI report by Bob Barrett in which he claims that a bus would stop at Jefferson & Patton every ten minutes.
But, then too, there's always going to be something that slips between the cracks and doesn't get done in a large-scale massive case like the JFK/Tippit/Oswald murder investigations.
Another really big "missed opportunity", IMO, was when the Warren Commission had Jackie Kennedy on the witness stand in June of 1964. She could have provided so much detailed information about the precise LOCATION of President Kennedy's head wounds (since she was literally "trying to hold his head on" during the frantic drive to Parkland Hospital). But, unfortunately, such a golden opportunity went down the drain.
Hindsight is always perfect, though, isn't it?
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
PROVEN FACT --- Lee Harvey Oswald Murdered J.D. Tippit.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You're lying again, David.
No such thing has *EVER* been "proven."
The fact that you and the Warren Commission consistently lie about the time of the murder shows that you realize just how weak your case actually is.
Indeed, there's a number of inconsistencies that show that your theory just doesn't fit.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Allow me to restate the obvious once again....
"Even with some anomalies and discrepancies in the timelines and the "Remington" vs. "Winchester" bullet shells, the totality of evidence hangs Oswald for Tippit's murder and always has. And anyone saying otherwise just flat-out does not want to face the reality that exists within that "totality" of evidence."
-- DVP; June 2013
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Allow me to restate the obvious for *anyone* reading...
YOU'RE LYING, DAVID VON PEIN!!!
There was never a trial for the Tippit murder, there was *NEVER* any cross examination of the evidence, there's MASSIVE problems in both the evidence and the chain of custody for the evidence.
YOU COULDN'T CONVICT HITLER OF MURDERING A SINGLE JEW WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE IN THE TIPPIT CASE.
The fact that you're lying is also demonstrated by your unwillingness to engage in debate on this topic.
Such AMAZING cowardice!!!
And anyone claiming that it's a "proven fact" that Oswald murdered Tippit is lying so blatantly that it's amazing that you aren't struck by lightning.
Tell us David, how do you hope to convince anyone with blatant lies?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You really shouldn't be looking into the Kennedy and Tippit cases, Ben. You're totally incapable of properly assessing the evidence in either case. That couldn't be more obvious to everyone.
I hear toy boats make a nice hobby.
David Von Pein
April 14, 2017
April 15-16, 2017
April 17, 2017
April 17, 2017
================================
RELATED DISCUSSION....
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Your logic goes something like this:
We know Oswald shot Tippit because he was caught with the revolver in his hand at the Theater, and if we know he shot Tippit then we know he shot him between 1:14-1:15 because any sooner and he wouldn't have been humanly able to get there, and we know he got there because we know he shot him, and if we know he shot him then we know that Helen Markham's regular bus didn't take her to work every day at 1:12pm.
[...]
You are full of crap, Davey.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You are the one who is "full of crap", Lee Farley.
Mrs. Helen Markham wasn't due at work at her job at the "Eat Well Restaurant" until 2:30 PM on 11/22/63.
2:30 PM, Lee. That gave her plenty of time to get to work on time even if she missed the bus at 1:12. The busses left every ten minutes along that route on Jefferson Boulevard. So she could have easily gotten on the 1:22 bus and had ample time to get to her job before 2:30 (even if she normally did want to make the 1:12 bus each day).
And I'd be willing to bet you my next disinfo check that Mrs. Markham didn't always make the 1:12 bus every day.
Why do I say that?
Because the fact is -- She simply didn't NEED to make the specific 1:12 bus in order to get to work by 2:30.
I'd wager that there were many days when she had to settle for the 1:22 bus, or the 1:32....which would still give her plenty of time to get to work by 2:30 (even if the bus was practically crawling every step of the way).
-------------------------
HELEN MARKHAM -- "Eat Well Restaurant, 1404 Main Street, Dallas, Tex."
JOE BALL -- "Were you working there on November 22, 1963?"
MARKHAM -- "I was."
BALL -- "What hours did you work?"
MARKHAM -- "I was due at work from 2:30 in the evening until 10:30 at night." *
* Mrs. Markham really meant to say "2:30 in the afternoon", of course, since 2:30 PM is far from being "in the evening". But I would imagine that some conspiracy theorists want to bite her head off for making that simple error.
1964 INTERVIEW WITH HELEN MARKHAM:
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Let me say this reeeeeeeeal sloooooow for you.
Markham had a regular bus. The regular bus was 1:12. She said (UNDER OATH) that she left at her regular time so she could catch her regular bus. Got that? What is it that you fail to grasp on this point?
I don't give a flying rat's ass what you believe about whether she could have gotten a later bus. Keep what you believe to yourself.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It'd be nice if you would follow that same advice. Because the things you believe should, indeed, be kept to yourself (due to their built-in silliness).
LEE FARLEY SAID:
How do you know she [Markham] didn't mean to say she was due at work at 1:30 in the afternoon? Do you have the Dobb's timekeeping records under your pillow? But don't worry. It's irrelevant. She told us what time she left for work. A little after 1:00pm.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And "a little after 1:00" perfectly fits with Markham witnessing Oswald killing Tippit at 1:14-1:15.
And if she really meant "1:30", then her "in the evening" comment is even more absurd, because 1:30 is even further away from "evening" than is 2:30. (Maybe Farley didn't think of that angle, though.)
It's interesting that it doesn't bother CTers like Lee Farley that Markham's positive IDing of LHO is corroborated by the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (the bullet shells from LHO's gun, which are shells that prove LHO was the killer, since he still had that same gun on him 35 minutes later).
So, what do the conspiracy clowns do (as always) -- they'll blame the DPD, and say they switched the shells. And they'll even go so far down Patsy Avenue as to pretend that the cops PLANTED Revolver V510210 on Oswald (or just entered that gun into the evidence chain later on).
That's how far off the rails a person needs to go in order to buy into the notion that Lee Oswald was innocent of killing Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
But Lee Farley is perfectly willing to go that far off the rails. And he has. (What a surprise.)
LEE FARLEY SAID:
You'll always be haunted by the fact that Helen Markham left her house between 1:04-1:07pm and T.F. Bowley's watch will, for the rest of time, be at 1:10pm when he looked at it.
Which means Tippit was killed between 1:07pm and 1:09pm. And that being the case, Oswald didn't do it and your stinking and so-called best evidence is shown up for what it truly is -- fraudulent.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It doesn't mean anything of the sort, Lee.
Since ALL of the times associated with Oswald's movements after he fled the Book Depository are merely ESTIMATES (and, undeniably, they ARE only estimates and approximations), we cannot say with 100% certainty that Earlene Roberts' timing of how long Oswald stayed inside his Beckley Avenue room is spot-on perfect.
In fact, common sense, coupled with some of Mrs. Roberts' own testimony, would indicate that Oswald was only in his room for a very few seconds--one minute at most. Here's why I say that:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html
So, even if Tippit was killed at 1:07 or 1:09 (or whatever time close to 1:00 you want to come up with), we're really only talking about a very few minutes in real time here. Oswald might very well have left his roominghouse BEFORE 1:00 PM, which would have placed him at Tenth and Patton earlier than 1:14-1:15.
My own opinion (coupled with the excellent and detailed research done on the Tippit murder by author Dale K. Myers) is that Tippit was probably killed at 1:14 to 1:15 PM. But it could conceivably have been earlier, because (as noted) the timing of Lee Harvey Oswald's movements after 12:30 PM is not firmly fixed in stone. And it never was. We can only guess as to the EXACT times.
But, in the final analysis of J.D. Tippit's murder, the hard physical evidence simply HAS to trump all other evidence.
And just because conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Lee Farley want to believe that the physical evidence in the Tippit case is "fraudulent" (to use Farley's own term), that doesn't mean that everybody is required to accept such far-fetched notions.
And it's a particularly far-fetched notion in the Tippit case, due to the fact that a DPD officer had been slain. Therefore, according to the theories of people like DiEugenio and Farley, apparently a bunch of cops in charge of investigating the murder of their fellow officer, decided to just IGNORE the real evidence at the scene and, instead, they decided they were going to frame an innocent schnook named Lee Oswald.
Do you realize how silly that proposition is?
I wonder if James DiEugenio or Lee Farley (or any other conspiracist) really do realize how silly that theory truly is. And it certainly is just a "theory". Because no CTer on the planet has proven that ANY evidence that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald in either the JFK or Tippit murder cases is "fraudulent".
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Come now, David. What you propose is contrary to the official version of events. The Warren Commission had to use every trick in the book to get Oswald to Beckley by 1:00 p.m. To the point of getting William Whaley to make a liar out of himself on his second appearance. I don't care how long he was in his room.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But it could be very important, because the Warren Commission's estimated times were being based on Earlene Roberts being RIGHT when she said that Oswald was in his room for "3 or 4 minutes".
But just look at what ELSE Earlene Roberts said:
JOSEPH BALL -- "How long did he [Oswald] stay in the room?"
EARLENE ROBERTS -- "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes. Just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it." (Emphasis added by DVP.)
------------
So, from Mrs. Roberts' OWN MOUTH, we have her saying that Lee Oswald likely wasn't in his room any longer than it would take "to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".
Also take note of the words "maybe" and "I guess" in Roberts' Warren Commission testimony there.
In other words, she was GUESSING. That's all. She wasn't timing Oswald with a stopwatch.
And I kinda doubt that it would take 3-4 minutes to just get a jacket. In fact, via the re-enactment done in the 1978 television movie "Ruby & Oswald", it took the actor playing Oswald a mere 22 seconds to do all the things that we're fairly certain Oswald did while he was in his room on 11/22/63 -- e.g., grab his gun and put his jacket on.
But even if the Warren Commission's estimates are correct (with LHO leaving 1026 Beckley at precisely 1:03), there was still time enough for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder site by 1:14 or 1:15 (which is the best estimate for when Tippit's murder took place, being based primarily on the Dallas Police radio tapes, which indicate that T.F. Bowley's call to the DPD occurred at 1:18, which followed about 90 seconds of microphone "pumping" by Domingo Benavides prior to Bowley taking the mike).
We know that the trip from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton can be done in about 11 minutes. Several people have done it in just that amount of time. (Plus, we can't possibly know how fast Oswald was walking, or exactly what route he took to get there.)
Let me ask you this, Lee:
Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Benavides waited for NINE MINUTES to grab Tippit's radio and start pumping the mike?
And via the most commonly believed scenario among CTers of Tippit being killed at 1:06, you've got Benavides waiting for about TEN FULL MINUTES to get on that radio.
Frankly, Lee, that's goofy. Benavides didn't wait any nine or ten minutes before grabbing that microphone. And you know he didn't.
Hence, via the DPD tapes (and common sense, plus Domingo Benavides' testimony), Tippit was likely shot at about 1:14 or 1:15.
A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:
You said you can still get him [Oswald] there for 1:06-1:09. Show me.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure:
Earlene Roberts was very likely wrong about her "3 or 4 minutes" estimate. Oswald, just like Frederic Forrest in the 1978 movie scene I linked to, probably was in his cubbyhole of a room for about 30 seconds, and not anywhere near three or four minutes.
David Belin & Co. walked the distance from Neely & Beckley to 1026 Beckley in 5 minutes & 45 seconds.
If Oswald had moved considerably faster than Belin's "walking" pace, he could have shaved some time off of Belin's re-creation time and could have likely been inside his room by about 12:57.
He's in his room for 30 seconds, then heads for Tenth Street.
He can positively get to Tenth & Patton in about 11 minutes (that's been done by Dave Perry and others in past reconstructions).
That puts him beside Tippit's patrol car at precisely 1:09. Which, as mentioned, would also have to mean that Domingo Benavides stood beside Tippit's police car picking lint out of his belly button for SEVEN MINUTES before using the police radio. And that is not a reasonable thing to believe, IMO.
LEE FARLEY SAID:
Why did Ted Callaway have to ask Domingo Benavides which way the killer went if he saw him and spoke to him?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's an easy one, Lee:
Since Callaway didn't actually SEE THE MURDER take place, Callaway was merely confirming that the person he saw with a gun on Patton Avenue was, indeed, the ONE AND ONLY KILLER of Officer Tippit.
Callaway, at the time, had no way of knowing if there were one, two, or more killers. So it doesn't seem strange that he would want to confirm (in his own mind) that "THE KILLER" escaped down Patton. And he did confirm that via Benavides.
I achieved my goal though -- Because I just knew beyond all doubt that one or more of you conspiracy theorists here at the "Education Forum" would try to paint Ted Callaway as a bald-faced liar. And I was 100% correct. You actually think Callaway DIDN'T see anyone run past him on Patton on 11/22/63. Beautiful.
And I see that DiEugenio decided to wait until Farley posted his inane remarks about Callaway before he chimed in with his confirmation that he, too, disbelieves Callaway.
Two conspiracy mongers for the price of one. Not a bad day's work.
Now, let's move on to William Scoggins (another witness who verifies the presence of Lee Harvey Oswald on Tenth Street during the Tippit murder):
Just exactly how are you guys going to attempt to discredit Mr. Scoggins in order to pretend that your #1 Patsy for all Nov. 22 murders was totally innocent?
I can't wait to hear the CT brilliance.
[...]
Do [CTers] think both Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard were liars? They really WEREN'T together when Oswald passed by?
And actually, come to think of it, Guinyard is a good witness for the proposition that Oswald was still, indeed, "kicking out shells" out of his gun all the way down Patton, which means that a FIFTH shell might very well have been ejected farther down the street from the corner of 10th & Patton, which would be consistent with Oswald firing five shots (as Callaway always maintained), with one of the shells never being recovered.
I've never heard of anybody hunting for shells far down Patton Avenue. Have you? It's quite possible that a shell was dropped there by Oswald and never found.
DUKE LANE SAID:
Even if – and it is a HUGE "if" – any shells and/or bullets can be conclusively tied to that revolver, which they cannot, the ONLY reason to suppose that the gun "was obviously in perfect working order at approx. 1:14-1:15 PM" is because Oswald can't have gotten to 10th & Patton much sooner than that.
The fact of the matter is that the shooting took place several minutes earlier than that, at approximately 1:08. If you work your way backwards from the 1:16 citizen radio call (unquestionably – and now officially – by Temple F. "Tom" Bowley), including that by the time Bowley got there, a "crowd" had already formed after the shooting, it cannot have happened as late as some would like to believe it did.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There's so much proof that Oswald murdered Tippit, it's mind-boggling. And it's the BEST kind of evidence too -- ballistics (and yes, the bullet shells are irrevocably tied to LHO's gun, and why you're saying otherwise is a huge mystery; but you couldn't be more wrong on that point, as confirmed by Nicol, Frazier, Killion, and Cunningham....and others from the HSCA too) .... plus the fact that Oswald still had the murder weapon in his OWN HANDS just 35 minutes after the murder .... plus MULTIPLE eyewitnesses who said it was OSWALD, not somebody else, who either killed Tippit or fled the scene immediately afterward.
Just stay in fantasy land on this, Duke. That's where you apparently feel most comfortable.
GREG PARKER SAID THIS:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/18411-where-is-the-checkmo-for-oswalds-10/&page=11#comment-240810
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Greg,
All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.)
The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened:
"The only pistol at the TT [Texas Theater] was one that the police were trying to force upon him."
Tell me, Greg, just exactly WHY would a reasonable jury even BEGIN to believe such a thing occurred?
Also:
Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder?
Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.
Hogwash. All of it.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
BOTH the Warren Commission AND the HSCA were satisfied that Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Revolver V510210 and Rifle C2766.
Do [conspiracy theorists] really want to think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA (14 years apart, with a different group of investigators and committee members and lawyers) didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they concluded that Lee Oswald bought and possessed both of those weapons?
Do conspiracy theorists REALLY believe that?
Amazing if they do.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
As I have often said, the sale of the handgun and the rifle were things that were pretty much accepted by the first generation of critics. They should not have been. They are simply too full of holes for any rational person to accept at face value.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you, Jimbo, as a "Patsy" believer, really should be accepting the undeniable fact that Oswald ordered and took possession of both the rifle and the revolver (and it is a conclusive fact that those two items were ordered and possessed by LHO, despite the weird protestations of the conspiracists like Jim DiEugenio.).
Why should you believe that?
Because, as I mentioned to you previously (and this is only garden-variety common sense of the first order) -- It makes much more logical sense in a frame-up (or "Patsy") theory to have your make-believe conspirators running around attempting to frame Oswald with HIS OWN GUNS, versus the incredibly complicated and laughable cloak-and-dagger version of events surrounding the gun purchases that you want to believe is true.
Don't you agree, James?
So why don't you stop pretending Oswald never even had C2766 or V510210 in his hands at all in the year 1963....because there's ample proof you are dead wrong, including photos showing him holding the Carcano (yes, I know you want to pretend those pics are frauds too), and the little fact that Oswald was caught with the revolver in his hands in the theater.
Seems to me you'd be wise to go back to siding with those first-generation critics and just admit what is obviously the truth -- Oswald owned the two guns.
And then your make-believe Patsy plot is easier to swallow too.
Of course, there are still many bumps in the Patsy road even if you accept the guns as being Oswald's -- e.g.: You'd still have to totally ignore all the lies told by your patsy on Nov. 21 and 22. And you'd still have to totally ignore Oswald's own incriminating actions on Nov. 22.
But I'm sure you're up to that easy task of ignoring (or mangling) all of that unimportant stuff, right Jimmy?
David Von Pein
November 25—December 16, 2011
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html
Ben Holmes
Dec 12, 2017, 10:32:01 AM12/12/17
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 12, 2017, 10:35:50 AM12/12/17
to
As I stated: And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE
post...
David once again illustrates his cowardice...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:39:14 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>HELEN MARKHAM'S BUS
>(AND THE MURDER OF J.D. TIPPIT)....
>
>
>BUD SAID:
>
>The bus schedules indicate the bus stopped at [Helen Markham's] stop
>around 1:26:
>
>http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11524&relPageId=7
>
>
>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
>Vincent Bugliosi, following Helen Markham's testimony, puts the bus at 1:15.
>
>Bugliosi even argues that he knows of the 1:12 time, and DOESN'T BELIEVE that Helen Markham would say 1:15 for a 1:12 bus. (Of course, honest readers can easily disagree with such a silly assertion.)
>
>Vincent Bugliosi would dismiss **even more strongly** a 1:26 bus time... if Bugliosi thought three minutes was enough to dismiss the 1:12 time, HE'D BE TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE A FOOL FOR ACCEPTING AN 11-MINUTE DIFFERENCE.
>
>(Which, by the way, most folks would refer to as a 1:25 time...)
>
>So who's telling the lie?
>
>Clearly - Bugliosi must be lying if "Bud" is telling the truth.
>
>So tell us "Bud," why do you think Bugliosi was lying?
actually answering the topic.
Why the cowardice, David?
Why can't you *RESPOND* to the original post, and reply to each point
I make?
Here it is again:
Ben Holmes
Dec 12, 2017, 10:52:28 AM12/12/17
to
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>>
>> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> extremely likely that he owned it.
>
> Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
> Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
"Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
"conspiracy.
>> Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>
> Retard figuring, lurkers. Looking at the wrong things again.
Your inability to refute the facts I just posted is shown here... you
resort to ad hominem virtually *EVERY* time you can't refute the
facts.
>> This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
>> NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>> doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>> ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>> any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>
> Ben can see no connection to this murder and the assassination,
> lurkers. He is a first class stump.
Nor can you, of course.
If you *had* been able to - you'd have posted it. But you know just as
well as I do that *NOTHING* in David's item #2 has anything WHATSOEVER
to do with the number of shooters in Dealey Plaza.
"Dud's" stupid enough to try to imply otherwise, yet won't get
specific.
>> That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>> is downright silly.
>
> What is silly is the games these retards play with the deaths of
> these men, lurkers.
Once again, "Dud's" ad hominem shows that *HE* knows he lost.
>> Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>> scene.
>
> Many witnesses put him there, lurkers.
Name them. Then cite their testimony. Let's see what you've got,
coward...
>> The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>> intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>> evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>> have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>> mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>> place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>
> Never trust a conspiracy retard to be the judge of credibility,
> lurkers. They aren`t credible themselves.
You won't, of course; refute what I just stated by citing the
evidence.
You can't.
>> Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier.
>
> Can Ben produce those bus schedules?
Can "Dud" lie?
>> Helen
>> Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>> the murder happening at 1:15.
>
> The same Helen Markham who said she saw Oswald kill Tippit, lurkers.
Even *YOU* don't believe Helen Markham.
Why the cowardice, "Dud?"
>> The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>> killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>> have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>
> <snicker> Only a conspiracy retard would consider erroneous
> information the best, lurkers.
Begging the question...
>> And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
>> the bullets to the gun...
>
> Whatever that means to a conspiracy retard, lurkers.
You can't refute it, so you simply lie...
>> I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
>> THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
>
> He should support it rather than repeat it, lurkers.
No, moron... I find no need to "support" what you know quite well to
be the truth. **YOU** will refuse to refute what I stated by citing...
>> ... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
>> testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
>> by believers...
>>
>> Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
>
> Did you lurkers see Ben establish this claim?
Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
>> Let the running begin...
>>
>> David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
>> certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
>> was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
>> truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
>> David's posts... watch for it!
>
> The retards are willing to believe the shells found at the scene
> were switched, what could matter less lurkers? They think the DPD was
> conspiring to allow the murderer of one of their own get away with
> that murder. What they are offering can`t begin to support this most
> incredible and fantastic idea.
Logical fallacies again... just how stupid *are* you "Dud?"
>> And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
>> "Dud" lies about it.
>
> For the most part Ben has made a bunch of empty claims, lurkers.
> There isn`t much there that even needs rebuttal, just hot air.
Let the running begin!
wrote:
>On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>>
>> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> extremely likely that he owned it.
>
> Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
> Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
"conspiracy.
>> Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>
> Retard figuring, lurkers. Looking at the wrong things again.
resort to ad hominem virtually *EVERY* time you can't refute the
facts.
>> This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
>> NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>> doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>> ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>> any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>
> Ben can see no connection to this murder and the assassination,
> lurkers. He is a first class stump.
If you *had* been able to - you'd have posted it. But you know just as
well as I do that *NOTHING* in David's item #2 has anything WHATSOEVER
to do with the number of shooters in Dealey Plaza.
"Dud's" stupid enough to try to imply otherwise, yet won't get
specific.
>> That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>> is downright silly.
>
> What is silly is the games these retards play with the deaths of
> these men, lurkers.
>> Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>> scene.
>
> Many witnesses put him there, lurkers.
coward...
>> The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>> intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>> evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>> have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>> mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>> place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>
> Never trust a conspiracy retard to be the judge of credibility,
> lurkers. They aren`t credible themselves.
evidence.
You can't.
>> Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier.
>
> Can Ben produce those bus schedules?
>> Helen
>> Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>> the murder happening at 1:15.
>
> The same Helen Markham who said she saw Oswald kill Tippit, lurkers.
Why the cowardice, "Dud?"
>> The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>> killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>> have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>
> <snicker> Only a conspiracy retard would consider erroneous
> information the best, lurkers.
>> And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
>> the bullets to the gun...
>
> Whatever that means to a conspiracy retard, lurkers.
>> I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
>> THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
>
> He should support it rather than repeat it, lurkers.
be the truth. **YOU** will refuse to refute what I stated by citing...
>> ... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
>> testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
>> by believers...
>>
>> Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
>
> Did you lurkers see Ben establish this claim?
Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
>> Let the running begin...
>>
>> David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
>> certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
>> was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
>> truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
>> David's posts... watch for it!
>
> The retards are willing to believe the shells found at the scene
> were switched, what could matter less lurkers? They think the DPD was
> conspiring to allow the murderer of one of their own get away with
> that murder. What they are offering can`t begin to support this most
> incredible and fantastic idea.
>> And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
>> "Dud" lies about it.
>
> For the most part Ben has made a bunch of empty claims, lurkers.
> There isn`t much there that even needs rebuttal, just hot air.
donald willis
Dec 12, 2017, 12:43:36 PM12/12/17
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 12, 2017, 2:26:40 PM12/12/17
to
people called the DPD at the *TIME* of the shooting of Tippit... do
you have further info on this? I *do* know that these calls were never
presented to the Warren Commission - as they would detail the time of
the shooting. (which, of course, happened *BEFORE* the Warren
Commission claimed.)
Bud
Dec 12, 2017, 2:39:45 PM12/12/17
to
Bud
Dec 12, 2017, 3:24:16 PM12/12/17
to
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >>
> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
> >
> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
> > Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
>
> "Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
> "conspiracy.
I accept the standard dictionary definition of the word, lurkers.
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >>
> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
> >
> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
> > Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
>
> "Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
> "conspiracy.
> >> Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
> >> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
> >> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
> >> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
> >
> > Retard figuring, lurkers. Looking at the wrong things again.
>
>
> Your inability to refute the facts I just posted is shown here...
>you
> resort to ad hominem virtually *EVERY* time you can't refute the
> facts.
>
>
> >> This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
> >> NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
> >> doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
> >> ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
> >> any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
> >
> > Ben can see no connection to this murder and the assassination,
> > lurkers. He is a first class stump.
>
> Nor can you, of course.
> If you *had* been able to - you'd have posted it.
> But you know just as
> well as I do that *NOTHING* in David's item #2 has anything WHATSOEVER
> to do with the number of shooters in Dealey Plaza.
> "Dud's" stupid enough to try to imply otherwise, yet won't get
> specific.
> >> That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
> >> is downright silly.
> >
> > What is silly is the games these retards play with the deaths of
> > these men, lurkers.
>
>
> Once again, "Dud's" ad hominem shows that *HE* knows he lost.
>
> >> Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
> >> scene.
> >
> > Many witnesses put him there, lurkers.
>
>
> Name them. Then cite their testimony. Let's see what you've got,
> coward...
> >> The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
> >> intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
> >> evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
> >> have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
> >> mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
> >> place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
> >
> > Never trust a conspiracy retard to be the judge of credibility,
> > lurkers. They aren`t credible themselves.
>
> You won't, of course; refute what I just stated by citing the
> evidence.
> You can't.
>
>
> >> Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier.
> >
> > Can Ben produce those bus schedules?
>
>
> Can "Dud" lie?
> >> Helen
> >> Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
> >> the murder happening at 1:15.
> >
> > The same Helen Markham who said she saw Oswald kill Tippit, lurkers.
>
>
> Even *YOU* don't believe Helen Markham.
> Why the cowardice, "Dud?"
>
>
> >> The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
> >> killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
> >> have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
> >
> > <snicker> Only a conspiracy retard would consider erroneous
> > information the best, lurkers.
>
>
> Begging the question...
> >> And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
> >> the bullets to the gun...
> >
> > Whatever that means to a conspiracy retard, lurkers.
>
>
> You can't refute it, so you simply lie...
>
> >> I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
> >> THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
> >
> > He should support it rather than repeat it, lurkers.
>
>
> No, moron... I find no need to "support" what you know quite well to
> be the truth. **YOU** will refuse to refute what I stated by citing...
> >> ... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
> >> testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
> >> by believers...
> >>
> >> Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
> >
> > Did you lurkers see Ben establish this claim?
>
>
> Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
> >> Let the running begin...
> >>
> >> David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
> >> certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
> >> was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
> >> truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
> >> David's posts... watch for it!
> >
> > The retards are willing to believe the shells found at the scene
> > were switched, what could matter less lurkers? They think the DPD was
> > conspiring to allow the murderer of one of their own get away with
> > that murder. What they are offering can`t begin to support this most
> > incredible and fantastic idea.
>
> Logical fallacies again... just how stupid *are* you "Dud?"
> >> And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
> >> "Dud" lies about it.
> >
> > For the most part Ben has made a bunch of empty claims, lurkers.
> > There isn`t much there that even needs rebuttal, just hot air.
>
>
> Let the running begin!
donald willis
Dec 13, 2017, 5:38:53 PM12/13/17
to
dcw
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 13, 2017, 9:08:38 PM12/13/17
to
https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm
These are .357 diameter bullets with 5 lands and grooves. They have had partial jackets or no jackets (probably the latter, as no metal jacket can be seen in any of them). They are simply lead. Nobody sells simple lead bullet-loaded rounds for a semi-automatic pistol. And the the nearest kind of semi-auto .38 (the .38 Super) has very different looking bullets (with with factory loads, has a proper round nose and full metal jacket, like ammmo for any auto pistol). Also it has 6 groves, so no dice on these being from a .38 Super.
These look like ".38 special" bullets (which of course are .357 diameter and often entirely lead or lead tipped). That's not rocket science. Even I can tell they aren't ".380" or "38 Super" bullets from a high powered automatic. They came from a revolver.
Now, I cannot tell them from .38 S&W bullets, which would be .359. But the ballistics expert could, and he said quite properly that the .357" bullets from ".38 special" cartridges (as found in Oswald's pockets) fired in a .359 barrel (Oswald's rechambered Victory pistol originally made for the .38/200 British cartridge) came out very peculiarly, since they rattled down a barrel too large for them. He thought he could match ONE bullet to Oswald's pistol. But even if you don't believe him, any "automatic" these bullets went through, had to have an oversized .359 barrel like a British .38 revolver. (?) There are no .38 automatics like that. There are a few .38 specials like that, and Oswald happened to have one! But it's a Frankenstein weapon. I was sold cheap as a rechambered WW II surplus pistol, by the people Oswald bought it from. As A.J. Hidell. Yes, he didn't pick up the pistol at the post office, but he ordered it to his PO address, so it's clearly Oswald (or somebody using Oswald's box).
Watch and learn. The ballistics guy knows his stuff. I conclude that it is easier that the doofus cop Hill looked at the rims on the .38 special cases and got it exactly wrong. If you see a rim, that means a revolver. Otherwise you have to believe on cop is right and legions of later experts are wrong. Sort of like the initial report that the Carcano was a Mauser.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-eVN02DoOY
Ben Holmes
Dec 14, 2017, 11:54:38 AM12/14/17
to
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:38:52 -0800 (PST), donald willis
Yes, Frank Wright is who I was trying to think of. In the book, Harvey
& Lee, Mary is placing the call at the same time as Frank still sees
the suspect standing over Tippit's dead body. I don't know how
accurate, or what this "fact" is based on, but if true, then the time
of that call would be very useful indeed. The DPD did not release the
actual dispatcher notes to my knowledge...
& Lee, Mary is placing the call at the same time as Frank still sees
the suspect standing over Tippit's dead body. I don't know how
accurate, or what this "fact" is based on, but if true, then the time
of that call would be very useful indeed. The DPD did not release the
actual dispatcher notes to my knowledge...
donald willis
Dec 14, 2017, 6:26:05 PM12/14/17
to
I don't know how
> accurate, or what this "fact" is based on, but if true, then the time
> of that call would be very useful indeed. The DPD did not release the
> actual dispatcher notes to my knowledge...
>
dcw
> cut
Ben Holmes
Dec 14, 2017, 7:24:56 PM12/14/17
to
issue to address, and simply ignores everything else:
>Anybody can see the 4 bullets recovered from Tippit here:
pistol, or in the cartridges "found" at the scene.
>https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm
>
> These are .357 diameter bullets with 5 lands and grooves. They have
> had partial jackets or no jackets (probably the latter, as no metal
> jacket can be seen in any of them). They are simply lead. Nobody sells
> simple lead bullet-loaded rounds for a semi-automatic pistol. And the
> the nearest kind of semi-auto .38 (the .38 Super) has very different
> looking bullets (with with factory loads, has a proper round nose and
> full metal jacket, like ammmo for any auto pistol). Also it has 6
> groves, so no dice on these being from a .38 Super.
>
> These look like ".38 special" bullets (which of course are .357
> diameter and often entirely lead or lead tipped). That's not rocket
> science. Even I can tell they aren't ".380" or "38 Super" bullets from
> a high powered automatic. They came from a revolver.
Simply not true.
You **CANNOT** tell from the bullet, only from the case (or complete
cartridge, obviously)
> Now, I cannot tell them from .38 S&W bullets, which would be .359.
> But the ballistics expert could, and he said quite properly that the
> .357" bullets from ".38 special" cartridges (as found in Oswald's
> pockets) fired in a .359 barrel (Oswald's rechambered Victory pistol
> originally made for the .38/200 British cartridge) came out very
> peculiarly, since they rattled down a barrel too large for them. He
> thought he could match ONE bullet to Oswald's pistol. But even if you
> don't believe him, any "automatic" these bullets went through, had to
> have an oversized .359 barrel like a British .38 revolver. (?) There
> are no .38 automatics like that. There are a few .38 specials like
> that, and Oswald happened to have one! But it's a Frankenstein weapon.
> I was sold cheap as a rechambered WW II surplus pistol, by the people
> Oswald bought it from. As A.J. Hidell. Yes, he didn't pick up the
> pistol at the post office, but he ordered it to his PO address, so
> it's clearly Oswald (or somebody using
>Oswald's box).
>
> Watch and learn. The ballistics guy knows his stuff. I conclude that
> it is easier that the doofus cop Hill looked at the rims on the .38
> special cases and got it exactly wrong.
"Auto" on the bottom. Not all, but many.
> If you see a rim, that means a
> revolver.
As anyone can see here:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c9d3e25cd28e75fb5ad1fd82dadc917b-c
You'd have us believe that *ALL* of these are revolver cartridges.
> Otherwise you have to believe on cop is right and legions of
> later experts are wrong. Sort of like the initial report that the
> Carcano was a Mauser.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-eVN02DoOY
simply a few mistakes here and there...
Of course, most people will realize that there are very few "doofuses"
who make the grade of Sergeant in a Police department...
Dead silence over the issue of "eyewitness shopping" - predictable
really... I've **NEVER** seen a believer address this fact.
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 14, 2017, 10:53:54 PM12/14/17
to
>
>
> >https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm
> >
> > These are .357 diameter bullets with 5 lands and grooves. They have
> > had partial jackets or no jackets (probably the latter, as no metal
> > jacket can be seen in any of them). They are simply lead. Nobody sells
> > simple lead bullet-loaded rounds for a semi-automatic pistol. And the
> > the nearest kind of semi-auto .38 (the .38 Super) has very different
> > looking bullets (with with factory loads, has a proper round nose and
> > full metal jacket, like ammmo for any auto pistol). Also it has 6
> > groves, so no dice on these being from a .38 Super.
> >
> > These look like ".38 special" bullets (which of course are .357
> > diameter and often entirely lead or lead tipped). That's not rocket
> > science. Even I can tell they aren't ".380" or "38 Super" bullets from
> > a high powered automatic. They came from a revolver.
>
>
> You're trying to say that 'automatic' is always jacketed.
>
> Simply not true.
> You **CANNOT** tell from the bullet, only from the case (or complete
> cartridge, obviously)
> > Now, I cannot tell them from .38 S&W bullets, which would be .359.
> > But the ballistics expert could, and he said quite properly that the
> > .357" bullets from ".38 special" cartridges (as found in Oswald's
> > pockets) fired in a .359 barrel (Oswald's rechambered Victory pistol
> > originally made for the .38/200 British cartridge) came out very
> > peculiarly, since they rattled down a barrel too large for them. He
> > thought he could match ONE bullet to Oswald's pistol. But even if you
> > don't believe him, any "automatic" these bullets went through, had to
> > have an oversized .359 barrel like a British .38 revolver. (?) There
> > are no .38 automatics like that. There are a few .38 specials like
> > that, and Oswald happened to have one! But it's a Frankenstein weapon.
> > I was sold cheap as a rechambered WW II surplus pistol, by the people
> > Oswald bought it from. As A.J. Hidell. Yes, he didn't pick up the
> > pistol at the post office, but he ordered it to his PO address, so
> > it's clearly Oswald (or somebody using
> >Oswald's box).
> >
> > Watch and learn. The ballistics guy knows his stuff. I conclude that
> > it is easier that the doofus cop Hill looked at the rims on the .38
> > special cases and got it exactly wrong.
>
> He may well have simply been reading... many automatic cases *SAY*
> "Auto" on the bottom. Not all, but many.
>
> > If you see a rim, that means a
> > revolver.
>
> Nope. Not true.
>
> As anyone can see here:
> https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c9d3e25cd28e75fb5ad1fd82dadc917b-c
>
> You'd have us believe that *ALL* of these are revolver cartridges.
And one of the revolver rounds shown in your picture is a .38 special, the caliber used by Oswald to kill Tippit.
Ben Holmes
Dec 15, 2017, 11:57:15 AM12/15/17
to
>> >Anybody can see the 4 bullets recovered from Tippit here:
>>
>>
>> Begging the question. You can't, of course, put them in the Oswald
>> pistol, or in the cartridges "found" at the scene.
>
> I wouldn't expect to.
revolver or an automatic... as the bullet type may suggest one or the
other, BUT CANNOT PROVE DEFINITIVELY WHAT WAS USED TO FIRE IT.
This is quite basic for anyone who is familiar with weaponry.
> Yes, they were cartridges "found" at the
> scene. Unless you want to put passers-by like Benavides into the
> conspiracy, too.
automatic. That simply doesn't follow.
Unless you *could* match those bullets to the shells found.
Which, of course, simply isn't possible.
Nor does Benavides have anything at all to do with the chain of
custody for those shells.
>> >https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm
>> >
>> > These are .357 diameter bullets with 5 lands and grooves. They have
>> > had partial jackets or no jackets (probably the latter, as no metal
>> > jacket can be seen in any of them). They are simply lead. Nobody sells
>> > simple lead bullet-loaded rounds for a semi-automatic pistol. And the
>> > the nearest kind of semi-auto .38 (the .38 Super) has very different
>> > looking bullets (with with factory loads, has a proper round nose and
>> > full metal jacket, like ammmo for any auto pistol). Also it has 6
>> > groves, so no dice on these being from a .38 Super.
>> >
>> > These look like ".38 special" bullets (which of course are .357
>> > diameter and often entirely lead or lead tipped). That's not rocket
>> > science. Even I can tell they aren't ".380" or "38 Super" bullets from
>> > a high powered automatic. They came from a revolver.
>>
>>
>> You're trying to say that 'automatic' is always jacketed.
>>
>> Simply not true.
>
> It was true in 1963. Perhaps not today with the automatic hollow
> points, but certainly back then, it was true.
Bill DeShivers: "There were softpoint .38 auto (not Super) rounds made
in the 1950s."
I suspect I'll be waiting forever for you to cite.
It's true that automatics greatly favor jacketed ammo... it's *NOT*
true that you cannot find non-jacketed ammo for automatics.
>> You **CANNOT** tell from the bullet, only from the case (or complete
>> cartridge, obviously)
>
>No, I can tell. Maybe YOU can't.
You've given *NOTHING* to support your claim. (nor will you...)
You'd better run back to the censored forum... because only citable
FACT is going to convince anyone in *this* forum.
And telling an obvious lie as well. For example:
https://loungecdn.luckygunner.com/lounge/media/38-super-3.jpg
This says ".38" - yet it's clearly *NOT* a "revolver" cartridge.
If you don't start citing for your assertions, I'm merely going to
start calling you a liar.
>> > If you see a rim, that means a
>> > revolver.
>>
>
>> Nope. Not true.
>>
>> As anyone can see here:
>> https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c9d3e25cd28e75fb5ad1fd82dadc917b-c
>>
>> You'd have us believe that *ALL* of these are revolver cartridges.
>
> No, I'd have you learn something about firearms! We'll start the
> lesson right here. A "rim" on a pistol cartridge (for our purposes) is
> something that sticks out beyond the diameter of the case, so its
> slide into a cylinder is stopped.
A "rim" can either extend past the diameter of the case, OR IT ALSO
CAN *NOT* EXTEND PAST THE DIAMETER OF THE CASE.
In both cases, it's referred to as a "rim."
Citing from "Cartridges of the World" , page 14: "Rimless cartridges
**HAVE A RIM** and base of the same diameter..."
You're clearly someone who's learned "just enough" to be dangerous,
but aren't really knowledgeable on the topic.
> In that series of loaded ammo rounds
> you can see just two cartridges with a rim. You don't even need to
> look at the notations to ID them. Those are revolver calibers, and the
> rest are from autos. Clear as day.
>
> And one of the revolver rounds shown in your picture is a .38
> special, the caliber used by Oswald to kill Tippit.
It's interesting to note for the record that this is the SECOND time
you've evaded the topic of "expert witness shopping" done by the
Warren Commission.
I think you'd best run back to the censored forum before you REALLY
get spanked!
donald willis
Dec 15, 2017, 12:45:40 PM12/15/17
to
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:24:56 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
dcw
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 16, 2017, 2:42:17 AM12/16/17
to
When you say
>“Citing from "Cartridges of the World" , page 14: "Rimless cartridges **HAVE A >RIM** and base of the same diameter..."
It just makes me laugh. “Rimless” is a term of art in the gun world and it’s not meant literally. And similarly be advised that “smokeless powder” actually makes some smoke, too. It’s all relative. In the case of rimless or semi-rimless cases you can feel it blindfolded, and a gun-nut reloader will never be fooled. Clearly officer Hills was no gun nut and neither are you.
I’m not an expert (defined as somebody who gets paid for his opinion on guns), but plenty of experts are on record in the matter of discussion of Oswald’s Victory pistol. Speaking of which, who is “Bill DeShivers.” “Bill DeShivers: "There were softpoint .38 auto (not Super) rounds made in the 1950s." I suspect I'll be waiting forever for you to cite.
No, I’m going to cite the Warren Commission’s FBI expert Cortlandt Cunnigham, followed by the HSCA’s panel of five ballistics experts with stellar credentials who independently examined the original evidence and re-fired the revolver themselves, and who all back up Cunningham (in case you are going to accuse him of being a plant like Zapruder).
As far as what DeShivers says, he might be right, but any ammo made for the short obsolete .38 auto (.38 ACP) would merely reflect the underpowered nature of this cartridge, which originally could indeed be bought in roundpoint lead in the 1920’s. However, they were small and stubby and 130 grain, and don’t look at all like 158 grain .38 special bullets. The .38 auto cartridge was essentially an underpowered 9mm and it’s difficult to get 158 gr. 9mm bullets even today. And they’d have to be handloads—I cannot find any factory loaded 158 gr. rounds for this caliber automatic. In 1963 I would say this would be well nigh impossible, but could be convinced if you have evidence.
But what’s the point? These bullets came from Smith and Wesson revolver. Bullets for the .38 special revolver came in up to 200 gr., and the 158 gr. load (famously used by the FBI in their snubnoses) was the most common .38 special load in the US. And was what Oswald was carrying in his pocket, and had loaded in his Victory pistol.
In fact his pistol had live cartridges with 158 gr. bullets, made by Western and by Remington-Peters (RP). Three of each. Clearly he had bought boxes of each and liked to mix.
And strangely enough, the 4 cartridge brass empties turned in by citizens after Oswald scattered them, were 2 Western and 2 RP cases for .38 special. Which had certainly been fired in Oswald’s revolver, from their distinctive primer and other marks. The 4 bullets that came out of Tippet were 3 made by Western and 1 from RP, all 158 gr. .38 special (though actually weighing 155 or 154 gr.). We must suppose that Oswald missed Tippet with an RP bullet where the case was recovered, but hit him with a Western bullet where the case was NOT recovered, for a total of five shots. But that’s far from impossible, and is even likely (with 5 shots we’re lucky to account completely for 4).
Is somebody setting up Oswald going to not only use brass from his weapon, but know to use a mix of the same two types he was caught with? And to the same for the bullets in Tippet? And if you’re going to set him up that well, why not do it perfectly?
The bullets from Tippit can be quickly ID’d by eye as not being automatic bullets—they are just too long and heavy. I’m telling you that as an old reloader for both 9mm and .38 Spl. And their weight puts them out of 9mm/.356 auto range, so I’m right. You can just stew and claim I’m right for the wrong reasons. But I’m not.
The only way these bullets could be fired from an automatic pistol is if the auto pistol was made by Smith and Wesson, like an old Model 39 actually firing .38 specials loaded with heavy wadcutters at 158 grains. The only problem is these bullets are not wadcutters so the M39 would not have fired them from .38 spl rimmed cases (and these certainly came from those, see below). Also the barrel lands and grooves of the M39 were not changed to the 5 right groove S&W standard until the 1970’s, so any Model 39 in 1963 would have had the wrong barrel- markings. These Tippit bullets have the right land/grove markings for a S&W revolver. They don’t match a Colt or Browning anything else (ACP = Automatic Colt Pistol). As the FBI expert says, when you see 5 equal lands and groves to the right, you know you’re dealing with a S&W revolver (at least in 1963).
Okay, besides the high weight (too high for an automatic) and the S&W land/grove pattern, how did the FBI guy know these are .38 special bullets from .38 special ammo (like that in Oswald’s pockets and his weapon) that can only be fired in a .38 S&W revolver? Well, he tells us.
It turns out you can ID .38 special bullets by manufacturer, if you have type specimens to compare, which the FBI did. Each manufacturer has a slightly different bullet base, and each one a unique pattern of knurling into the bullet lubrication-holding groves, called cannelures, and these result in differing gaps between the two cannelures at the base, and also in the pattern of the cannelures themselves. Finally there is a third ring on the bullet resulting in it from the case being crimped into it, and the spacing between THAT crimping ring and cannelures is strictly individual to company and bullet caliber.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham3.htm
Thus, Cunningham damn well knows what these bullets from Tippet started out as, and who made them initially as .38 special loaded rounds (not any sort of automatic ammo). The Western bullets even have residual copper “lubaloy” on them, which is a nearly cosmetic copper coating thinner than a copper jacket.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham2.htm
In case you want to impure Cunningham, five ballistic experts from the HSCA commission 15 years later sign off on all of Cunningham’s results. Are you really going to make me post the credentials of these experts?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm
See Tippit murder section. This is summarized from V. 7 of the HSCA hearings.
In summary, the bullets in Tippit come from identifiable .38 special cartridges of known manufacture (though they cannot be connected with Oswald’s particular pistol, due to bullet rattle down its oversized barrel). They do not come from .38 ACP, .38 Super, 9 mm, or any other similar manufactured ammo you can name.
These bullets IN FACT started life as loaded .38 special ammo made by Western and Remmigton. The only way they could have been fired by an automatic into Tippit is if they had been bought as .38 special ammo, fired through Oswald’s pistol (or some other rechambered Victory pistol) into a water tank to give them suitable S&W barrel marks, then reloaded (deeply) into some 9mm or 380 cartridge fire-able in an automatic, then fired at Tippit though a clean “musket” type barrel which left no marks on them.
All this to enable the leaving of some automatic 38 case at the scene for Hill.
THEN this automatic case(s) must disappear completely forever. To be replaced by the cases from Oswald’s pistol scattered in the yard area near Tippit, and some of which was immediately retrieved by Benavides.
Boy, that’s complicated! Is it really what you believe? Sounds like duplicate Oswalds, ice bullets, and planting of Carcano bullets on stretchers by Ruby.
===
I had better stop for now. In the end I will grant you your point on the 38 super, although I meant literally .38 with the decimal point, it doesn’t matter. Anybody seeing plain 38 would call it in that way.
Ben Holmes
Dec 16, 2017, 12:49:05 PM12/16/17
to
>> > Yes, they were cartridges "found" at the
>> > scene. Unless you want to put passers-by like Benavides into the
>> > conspiracy, too.
>>
>>
>> You're trying to use the *bullets* to claim that it wasn't an
>> automatic. That simply doesn't follow.
>>
>> Unless you *could* match those bullets to the shells found.
>>
>> Which, of course, simply isn't possible.
>>
>> Nor does Benavides have anything at all to do with the chain of
>> custody for those shells.
>> >> >https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > These are .357 diameter bullets with 5 lands and grooves. They have
>> >> > had partial jackets or no jackets (probably the latter, as no metal
>> >> > jacket can be seen in any of them). They are simply lead. Nobody sells
>> >> > simple lead bullet-loaded rounds for a semi-automatic pistol. And the
>> >> > the nearest kind of semi-auto .38 (the .38 Super) has very different
>> >> > looking bullets (with with factory loads, has a proper round nose and
>> >> > full metal jacket, like ammmo for any auto pistol). Also it has 6
>> >> > groves, so no dice on these being from a .38 Super.
>> >> >
>> >> > These look like ".38 special" bullets (which of course are .357
>> >> > diameter and often entirely lead or lead tipped). That's not rocket
>> >> > science. Even I can tell they aren't ".380" or "38 Super" bullets from
>> >> > a high powered automatic. They came from a revolver.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're trying to say that 'automatic' is always jacketed.
>> >>
>> >> Simply not true.
>> >
>> > It was true in 1963. Perhaps not today with the automatic hollow
>> > points, but certainly back then, it was true.
>>
>>
>> No. You'll offer *NOTHING* other than your naked opinion.
>>
>> Bill DeShivers: "There were softpoint .38 auto (not Super) rounds made
>> in the 1950s."
>>
>> I suspect I'll be waiting forever for you to cite.
>> >> > If you see a rim, that means a
>> >> > revolver.
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Nope. Not true.
>> >>
>> >> As anyone can see here:
>> >> https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c9d3e25cd28e75fb5ad1fd82dadc917b-c
>> >>
>> >> You'd have us believe that *ALL* of these are revolver cartridges.
>> >
>> > No, I'd have you learn something about firearms! We'll start the
>> > lesson right here. A "rim" on a pistol cartridge (for our purposes) is
>> > something that sticks out beyond the diameter of the case, so its
>> > slide into a cylinder is stopped.
>>
>>
>> Nah, it's time to start labeling you a liar.
>>
>> A "rim" can either extend past the diameter of the case, OR IT ALSO
>> CAN *NOT* EXTEND PAST THE DIAMETER OF THE CASE.
>>
>> In both cases, it's referred to as a "rim."
>>
>> Citing from "Cartridges of the World" , page 14: "Rimless cartridges
>> **HAVE A RIM** and base of the same diameter..."
>>
>> You're clearly someone who's learned "just enough" to be dangerous,
>> but aren't really knowledgeable on the topic.
>> > In that series of loaded ammo rounds
>> > you can see just two cartridges with a rim. You don't even need to
>> > look at the notations to ID them. Those are revolver calibers, and the
>> > rest are from autos. Clear as day.
>> >
>> > And one of the revolver rounds shown in your picture is a .38
>> > special, the caliber used by Oswald to kill Tippit.
>>
>> Again, begging the question.
>>
>> It's interesting to note for the record that this is the SECOND time
>> you've evaded the topic of "expert witness shopping" done by the
>> Warren Commission.
>>
>> I think you'd best run back to the censored forum before you REALLY
>> get spanked!
>>
>
> Not by you.
You lose!
Nor am I interested in even reading the rest of your post - you REFUSE
to debate, no need to hear you rant and rave when you've been
completely silent as I proved your assertions to be lies above...
It would be truly unique if I ever ran into an honest and
knowledgeable believer...
I haven't yet...
Bud
Dec 16, 2017, 1:37:12 PM12/16/17
to
> It would be truly unique if I ever ran into an honest and
> knowledgeable believer...
> I haven't yet...
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 16, 2017, 6:25:17 PM12/16/17
to
Yep. Oswald’s revolver was not capable of putting weapon-distinctive marks on even test bullets. It WAS cabable of putting the S&W revolver pattern of 5 equal lands and groves, right twist, on bullets. And that is the pattern on the Tippit bullets. The barrel of no automatic of 1963 left such marks, though Cunningham (the FBI expert) noted that there were several million Smith and Wesson *revolvers* that would do THAT much. Take only those rechambered to .38 Special from .38-200 but not rebarrelled, and it’s a lot less. They would be reimported and rechambered Smiths like Oswald’s surplus WWII Victory pistol. Odd weapons.
Automatic .38s are dismissed by the Warren Commission FBI expert and the HSCA ballistics experts panel. The reason seems to have overloaded Ben’s attention span for he is now off obscessing over irrelevant details and whether he won debate points with them.
But the fact that the bullets from Tippit can be identified by all experts as coming from specific .38 Special 158 gr. ammo loaded by two different manufacturers of .38 Specials, wipes out any automatic theory, for these rounds could not have been fired from any automatic that existed at the time. That’s a boulder in the stream you can’t get around if you are an “automatic conspiracist.”
Add to this the fact that empty .38 Special brass from those same two manufacturers was found in a yard where witnesses saw the shooter scatter it, and it certainly had been fired in Oswald’s pistol.
Add to this the fact that loaded 158 gr. 38 Special rounds from the same manufacturers was found loaded in the Victory pistol taken from Oswald in the theater, and you really have to be retarded not to see the truth.
However, I don’t think the problem is stupidity actually, but some perversion of belief. These people simply cannot believe Oswald is guilty. If Oswald’s loaded pistol, exactly as taken from him, had (instead) been recovered in the coat found two blocks from Tippit, we wouldn’t even be arguing this. Oswald would deny it was his (and be believed), and the conspiracists would accept without doubt it was the Tippit murder weapon (using all our same evidence) but deny Oswald was the shooter.
ONLY the fact Oswald was caught while trying to shoot a cop with this pistol causes all these flights of fancy now about it not being the murder weapon. As Trump would say: sad.
Automatic .38s are dismissed by the Warren Commission FBI expert and the HSCA ballistics experts panel. The reason seems to have overloaded Ben’s attention span for he is now off obscessing over irrelevant details and whether he won debate points with them.
But the fact that the bullets from Tippit can be identified by all experts as coming from specific .38 Special 158 gr. ammo loaded by two different manufacturers of .38 Specials, wipes out any automatic theory, for these rounds could not have been fired from any automatic that existed at the time. That’s a boulder in the stream you can’t get around if you are an “automatic conspiracist.”
Add to this the fact that empty .38 Special brass from those same two manufacturers was found in a yard where witnesses saw the shooter scatter it, and it certainly had been fired in Oswald’s pistol.
Add to this the fact that loaded 158 gr. 38 Special rounds from the same manufacturers was found loaded in the Victory pistol taken from Oswald in the theater, and you really have to be retarded not to see the truth.
However, I don’t think the problem is stupidity actually, but some perversion of belief. These people simply cannot believe Oswald is guilty. If Oswald’s loaded pistol, exactly as taken from him, had (instead) been recovered in the coat found two blocks from Tippit, we wouldn’t even be arguing this. Oswald would deny it was his (and be believed), and the conspiracists would accept without doubt it was the Tippit murder weapon (using all our same evidence) but deny Oswald was the shooter.
ONLY the fact Oswald was caught while trying to shoot a cop with this pistol causes all these flights of fancy now about it not being the murder weapon. As Trump would say: sad.
Bud
Dec 16, 2017, 8:00:23 PM12/16/17
to
On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:25:17 PM UTC-5, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yep. Oswald’s revolver was not capable of putting weapon-distinctive marks on even test bullets. It WAS cabable of putting the S&W revolver pattern of 5 equal lands and groves, right twist, on bullets. And that is the pattern on the Tippit bullets. The barrel of no automatic of 1963 left such marks, though Cunningham (the FBI expert) noted that there were several million Smith and Wesson *revolvers* that would do THAT much. Take only those rechambered to .38 Special from .38-200 but not rebarrelled, and it’s a lot less. They would be reimported and rechambered Smiths like Oswald’s surplus WWII Victory pistol. Odd weapons.
And innocent Oswald has no luck again. Either his gun could have created distinctive striations on the bullets it fired or the bullets in Tippit`s body could have the distinctive striations that would allow them to to be matched to a weapon other than his. If Oswald were innocent this should likely be evidence that exonerates him, yet it is exactly consistent with the gun taken from him being the one used to kill Tippit.
> Yep. Oswald’s revolver was not capable of putting weapon-distinctive marks on even test bullets. It WAS cabable of putting the S&W revolver pattern of 5 equal lands and groves, right twist, on bullets. And that is the pattern on the Tippit bullets. The barrel of no automatic of 1963 left such marks, though Cunningham (the FBI expert) noted that there were several million Smith and Wesson *revolvers* that would do THAT much. Take only those rechambered to .38 Special from .38-200 but not rebarrelled, and it’s a lot less. They would be reimported and rechambered Smiths like Oswald’s surplus WWII Victory pistol. Odd weapons.
> Automatic .38s are dismissed by the Warren Commission FBI expert and the HSCA ballistics experts panel. The reason seems to have overloaded Ben’s attention span for he is now off obscessing over irrelevant details and whether he won debate points with them.
> But the fact that the bullets from Tippit can be identified by all experts as coming from specific .38 Special 158 gr. ammo loaded by two different manufacturers of .38 Specials, wipes out any automatic theory, for these rounds could not have been fired from any automatic that existed at the time. That’s a boulder in the stream you can’t get around if you are an “automatic conspiracist.”
> Add to this the fact that empty .38 Special brass from those same two manufacturers was found in a yard where witnesses saw the shooter scatter it, and it certainly had been fired in Oswald’s pistol.
> Add to this the fact that loaded 158 gr. 38 Special rounds from the same manufacturers was found loaded in the Victory pistol taken from Oswald in the theater, and you really have to be retarded not to see the truth.
>
> However, I don’t think the problem is stupidity actually, but some perversion of belief. These people simply cannot believe Oswald is guilty. If Oswald’s loaded pistol, exactly as taken from him, had (instead) been recovered in the coat found two blocks from Tippit, we wouldn’t even be arguing this. Oswald would deny it was his (and be believed), and the conspiracists would accept without doubt it was the Tippit murder weapon (using all our same evidence) but deny Oswald was the shooter.
donald willis
Dec 16, 2017, 11:44:09 PM12/16/17
to
b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
dcw
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 17, 2017, 12:41:31 AM12/17/17
to
> a) As Dale Myers notes, in "With Malice", Benavides *delayed* bringing the hulls to the attention of the police.
>
> b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
>
> c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
I can only repeat what many people have said "Nobody believes Mrs. Markham about anything" (TM)
>
> b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
>
> c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
As to the rest: So what?
Ben Holmes
Dec 17, 2017, 1:16:23 AM12/17/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 15:25:15 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> Automatic .38s are dismissed by the Warren Commission FBI expert and
> the HSCA ballistics experts panel. The reason seems to have overloaded
> Ben’s attention span for he is now off obscessing over irrelevant
> details and whether he won debate points with them.
You got caught repeatedly lying, and not citing ... on topics I easily
> Automatic .38s are dismissed by the Warren Commission FBI expert and
> the HSCA ballistics experts panel. The reason seems to have overloaded
> Ben’s attention span for he is now off obscessing over irrelevant
> details and whether he won debate points with them.
cited for.
If these were "irrelevant" topics, why did *YOU* bring them up?
Such dishonesty and cowardice shows any careful reader that *YOU* know
your case is weak.
Ben Holmes
Dec 17, 2017, 1:20:02 AM12/17/17
to
you, for they're necessary for your faith.
>As to the rest: So what?
faith is of any interest whatsoever.
This particular fact tells the story...
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 17, 2017, 1:43:12 AM12/17/17
to
Address the expert FBI and HCSA ballistics panel testimony about the provenance of the bullets from Tippit.
Come on.
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 17, 2017, 1:45:53 AM12/17/17
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 17, 2017, 11:48:19 AM12/17/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:43:11 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:16:23 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 15:25:15 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Automatic .38s are dismissed by the Warren Commission FBI expert and
>> > the HSCA ballistics experts panel. The reason seems to have overloaded
>> > Ben’s attention span for he is now off obscessing over irrelevant
>> > details and whether he won debate points with them.
>>
>> You got caught repeatedly lying, and not citing ... on topics I easily
>> cited for.
>>
>> If these were "irrelevant" topics, why did *YOU* bring them up?
>>
>> Such dishonesty and cowardice shows any careful reader that *YOU* know
>> your case is weak.
>
> You didn't HAVE any cite for anything except the idea that rimless
> cases aren't literally rimless. Which I said was like getting a cite
> for the idea that smokeless powder isn't literally smokeless.
Tut tut tut... go back and respond POINT BY POINT to the reply that
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:16:23 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 15:25:15 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Automatic .38s are dismissed by the Warren Commission FBI expert and
>> > the HSCA ballistics experts panel. The reason seems to have overloaded
>> > Ben’s attention span for he is now off obscessing over irrelevant
>> > details and whether he won debate points with them.
>>
>> You got caught repeatedly lying, and not citing ... on topics I easily
>> cited for.
>>
>> If these were "irrelevant" topics, why did *YOU* bring them up?
>>
>> Such dishonesty and cowardice shows any careful reader that *YOU* know
>> your case is weak.
>
> You didn't HAVE any cite for anything except the idea that rimless
> cases aren't literally rimless. Which I said was like getting a cite
> for the idea that smokeless powder isn't literally smokeless.
had the cites in it.
We've ALREADY seen your cowardice in refusing to answer...
I cited for more than the single example you gave... this proves you
senile at best, and more likely a liar.
> Address the expert FBI and HCSA ballistics panel testimony about the
> provenance of the bullets from Tippit.
>
>Come on.
why the Warren Commission went "expert shopping?"
When are you going to retract the lies you told that you were unable
to cite for?
Ben Holmes
Dec 17, 2017, 11:53:33 AM12/17/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:45:52 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:41:29 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> a) As Dale Myers notes, in "With Malice", Benavides *delayed* bringing the hulls to the attention of the police.
>> >>
>> >> b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
>> >>
>> >> c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
>> >
>> >
>> >I can only repeat what many people have said "Nobody believes Mrs. Markham about anything" (TM)
>>
>>
>> Witnesses who PROVABLY lied repeatedly will never be denigrated by
>> you, for they're necessary for your faith.
Dead silence... clearly you know you can't refute this.
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:41:29 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> a) As Dale Myers notes, in "With Malice", Benavides *delayed* bringing the hulls to the attention of the police.
>> >>
>> >> b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
>> >>
>> >> c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
>> >
>> >
>> >I can only repeat what many people have said "Nobody believes Mrs. Markham about anything" (TM)
>>
>>
>> Witnesses who PROVABLY lied repeatedly will never be denigrated by
>> you, for they're necessary for your faith.
>> >As to the rest: So what?
>>
>> This is typical for faith-holders... *NOTHING* that doesn't help your
>> faith is of any interest whatsoever.
>>
>> This particular fact tells the story...
>
>
> I believe in hard ballistics evidence over eyewitness testimony.
> Especially conflicting eyewitness testimony. Does that make me a bad
> person?
But only those who support your faith.
This silly idea that you believe in "hard ballistics evidence" is an
example of poor logic.
You cannot point to any such "hard ballistics evidence" without the
presumption of eyewitness testimony.
I've often pointed out the fact that believers simply don't believe
the eyewitnesses. And as a very simple example of this, simply name
the eyewitnesses in this case that YOU ACCEPT AND BELIEVE COMPLETELY.
But you won't.
For if you dared to do so, the weakness of your case would be
blaringly obvious.
Which explains why other believers in this forum have NEVER NAMED A
NAME...
Will you have the courage that others do not?
Bud
Dec 17, 2017, 12:24:28 PM12/17/17
to
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:53:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:45:52 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:41:29 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> a) As Dale Myers notes, in "With Malice", Benavides *delayed* bringing the hulls to the attention of the police.
> >> >>
> >> >> b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
> >> >>
> >> >> c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I can only repeat what many people have said "Nobody believes Mrs. Markham about anything" (TM)
> >>
> >>
> >> Witnesses who PROVABLY lied repeatedly will never be denigrated by
> >> you, for they're necessary for your faith.
>
>
> Dead silence... clearly you know you can't refute this.
>
>
>
> >> >As to the rest: So what?
> >>
> >> This is typical for faith-holders... *NOTHING* that doesn't help your
> >> faith is of any interest whatsoever.
> >>
> >> This particular fact tells the story...
> >
> >
> > I believe in hard ballistics evidence over eyewitness testimony.
> > Especially conflicting eyewitness testimony. Does that make me a bad
> > person?
>
> No, you believe in eyewitnesses.
>
> But only those who support your faith.
>
> This silly idea that you believe in "hard ballistics evidence" is an
> example of poor logic.
>
> You cannot point to any such "hard ballistics evidence" without the
> presumption of eyewitness testimony.
Of course human beings are involved in the process. lurkers.
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:45:52 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:41:29 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> a) As Dale Myers notes, in "With Malice", Benavides *delayed* bringing the hulls to the attention of the police.
> >> >>
> >> >> b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
> >> >>
> >> >> c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I can only repeat what many people have said "Nobody believes Mrs. Markham about anything" (TM)
> >>
> >>
> >> Witnesses who PROVABLY lied repeatedly will never be denigrated by
> >> you, for they're necessary for your faith.
>
>
> Dead silence... clearly you know you can't refute this.
>
>
>
> >> >As to the rest: So what?
> >>
> >> This is typical for faith-holders... *NOTHING* that doesn't help your
> >> faith is of any interest whatsoever.
> >>
> >> This particular fact tells the story...
> >
> >
> > I believe in hard ballistics evidence over eyewitness testimony.
> > Especially conflicting eyewitness testimony. Does that make me a bad
> > person?
>
> No, you believe in eyewitnesses.
>
> But only those who support your faith.
>
> This silly idea that you believe in "hard ballistics evidence" is an
> example of poor logic.
>
> You cannot point to any such "hard ballistics evidence" without the
> presumption of eyewitness testimony.
> I've often pointed out the fact that believers simply don't believe
> the eyewitnesses. And as a very simple example of this, simply name
> the eyewitnesses in this case that YOU ACCEPT AND BELIEVE COMPLETELY.
Certainly it is unrealistic to think that fallible human beings can be trusted to impart information infallibly.
> But you won't.
>
> For if you dared to do so, the weakness of your case would be
> blaringly obvious.
> Which explains why other believers in this forum have NEVER NAMED A
> NAME...
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 17, 2017, 6:14:59 PM12/17/17
to
>You cannot point to any such "hard ballistics evidence" without the presumption of eyewitness testimony. <
>Which explains why other believers in this forum have NEVER NAMED A NAME... <
I named Courtlandt Cunningham, the FBI firearm and ammo identification expert used by the Warren Commission. Apparently you don’t know the legal and practical difference between an eyewitness and an expert witness.
Expert witnesses tend to be more reliable because they are trained, and they have all the time they need to examine evidence.
I don’t believe perfectly in the reliability of any witness. But the grade goes up as you get to experts, and as you get many experts who agree with each other. Do you really need the names and credentials of the 5 HSCA experts who agreed with Cunningham? All six say you are wrong about the bullets from Tippit and the cartridges in Oswald’s pistol— for both of which there is a standard police chain of evidence. Where are your seven that say you are right?
donald willis
Dec 17, 2017, 6:46:44 PM12/17/17
to
And I'm glad to see that you don't believe Mrs. Markham's lineup ID of Oswald! ("anything") Good show!
dcw
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 17, 2017, 7:55:15 PM12/17/17
to
We have to take Markham out as she is a flake. Eyewitnesses sometimes are. You never know what you are going to get. Some eyewitnesses are stupid. Others fabricate. Some are mentally ill. There are social drives that remove the total incompetents from expert witnesses, though even they aren’t perfect.
Finally we all KNOW already that eyewitness ID of those who are strangers to them, is TERRIBLE. Even if Markham wasn’t a flake her ID would be a minor bit. Believe in experts looking at bullets and fingerprints and (these days) DNA. When they find past mistakes of justice it’s almost always stranger ID. I know that. You know that. I’m perfectly content to give all stranger ID of Oswald up since it’s a known poor source.
The physical evidence still convicts him.
Finally we all KNOW already that eyewitness ID of those who are strangers to them, is TERRIBLE. Even if Markham wasn’t a flake her ID would be a minor bit. Believe in experts looking at bullets and fingerprints and (these days) DNA. When they find past mistakes of justice it’s almost always stranger ID. I know that. You know that. I’m perfectly content to give all stranger ID of Oswald up since it’s a known poor source.
The physical evidence still convicts him.
Ben Holmes
Dec 17, 2017, 8:43:43 PM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:14:58 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>You cannot point to any such "hard ballistics evidence" without the presumption of eyewitness testimony. <
>
>>Which explains why other believers in this forum have NEVER NAMED A NAME... <
>
>I named Courtlandt Cunningham...
>>You cannot point to any such "hard ballistics evidence" without the presumption of eyewitness testimony. <
>
>>Which explains why other believers in this forum have NEVER NAMED A NAME... <
>
Is this the only eyewitness or expert witness you can name?
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 17, 2017, 10:18:22 PM12/17/17
to
[1] John S. Bates, Jr.--Senior firearms examiner in the New York State Police Laboratory at Albany. He has been a lecturer at the New York State Police Academy, New York State Municipal Police Training Council, and various community colleges.
Bates is a member of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners, serving as secretary since 1973. In that year, he received the association's Distinguished Member Award. He has written numerous professional articles.
[2] Donald E. Champagne.--Firearm and tool mark examiner with the Florida Department of Criminal Law Enforcement in Tallahassee for the past 10 years. He served in the crime detection laboratory of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Ottawa, Ontario, for 15 years, and he has lectured extensively at the Canadian Police College and other law enforcement agencies.
Champagne is president and a distinguished member of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners. He is a member of the Southern Association of Forensic Scientists and the Canadian Society of Forensic Science.
[3] Monty C. Lutz.--Firearm and tool mark analyst with the Wisconsin Regional Crime Laboratory in New Berlin. He has been the chief firearm and tool mark examiner for the U.S. Army.
Lutz is a past president of the Association of Firearm and Tool Makers Examiners. He has been named a distinguished member of the association. He has lectured at colleges and law enforcement schools across the country and is the author of numerous professional publications. He received a B.S. in criminal justice from the University of Nebraska.
[4] Andrew M. Newquist.--Special agent and firearm, tool mark and latent fingerprint examiner for the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
Newquist is a distinguished member and past president of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners and currently serves on its executive committee. He is a member of the International Association for Identification and a lecturer at the Iowa Department of Public Safety.
The panel conducted its examination at the facilities of the Metropolitan Police Department firearm identification section, Washington, D.C. Assigned as liaison to the panel and working closely with it as technical assistant was
[5] George R. Wilson,* senior firearms examiner, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C., a position he has held for 9 years. The laboratory, which he established, was the first in the department's history.
Wilson is second vice president of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners. In 1974, he received the association's Distinguished Member Award. During his 25-year tenure with the Metropolitan Police Department, he has been awarded over 30 commendations for outstanding and meritorious performance of duty.
Impressive, no?
Robert A. Frazier, and Charles Killion of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory, Washington, D.C. also supplied input for the Warren Commission.
One expert for the Warren Commission, Joseph D. Nicol, Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois, also perplexed on the bullet wobble, but thought there was enough residual marking on just ONE of the 4 bullets to match it to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all others.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm
I already posted his similar comments for Cronkite and network news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-eVN02DoOY
However, none of the other 8 experts agreed with him.
donald willis
Dec 18, 2017, 1:03:33 AM12/18/17
to
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 4:55:15 PM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> We have to take Markham out as she is a flake. Eyewitnesses sometimes are. You never know what you are going to get. Some eyewitnesses are stupid. Others fabricate. Some are mentally ill. There are social drives that remove the total incompetents from expert witnesses, though even they aren’t perfect.
>
> Finally we all KNOW already that eyewitness ID of those who are strangers to them, is TERRIBLE. Even if Markham wasn’t a flake her ID would be a minor bit. Believe in experts looking at bullets and fingerprints and (these days) DNA. When they find past mistakes of justice it’s almost always stranger ID. I know that. You know that. I’m perfectly content to give all stranger ID of Oswald up since it’s a known poor source.
Okay, this is aka Anthony Marsh, right??
> We have to take Markham out as she is a flake. Eyewitnesses sometimes are. You never know what you are going to get. Some eyewitnesses are stupid. Others fabricate. Some are mentally ill. There are social drives that remove the total incompetents from expert witnesses, though even they aren’t perfect.
>
> Finally we all KNOW already that eyewitness ID of those who are strangers to them, is TERRIBLE. Even if Markham wasn’t a flake her ID would be a minor bit. Believe in experts looking at bullets and fingerprints and (these days) DNA. When they find past mistakes of justice it’s almost always stranger ID. I know that. You know that. I’m perfectly content to give all stranger ID of Oswald up since it’s a known poor source.
Ben Holmes
Dec 18, 2017, 10:51:36 AM12/18/17
to
I'm asking for the names of those witnesses whom you accept and
believe completely in their 1963-64 testimony & statements about the
JFK asssassination. Whether "expert" witnesses, or merely those who
saw and heard the assassination doesn't matter...
I'll let you try one more time...
Ben Holmes
Dec 18, 2017, 10:57:07 AM12/18/17
to
after trying to debate... he got caught telling a whopper that he
couldn't cite for. (That Dr. Humes was busy burning paperwork in his
fireplace on *Saturday*. He made this claim to refute the idea that
the autopsy report was re-written **after** Oswald's death... which I
consider a virtual certainty...)
Bud
Dec 18, 2017, 1:02:23 PM12/18/17
to
> in their 1963-64 testimony & statements about the
> JFK asssassination. Whether "expert" witnesses, or merely those who
> saw and heard the assassination doesn't matter...
>
> I'll let you try one more time...
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2017, 1:43:33 PM12/18/17
to
No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
When you get cancer you are going to be faced with a question of epistemology. Do you believe a panel of oncology experts who draw their opinions from available randomized double blind prospective clinical trials? Or are you going to go by something your brother in law heard about sour honey? If you can’t tell the difference, or take the standard American opinion that education is worthless and so-called experts “aren’t no better than anybody else,” then you are screwed. Denial is not just the big river in Egypt. It’s also a killer.
When you get cancer you are going to be faced with a question of epistemology. Do you believe a panel of oncology experts who draw their opinions from available randomized double blind prospective clinical trials? Or are you going to go by something your brother in law heard about sour honey? If you can’t tell the difference, or take the standard American opinion that education is worthless and so-called experts “aren’t no better than anybody else,” then you are screwed. Denial is not just the big river in Egypt. It’s also a killer.
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2017, 4:12:27 PM12/18/17
to
It's a question of who you believe to what extent. I believe the pilot of the airliner I get on knows what he is doing, and bet my life on this. I'm not completely sure, but I am sure enough to bet my life. We do this all the time. I might not get in a light plane flown by Joe Doofus, my brother in law. You follow?
I reject what I think is the premise of your question, which is that there is no difference between eyewitnesses and expert witnesses in forensics. That there's no difference between what eyewitnesses see, even though they may be ignorant people with only seconds to observe (as is often the case) and what expert witnesses see, who have all the time they need to examine physical evidence, using a lot of specialized background expertise.
It does not work that way. If you let it, you run into the same disaster as if you let yourself be flown around by in light planes by people with no credentials but their private licenses (or not even that).
You cannot put a cop who says offhand that a rifle is a "Mauser" on par with 8 experts who have all the time they like to look at it, who say it is a 40.1" Modelo 91/38 Fucile di Fanteria Italian Carcano, manufactured 1940, firing 6.5 x 52 mm ammo.
You cannot put a cop on the scene who says a cartridge case came from a a ".38 automatic" against 8 weapons ID experts who say it cannot be from an automatic because it is a case from a .38 Special 158 grain round made by the Winchester-Western Company in the United States.
If you think so, you would make a horrid juror.
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2017, 4:24:42 PM12/18/17
to
donald willis
Dec 18, 2017, 4:46:08 PM12/18/17
to
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
Perhaps you have heard of government duplicity. I'm afraid I don't trust for a minute the "physical evidence" like the hulls "found" in Oak Cliff. I guess it all comes down to, Do you trust the people in charge? I don't trust DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz, SS agent Kelley, or FBI agent Bookhout, for starters. Nor DPD Inspector Sawyer, whose testimony is full of holes. If you do trust your elected and unelected representatives, then it has all been prettily laid out for you.
> No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
dcw
Ben Holmes
Dec 18, 2017, 6:45:12 PM12/18/17
to
Believers *often* run away... if history is any guide, you will too.
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2017, 7:29:57 PM12/18/17
to
Worse will, it's a 54 year old murder. Screw it.
You have the the present problem of President Donald GlobalWarmingisFake Trump, the horrid US medical and prison system and impossible-to-fix militarism, widening income inequality with little social safety net and eroding infrastructure and education, and then consider the fact that your congress is bought by corporate money, ala Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Have you thought of perhaps emigrating to Denmark? Think they'd let you in?
Ben Holmes
Dec 18, 2017, 7:53:48 PM12/18/17
to
an eyewitness and asking you to show just *what* is not credible and
backed up by other witnesses in what they said.
For example, I listed the first person alphabeticaly, and Dufus
couldn't name *anything* that he didn't believe Ables on... even
though he *still* refused to acknowledge that he believed him
completely.
But the fact that you can't name anyone who picked up shells or
bullets is quite telling.
This shows that your "reliance" on "hard ballistic evidence" is an
unsupportable joke.
YOU CANNOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU BELIEVE THESE WITNESSES!!!
And the so-called "hard evidence" could be anything at all, and not
related to the case WHATSOEVER... indeed, even the actual *evidence*
supports this - for example:
https://nebula.wsimg.com/7c993860583583af9520295592caa7ed?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
The "hard evidence" is only reliable insofar as you accept the
WITNESSES THAT FORM THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY FOR THAT EVIDENCE.
> It's a question of who you believe to what extent. I believe the
> pilot of the airliner I get on knows what he is doing, and bet my life
> on this. I'm not completely sure, but I am sure enough to bet my life.
> We do this all the time. I might not get in a light plane flown by Joe
> Doofus, my brother in law. You follow?
>
> I reject what I think is the premise of your question, which is that
> there is no difference between eyewitnesses and expert witnesses in
> forensics. That there's no difference between what eyewitnesses see,
> even though they may be ignorant people with only seconds to observe
> (as is often the case) and what expert witnesses see, who have all the
> time they need to examine physical evidence, using a lot of
> specialized background expertise.
differentiation between witnesses of ANY SORT - because the object was
to demonstrate that you don't really believe the evidence in this
case.
You're "reliance" on "expert" witnesses, or your "reliance" on "hard
ballistic evidence" is a fraud. You **really** believe only what
supports your faith in the theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> It does not work that way. If you let it, you run into the same
> disaster as if you let yourself be flown around by in light planes by
> people with no credentials but their private licenses (or not even
> that).
argument as you're pretending that you understand I made.
> You cannot put a cop who says offhand that a rifle is a "Mauser" on
> par with 8 experts who have all the time they like to look at it, who
> say it is a 40.1" Modelo 91/38 Fucile di Fanteria Italian Carcano,
> manufactured 1940, firing 6.5 x 52 mm ammo.
believers can't ever be accurate wth the facts.
> You cannot put a cop on the scene who says a cartridge case came
> from a a ".38 automatic" against 8 weapons ID experts who say it
> cannot be from an automatic because it is a case from a .38 Special
> 158 grain round made by the Winchester-Western Company in the United
> States.
the chain of custody when we *KNOW FOR A FACT* that it has major
problems.
You are, in essence, putting those "weapon ID experts" at the same
location and at the same time as Sgt Hill when he was examining the
shells. That's a fallacy.
One that I'm not obligated to presume.
>If you think so, you would make a horrid juror.
a jury - AND CANNOT EXPLAIN THE LACK OF A SOLID CHAIN OF CUSTODY gets
exactly what he deserves, presuming intelligent & honest jurors.
Ben Holmes
Dec 18, 2017, 8:03:35 PM12/18/17
to
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:29:55 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-8, donald willis wrote:
>> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
>>
>> Perhaps you have heard of government duplicity. I'm afraid I don't trust for a minute the "physical evidence" like the hulls "found" in Oak Cliff. I guess it all comes down to, Do you trust the people in charge? I don't trust DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz, SS agent Kelley, or FBI agent Bookhout, for starters. Nor DPD Inspector Sawyer, whose testimony is full of holes. If you do trust your elected and unelected representatives, then it has all been prettily laid out for you.
>>
>> dcw
>>
>> >
>> > When you get cancer you are going to be faced with a question of epistemology. Do you believe a panel of oncology experts who draw their opinions from available randomized double blind prospective clinical trials? Or are you going to go by something your brother in law heard about sour honey? If you can’t tell the difference, or take the standard American opinion that education is worthless and so-called experts “aren’t no better than anybody else,” then you are screwed. Denial is not just the big river in Egypt. It’s also a killer.
>
>
> If you believe in that much government duplicity there's no point
> in even playing this JFK assassination game...
>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-8, donald willis wrote:
>> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
>>
>> Perhaps you have heard of government duplicity. I'm afraid I don't trust for a minute the "physical evidence" like the hulls "found" in Oak Cliff. I guess it all comes down to, Do you trust the people in charge? I don't trust DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz, SS agent Kelley, or FBI agent Bookhout, for starters. Nor DPD Inspector Sawyer, whose testimony is full of holes. If you do trust your elected and unelected representatives, then it has all been prettily laid out for you.
>>
>> dcw
>>
>> >
>> > When you get cancer you are going to be faced with a question of epistemology. Do you believe a panel of oncology experts who draw their opinions from available randomized double blind prospective clinical trials? Or are you going to go by something your brother in law heard about sour honey? If you can’t tell the difference, or take the standard American opinion that education is worthless and so-called experts “aren’t no better than anybody else,” then you are screwed. Denial is not just the big river in Egypt. It’s also a killer.
>
>
> If you believe in that much government duplicity there's no point
Honest people can look at the Warren Commission - and point out errors
and problems.
Believers *NEVER* do - which demonstrates their dishonesty.
Can you name *ANYTHING* that the Warren Commission did wrong, anything
at all that they lied about?
My guess is that you cannot. So it really *IS* a game to you. A game
you play with the lives of these men who died.
Bud
Dec 18, 2017, 8:27:40 PM12/18/17
to
In reality it is Ben who doesn`t believe the witnesses, lurkers.
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 18, 2017, 9:58:33 PM12/18/17
to
2) The Warren Commission didn't examine the Zapruder film carefully and missed the tip of JFK's right hand above the sign, ruling out his being hit until just before he emerges (best guess is he is hit at 224 just as he emerges from the sign, half obscured-- and Connally's coat puffs out). JFK has been resting his arm on the seat and right hand horizontally in front of his throat BETWEEN waves, and thus when he is hit is in "between wave" position, and does not need to move his right hand at all for it to be in front of his throat will elbow up-- all that happens is his left hand, which is already in front of this chest, begins to come up, and later the left elbow rises. The small difference in needed movement of the left elbow to put JFK into the "hit" posture fooled many experts into thinking it happened earlier than it did. The Commission also was fooled, and which couldn't place the second-to-last shot at better than somewhere between 210 and 224, when JFK emerges from the sign.
3) The W. commission erred in placing the back head wound. It's clearly in the cowlick where the ruler is placed to show it. It's not down near the occiputal protuberance where the WC put it. The HCSA moved it up 4 inches.
There are among many small errors the WC made. The second one above actually gives Oswald less time to act that he really had, as the first shot could have been (and was) several seconds before the second.
donald willis
Dec 19, 2017, 12:50:52 AM12/19/17
to
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:29:57 PM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-8, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
> >
> > Perhaps you have heard of government duplicity. I'm afraid I don't trust for a minute the "physical evidence" like the hulls "found" in Oak Cliff. I guess it all comes down to, Do you trust the people in charge? I don't trust DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz, SS agent Kelley, or FBI agent Bookhout, for starters. Nor DPD Inspector Sawyer, whose testimony is full of holes. If you do trust your elected and unelected representatives, then it has all been prettily laid out for you.
> >
> > dcw
> >
> > >
> > > When you get cancer you are going to be faced with a question of epistemology. Do you believe a panel of oncology experts who draw their opinions from available randomized double blind prospective clinical trials? Or are you going to go by something your brother in law heard about sour honey? If you can’t tell the difference, or take the standard American opinion that education is worthless and so-called experts “aren’t no better than anybody else,” then you are screwed. Denial is not just the big river in Egypt. It’s also a killer.
>
>
> If you believe in that much government duplicity there's no point in even playing this JFK assassination game. All sources are tainted, and you'll never figure it out.
I'm afraid nowadays you almost have to accept that all sources are tainted, to some degree. But you still have to determine which facts are facts and which are not facts, either errors or lies.
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-8, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
> >
> > Perhaps you have heard of government duplicity. I'm afraid I don't trust for a minute the "physical evidence" like the hulls "found" in Oak Cliff. I guess it all comes down to, Do you trust the people in charge? I don't trust DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz, SS agent Kelley, or FBI agent Bookhout, for starters. Nor DPD Inspector Sawyer, whose testimony is full of holes. If you do trust your elected and unelected representatives, then it has all been prettily laid out for you.
> >
> > dcw
> >
> > >
> > > When you get cancer you are going to be faced with a question of epistemology. Do you believe a panel of oncology experts who draw their opinions from available randomized double blind prospective clinical trials? Or are you going to go by something your brother in law heard about sour honey? If you can’t tell the difference, or take the standard American opinion that education is worthless and so-called experts “aren’t no better than anybody else,” then you are screwed. Denial is not just the big river in Egypt. It’s also a killer.
>
>
> If you believe in that much government duplicity there's no point in even playing this JFK assassination game. All sources are tainted, and you'll never figure it out.
However, I'd also say that if you think the local and federal government agencies of that time were always on the up & up, you're even less likely than I am to figure it out....
dcw
donald willis
Dec 19, 2017, 12:53:28 AM12/19/17
to
dcw
Ben Holmes
Dec 19, 2017, 11:35:16 AM12/19/17
to
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:58:32 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 5:03:35 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:29:55 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-8, donald willis wrote:
>> >> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps you have heard of government duplicity. I'm afraid I don't trust for a minute the "physical evidence" like the hulls "found" in Oak Cliff. I guess it all comes down to, Do you trust the people in charge? I don't trust DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz, SS agent Kelley, or FBI agent Bookhout, for starters. Nor DPD Inspector Sawyer, whose testimony is full of holes. If you do trust your elected and unelected representatives, then it has all been prettily laid out for you.
>> >>
>> >> dcw
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > When you get cancer you are going to be faced with a question of epistemology. Do you believe a panel of oncology experts who draw their opinions from available randomized double blind prospective clinical trials? Or are you going to go by something your brother in law heard about sour honey? If you can’t tell the difference, or take the standard American opinion that education is worthless and so-called experts “aren’t no better than anybody else,” then you are screwed. Denial is not just the big river in Egypt. It’s also a killer.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you believe in that much government duplicity there's no point
>> > in even playing this JFK assassination game...
>>
>> Honest people can look at the Warren Commission - and point out errors
>> and problems.
>>
>> Believers *NEVER* do - which demonstrates their dishonesty.
>>
>> Can you name *ANYTHING* that the Warren Commission did wrong, anything
>> at all that they lied about?
>>
>> My guess is that you cannot. So it really *IS* a game to you. A game
>> you play with the lives of these men who died.
>
>
> 1) The Warren Commission kept calling the rifle a
> "Mannlicher-Carcano." There is no such weapon. It is a Carcano. The
> ammo 6.5 x 52 mm it fires can be used in either Mannlichers or
> Carcanos, and was sold as "Mannlicher-Carcano" ammo in the US. Oswald
> no doubt bought his under that label.
This is a rather silly terminology argument.
>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 5:03:35 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:29:55 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 1:46:08 PM UTC-8, donald willis wrote:
>> >> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-8, sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > No, it’s aka “common sense.” Also a HUGE amount of of experimental psychology. Humans are not little video recorders. Eyewitness testimony about events SUCKS as quality of evidence. Expert testimony about physical evidence like fingerprints, bullets, and DNA is more reliable. Perhaps you have heard of criminal investigation?
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps you have heard of government duplicity. I'm afraid I don't trust for a minute the "physical evidence" like the hulls "found" in Oak Cliff. I guess it all comes down to, Do you trust the people in charge? I don't trust DPD Homicide Capt. Fritz, SS agent Kelley, or FBI agent Bookhout, for starters. Nor DPD Inspector Sawyer, whose testimony is full of holes. If you do trust your elected and unelected representatives, then it has all been prettily laid out for you.
>> >>
>> >> dcw
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > When you get cancer you are going to be faced with a question of epistemology. Do you believe a panel of oncology experts who draw their opinions from available randomized double blind prospective clinical trials? Or are you going to go by something your brother in law heard about sour honey? If you can’t tell the difference, or take the standard American opinion that education is worthless and so-called experts “aren’t no better than anybody else,” then you are screwed. Denial is not just the big river in Egypt. It’s also a killer.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you believe in that much government duplicity there's no point
>> > in even playing this JFK assassination game...
>>
>> Honest people can look at the Warren Commission - and point out errors
>> and problems.
>>
>> Believers *NEVER* do - which demonstrates their dishonesty.
>>
>> Can you name *ANYTHING* that the Warren Commission did wrong, anything
>> at all that they lied about?
>>
>> My guess is that you cannot. So it really *IS* a game to you. A game
>> you play with the lives of these men who died.
>
>
> 1) The Warren Commission kept calling the rifle a
> "Mannlicher-Carcano." There is no such weapon. It is a Carcano. The
> ammo 6.5 x 52 mm it fires can be used in either Mannlichers or
> Carcanos, and was sold as "Mannlicher-Carcano" ammo in the US. Oswald
> no doubt bought his under that label.
Let's ask a far more important question... there were five
descriptions of the rifle found in the TSBD: Weitzman's FBI
description, Day's dictated memo describing the rifle, Day's
description to Odum, Odum's broadcast, and Dhority's description.
Five descriptions of the rifle found at the TSBD, and all five are
missing from the Warren Commission Report and it's volumes.
You wouldn't call *that* an error?
Seymour Weitzman - whom you lied about, was never shown the rifle
during his WC tesimony... and asked if that was the one he found - can
you imagine such a error not being deliberate?
Your speculation that Oswald bought four rounds of ammo is amusingly
idiotic... nor is there *ANY* evidence that he ever had any ammo at
all for a rifle.... this is just begging the question.
> 2) The Warren Commission didn't examine the Zapruder film carefully
> and missed the tip of JFK's right hand above the sign, ruling out his
> being hit until just before he emerges (best guess is he is hit at 224
> just as he emerges from the sign, half obscured-- and Connally's coat
> puffs out). JFK has been resting his arm on the seat and right hand
> horizontally in front of his throat BETWEEN waves, and thus when he is
> hit is in "between wave" position, and does not need to move his right
> hand at all for it to be in front of his throat will elbow up-- all
> that happens is his left hand, which is already in front of this
> chest, begins to come up, and later the left elbow rises. The small
> difference in needed movement of the left elbow to put JFK into the
> "hit" posture fooled many experts into thinking it happened earlier
> than it did. The Commission also was fooled, and which couldn't place
> the second-to-last shot at better than somewhere between 210 and 224,
> when JFK emerges from the sign.
But the Warren Commission had clear and complete testimony describing
that the wound to Connally's wrist entered the OUTSIDE of his wrist.
Since the Warren Commission refused to describe any trajectory that
would perform this miraculous feat, why don't *YOU* give it a try?
A simple photograph of somone holding their wrist in such a way as to
have the bullet traveling as the doctor described would do just fine.
Or can you be honest enough to acknowledge what a bullet entering the
*outside* of Connally's wrist would show anyone?
> 3) The W. commission erred in placing the back head wound. It's
> clearly in the cowlick where the ruler is placed to show it. It's not
> down near the occiputal protuberance where the WC put it. The HCSA
> moved it up 4 inches.
relied on a drawing done by someone from a verbal description - and
never viewed the X-rays & autopsy photos. This is unique in the annals
of American history - you cannot point to a *SINGLE* murder case where
X-rays & photos were available, yet not entered as evidence before a
court.
Are you a moron?
You can't acknowledge this refusal to view the primary evidence as an
error???
ARE YOU STUPID???
You couldn't have missed this fact, you're talking about the wound
location - and surely you know **HOW** the Warren Commission came to
this conclusion - you claim it's the wrong conclusion - and you even
imply that the Warren Commission should have come to a different
conclusion based on a photo you know they never saw.
You are denying what the Autopsy Report stated, you're denying the
ONLY EXPERT TESTIMONY OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY SAW THE WOUND, you're
lying about the evidence shown to the Warren Commisision... you are;
in fact - accepting your faith in a theory over the actual evidence.
> There are among many small errors the WC made. The second one above
> actually gives Oswald less time to act that he really had, as the
> first shot could have been (and was) several seconds before the
> second.
admit the truth. The Warren Commission INTENTIONALLY lied to the
American public, and committed many errors in doing so.
Not calling the closest police eyewitness to the crime, for example.
(Something you *undoubtedly* will refuse to explain...)
Ben Holmes
Dec 19, 2017, 12:19:44 PM12/19/17
to
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
>The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>extremely likely that he owned it.
>
>Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>
>This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
>NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>
>That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>is downright silly.
>
>Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>scene. The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>
>Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
>Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>the murder happening at 1:15.
>
>The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>
>And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
>the bullets to the gun...
>
>I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
>THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
>
>... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
>testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
>by believers...
>
>Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
>
>Let the running begin...
>
>David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
>certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
>was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
>truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
>David's posts... watch for it!
>
>And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
>"Dud" lies about it.
Interestingly, although "sbharris" is now trying to defend David Von
Pein's post - he's absolutely REFUSED to explain how **ANY** of the
evidence in this case supports the *sole* guilt of anyone.
I'm more than willing to simply ignore the 20 items that David
supplied... let "sbharris" not be limited to just those 20 items...
GIVE US ANYTHING AT ALL THAT LIMITS THE CRIME TO A SINGLE SUSPECT.
But, (my crystal ball is screaming at me!) ... no-one will.
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
>The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>extremely likely that he owned it.
>
>Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>
>This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
>NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>
>That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>is downright silly.
>
>Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>scene. The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>
>Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
>Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>the murder happening at 1:15.
>
>The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>
>And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
>the bullets to the gun...
>
>I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
>THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
>
>... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
>testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
>by believers...
>
>Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
>
>Let the running begin...
>
>David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
>certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
>was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
>truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
>David's posts... watch for it!
>
>And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
>"Dud" lies about it.
Interestingly, although "sbharris" is now trying to defend David Von
Pein's post - he's absolutely REFUSED to explain how **ANY** of the
evidence in this case supports the *sole* guilt of anyone.
I'm more than willing to simply ignore the 20 items that David
supplied... let "sbharris" not be limited to just those 20 items...
GIVE US ANYTHING AT ALL THAT LIMITS THE CRIME TO A SINGLE SUSPECT.
But, (my crystal ball is screaming at me!) ... no-one will.
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 19, 2017, 10:46:55 PM12/19/17
to
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >
> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >up by Oswald at the REA.
And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >
> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >up by Oswald at the REA.
>Nor are there any signatures on any
> >paperwork.
>However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> >pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> >extremely likely that he owned it.
> >Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
> >among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
> >corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
> >how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
> >This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
> >NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
> >doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
> >ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
> >any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
> >
> >That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
> >is downright silly.
> >
> >Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
> >scene. The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
> >intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
> >evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
> >have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
> >mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
> >place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
> >Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
> >Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
> >the murder happening at 1:15.
Oswald, ex-marine with no reason to think he was in poor shape, had 15 minutes to walk 0.9 miles. Wow. Call the FBI, because it can't be right.
> >The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
> >killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
> >have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
Moreover, the case against Oswald is strong even without the cartridges, since the bullets that killed Tippit were the same type as in Oswald's revolver, made by the same two manufacturers. And the bullets were fired by a Smith and Wesson revolver (not possibly an automatic). And in addition, one with an oversized barrel (like Oswald's). And Oswald tried to murder another policeman with the same weapon.
> >And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
> >the bullets to the gun...
> >
> >I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
> >THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
> >
> >... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
> >testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
> >by believers...
> Interestingly, although "sbharris" is now trying to defend David Von
> Pein's post - he's absolutely REFUSED to explain how **ANY** of the
> evidence in this case supports the *sole* guilt of anyone.
sbha...@gmail.com
Dec 19, 2017, 11:49:07 PM12/19/17
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 11:16:38 AM12/20/17
to
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:46:54 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >
>> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >up by Oswald at the REA.
>
> And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the
> REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show
> ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was
> principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
Your uncited claims don't mean much coming from a proven liar, do
>On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >
>> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >up by Oswald at the REA.
>
> And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the
> REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show
> ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was
> principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
they?
>> >Nor are there any signatures on any
>> >paperwork.
>
> There is a signatures of A. J. Hidell to order the pistol from Sea
> Traders. Which match the writing of L.H.Oswald. And is also the person
> Oswald authorized to get mail at his box. And also is the person
> linked to Oswald with vaccination certificate, and in the Fair Play
> for Cuba literature. And more importantly is the name on the fake ID
> in Oswald's pocket for A.J. Hidell (featuring photo of Oswald) which
> was forged from Oswald's own selective service card, and nobody
> else's.
to cite.
>> >However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> >pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> >extremely likely that he owned it.
>
> That's big of you considering that he was captured with it in his
> hand, cartridges in his pocket.
Why did those alleged cartridges have marks on them showing that
they'd been in a gunbelt?
>> >Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>> >among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> >corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> >how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>
> Bullshit.
Clearly you don't know what it means... since you deny it.
> The holster is of no consequence.
Amusingly, you'll accept the statement *YOU* made, and deny the
PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS STATEMENT I MADE.
This tells the tale...
> Any idiot trying
> to frame somebody can plant a holster. Much harder is planting film of
> the victim holding the firearm, and making his wife say she took it,
> and also a negative, which can matched like a fingerprint to the
> camera you also plant, and (for good measure) make the subject sign a
> copy of the picture, and date it, and write "fascist hunter" on it in
> Russian. Holster? That's amateur. You're only impressed with the
> pistol holster because there's no rifle holster, and thus the pistol
> holster become somehow gold to you.
acknowledge the possibility of a frameup.
Good for you!
>> >This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
>> >NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>> >doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>> >ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>> >any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>> >
>> >That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>> >is downright silly.
>> >
>> >Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>> >scene. The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>> >intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>> >evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>> >have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>> >mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>> >place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>
> There is no "credible evidence." There is a housemaid saying Oswald
> left at "about 1". No Western Union timestamp. No other witnesses.
> Just one person who had no particular reason to even look at a clock,
ordinary, that like millions of other Americans, she had no
recollection of that time frame.
> since it was such an ordinary happening
>(not like gunshots or
> something-- it's just a guy getting home early).
You demonstrate your ignorance of the evidence in this claim. I
suggest you'd better go learn about this, before you evern make this
claim again.
Tell us who the "housemaid" was...
Then be prepared to be embarrassed at your provable ignorance...
>> >Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
>> >Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>> >the murder happening at 1:15.
>
> There was no such thing as a 1:12 bus. That comes out of your
> fevered imagination. Also the idea that Dallas buses ran on a Swiss or
> Japanese schedule, which (particularly on the day in question) is
> risible.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
I'd be impressed if you could refute this, or retract your lie.
> Oswald, ex-marine with no reason to think he was in poor shape, had
> 15 minutes to walk 0.9 miles. Wow. Call the FBI, because it can't be
> right.
Tell us Steve, do you believe you'll convince anyone by lying?
>> >The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>> >killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>> >have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>
> The evidence is one person who could easily have been mistaken, and
> was later shown to be, when the cartridges were carefully examined.
You're presuming that the cartridges are the same ones that Sgt. Hill
held in his hand.
> Moreover, the case against Oswald is strong even without the
> cartridges, since the bullets that killed Tippit were the same type as
> in Oswald's revolver, made by the same two manufacturers. And the
> bullets were fired by a Smith and Wesson revolver (not possibly an
> automatic). And in addition, one with an oversized barrel (like
> Oswald's). And Oswald tried to murder another policeman with the same
> weapon.
cartridges.
Sadly for you, this has a different possible explaination than the one
you gave...
>> >And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
>> >the bullets to the gun...
>> >
>> >I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
>> >THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
>> >
>> >... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
>> >testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
>> >by believers...
>
>
> Because it doesn't matter. The same person who owned the pistol
> owned the Carcano, since they were obtained in the same way. That
> would be Oswald.
"expert witness" shopping shows that *YOU* know you lost.
>> Interestingly, although "sbharris" is now trying to defend David Von
>> Pein's post - he's absolutely REFUSED to explain how **ANY** of the
>> evidence in this case supports the *sole* guilt of anyone.
>
> That's 26 volumes of the WC report. It's one long argument, like
> Darwin's book on evolution.
random genetic mutation can produce new protein folds?
David's 20 items mentioned this JUST AS MUCH as it mentioned the sole
guilt of *anyone*.
Why is the truth so hard for believers?
>> I'm more than willing to simply ignore the 20 items that David
>> supplied... let "sbharris" not be limited to just those 20 items...
>> GIVE US ANYTHING AT ALL THAT LIMITS THE CRIME TO A SINGLE SUSPECT.
>>
>> But, (my crystal ball is screaming at me!) ... no-one will.
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 11:17:18 AM12/20/17
to
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> > Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
>>
>> "Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
>> "conspiracy.
>
> I accept the standard dictionary definition of the word, lurkers.
There's no such thing. You refuse to *NAME* which dictionary, and
which definition.
You're a coward, "Dud" - and have been running from this for so long
that you haven't the foggiest why you *first* started running.
>> >> Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>> >> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> >> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> >> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>> >
>> > Retard figuring, lurkers. Looking at the wrong things again.
>>
>>
>> Your inability to refute the facts I just posted is shown here...
>
> The fact that these retards focus on the wrong things makes my
> point for me, lurkers.
Empty claim.
Completely unsupported, and indeed, unsupportable.
>>you
>> resort to ad hominem virtually *EVERY* time you can't refute the
>> facts.
>
> What is there left to say, lurkers? I look at the evidence in a
> rational manner and conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence like
> retards.
Another empty claim.
This is apparently your only tactic, and so, not worth responding to
the rest of the post...
wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >>
>> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >>
>> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >
>> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
>> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >
>> > Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
>>
>> "Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
>> "conspiracy.
>
> I accept the standard dictionary definition of the word, lurkers.
There's no such thing. You refuse to *NAME* which dictionary, and
which definition.
You're a coward, "Dud" - and have been running from this for so long
that you haven't the foggiest why you *first* started running.
>> >> Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>> >> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> >> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> >> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>> >
>>
>>
>> Your inability to refute the facts I just posted is shown here...
>
> The fact that these retards focus on the wrong things makes my
> point for me, lurkers.
Empty claim.
Completely unsupported, and indeed, unsupportable.
>>you
>> resort to ad hominem virtually *EVERY* time you can't refute the
>> facts.
>
> What is there left to say, lurkers? I look at the evidence in a
> rational manner and conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence like
> retards.
Another empty claim.
This is apparently your only tactic, and so, not worth responding to
the rest of the post...
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 11:17:19 AM12/20/17
to
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:39:43 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 12:43:36 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>>
>> Only a docile domesticated LN lapdog would give credence to a
>> lineup ID by a woman who testified, 7 or 8 times, that she called the
>> cops BEFORE she saw the gunman!
>
> <snicker> Conspiracy retards focus on all the wrong things.
Ad hominem simply shows that you can't refute the point.
wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 12:43:36 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>> On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 2:00:07 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>> > On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > > > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> > > > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> > >
>> > > The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> > > The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> > > up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> > > paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> > > pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> > > extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >
>> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers. Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
>> >
>> > On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > > > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> > > > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> > >
>> > > The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> > > The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> > > up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> > > paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> > > pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> > > extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >
>> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers. Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
>> >
>> > > Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>> > > among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> > > corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> > > how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>> >
>> > Retard figuring, lurkers. Looking at the wrong things again.
>> >
>> > > among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> > > corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> > > how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>> >
>> > Retard figuring, lurkers. Looking at the wrong things again.
>> >
>> > > This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
>> > > NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>> > > doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>> > > ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>> > > any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>> >
>> > Ben can see no connection to this murder and the assassination, lurkers. He is a first class stump.
>> > > NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>> > > doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>> > > ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>> > > any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>> >
>> >
>> > > That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>> > > is downright silly.
>> >
>> > What is silly is the games these retards play with the deaths of these men, lurkers.
>> > > That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>> > > is downright silly.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>> > > scene.
>> >
>> > Many witnesses put him there, lurkers.
>> > > Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>> > > scene.
>> >
>> >
>> > > The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>> > > intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>> > > evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>> > > have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>> > > mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>> > > place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>> >
>> > Never trust a conspiracy retard to be the judge of credibility, lurkers. They aren`t credible themselves.
>> > > The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>> > > intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>> > > evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>> > > have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>> > > mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>> > > place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier.
>> >
>> > Can Ben produce those bus schedules?
>> > > Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Helen
>> > > Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>> > > the murder happening at 1:15.
>> >
>> > The same Helen Markham who said she saw Oswald kill Tippit, lurkers.
>> > > Helen
>> > > Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>> > > the murder happening at 1:15.
>> >
>> >
>> > > The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>> > > killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>> > > have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>> >
>> > <snicker> Only a conspiracy retard would consider erroneous information the best, lurkers.
>> > > The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>> > > killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>> > > have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>> >
>>
>> Only a docile domesticated LN lapdog would give credence to a
>> lineup ID by a woman who testified, 7 or 8 times, that she called the
>> cops BEFORE she saw the gunman!
>
> <snicker> Conspiracy retards focus on all the wrong things.
Ad hominem simply shows that you can't refute the point.
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 11:17:22 AM12/20/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:24:26 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:53:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:45:52 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:41:29 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> a) As Dale Myers notes, in "With Malice", Benavides *delayed* bringing the hulls to the attention of the police.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I can only repeat what many people have said "Nobody believes Mrs. Markham about anything" (TM)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Witnesses who PROVABLY lied repeatedly will never be denigrated by
>> >> you, for they're necessary for your faith.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence... clearly you know you can't refute this.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >As to the rest: So what?
>> >>
>> >> This is typical for faith-holders... *NOTHING* that doesn't help your
>> >> faith is of any interest whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >> This particular fact tells the story...
>> >
>> >
>> > I believe in hard ballistics evidence over eyewitness testimony.
>> > Especially conflicting eyewitness testimony. Does that make me a bad
>> > person?
>>
>> No, you believe in eyewitnesses.
>>
>> But only those who support your faith.
>>
>> This silly idea that you believe in "hard ballistics evidence" is an
>> example of poor logic.
Tut tut tut, Dufus...
If David refuses to respond, then *YOU* get no responses...
This is, after all - a refutation of David's website.
wrote:
>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:53:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:45:52 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 10:20:02 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:41:29 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> a) As Dale Myers notes, in "With Malice", Benavides *delayed* bringing the hulls to the attention of the police.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> b) In a later interview with Sgt. Hill, the latter said that he and Poe picked up the hulls, not Benavides.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> c) The other two hulls were supposedly found by the Davis sisters-in-law, near their house, in the bushes & on the lawn near the side door on Patton. But, according to Mrs. Markham--the most well-known Tippit witness--the gunman she saw walked straight down the SIDEWALK to the intersection of 10th & Patton--NOWHERE NEAR where the hulls were (supposedly) found.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I can only repeat what many people have said "Nobody believes Mrs. Markham about anything" (TM)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Witnesses who PROVABLY lied repeatedly will never be denigrated by
>> >> you, for they're necessary for your faith.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence... clearly you know you can't refute this.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >As to the rest: So what?
>> >>
>> >> This is typical for faith-holders... *NOTHING* that doesn't help your
>> >> faith is of any interest whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >> This particular fact tells the story...
>> >
>> >
>> > I believe in hard ballistics evidence over eyewitness testimony.
>> > Especially conflicting eyewitness testimony. Does that make me a bad
>> > person?
>>
>> No, you believe in eyewitnesses.
>>
>> But only those who support your faith.
>>
>> This silly idea that you believe in "hard ballistics evidence" is an
>> example of poor logic.
>>
>> You cannot point to any such "hard ballistics evidence" without the
>> presumption of eyewitness testimony.
>
> Of course human beings are involved in the process. lurkers.
>> You cannot point to any such "hard ballistics evidence" without the
>> presumption of eyewitness testimony.
>
Tut tut tut, Dufus...
If David refuses to respond, then *YOU* get no responses...
This is, after all - a refutation of David's website.
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 11:17:22 AM12/20/17
to
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:02:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
You're lying again, Dufus. I've repeatedly defined terms, and stated
EXACTLY what I mean.
You understood as well when you responded regarding Ables.
Now you're pretending that this is some mysterious question that you
don't understand...
Which is only an excuse not to offer any other names...
But clearly, you never *could* offer any names.
wrote:
EXACTLY what I mean.
You understood as well when you responded regarding Ables.
Now you're pretending that this is some mysterious question that you
don't understand...
Which is only an excuse not to offer any other names...
But clearly, you never *could* offer any names.
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 11:17:22 AM12/20/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:37:11 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 12:49:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:42:15 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:57:15 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 19:53:53 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:24:56 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 18:08:37 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> issue to address, and simply ignores everything else:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And continues to do so...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >Anybody can see the 4 bullets recovered from Tippit here:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Begging the question. You can't, of course, put them in the Oswald
>> >> >> pistol, or in the cartridges "found" at the scene.
>> >> >
>> >> > I wouldn't expect to.
>> >>
>> >> Then you cannot use them to define whether they were fired from a
>> >> revolver or an automatic... as the bullet type may suggest one or the
>> >> other, BUT CANNOT PROVE DEFINITIVELY WHAT WAS USED TO FIRE IT.
>> >>
>> >> This is quite basic for anyone who is familiar with weaponry.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence... an admission you lost.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Yes, they were cartridges "found" at the
>> >> > scene. Unless you want to put passers-by like Benavides into the
>> >> > conspiracy, too.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're trying to use the *bullets* to claim that it wasn't an
>> >> automatic. That simply doesn't follow.
>> >>
>> >> Unless you *could* match those bullets to the shells found.
>> >>
>> >> Which, of course, simply isn't possible.
>> >>
>> >> Nor does Benavides have anything at all to do with the chain of
>> >> custody for those shells.
>>
>>
>> More silence...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > These are .357 diameter bullets with 5 lands and grooves. They have
>> >> >> > had partial jackets or no jackets (probably the latter, as no metal
>> >> >> > jacket can be seen in any of them). They are simply lead. Nobody sells
>> >> >> > simple lead bullet-loaded rounds for a semi-automatic pistol. And the
>> >> >> > the nearest kind of semi-auto .38 (the .38 Super) has very different
>> >> >> > looking bullets (with with factory loads, has a proper round nose and
>> >> >> > full metal jacket, like ammmo for any auto pistol). Also it has 6
>> >> >> > groves, so no dice on these being from a .38 Super.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > These look like ".38 special" bullets (which of course are .357
>> >> >> > diameter and often entirely lead or lead tipped). That's not rocket
>> >> >> > science. Even I can tell they aren't ".380" or "38 Super" bullets from
>> >> >> > a high powered automatic. They came from a revolver.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're trying to say that 'automatic' is always jacketed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simply not true.
>> >> >
>> >> > It was true in 1963. Perhaps not today with the automatic hollow
>> >> > points, but certainly back then, it was true.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No. You'll offer *NOTHING* other than your naked opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Bill DeShivers: "There were softpoint .38 auto (not Super) rounds made
>> >> in the 1950s."
>> >>
>> >> I suspect I'll be waiting forever for you to cite.
>>
>>
>> Another correct prediction on my part...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> It's true that automatics greatly favor jacketed ammo... it's *NOT*
>> >> true that you cannot find non-jacketed ammo for automatics.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> You **CANNOT** tell from the bullet, only from the case (or complete
>> >> >> cartridge, obviously)
>> >> >
>> >> >No, I can tell. Maybe YOU can't.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No citation, no reference, no nothing.
>> >>
>> >> You've given *NOTHING* to support your claim. (nor will you...)
>> >>
>> >> You'd better run back to the censored forum... because only citable
>> >> FACT is going to convince anyone in *this* forum.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> > Now, I cannot tell them from .38 S&W bullets, which would be .359.
>> >> >> > But the ballistics expert could, and he said quite properly that the
>> >> >> > .357" bullets from ".38 special" cartridges (as found in Oswald's
>> >> >> > pockets) fired in a .359 barrel (Oswald's rechambered Victory pistol
>> >> >> > originally made for the .38/200 British cartridge) came out very
>> >> >> > peculiarly, since they rattled down a barrel too large for them. He
>> >> >> > thought he could match ONE bullet to Oswald's pistol. But even if you
>> >> >> > don't believe him, any "automatic" these bullets went through, had to
>> >> >> > have an oversized .359 barrel like a British .38 revolver. (?) There
>> >> >> > are no .38 automatics like that. There are a few .38 specials like
>> >> >> > that, and Oswald happened to have one! But it's a Frankenstein weapon.
>> >> >> > I was sold cheap as a rechambered WW II surplus pistol, by the people
>> >> >> > Oswald bought it from. As A.J. Hidell. Yes, he didn't pick up the
>> >> >> > pistol at the post office, but he ordered it to his PO address, so
>> >> >> > it's clearly Oswald (or somebody using
>> >> >> >Oswald's box).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Watch and learn. The ballistics guy knows his stuff. I conclude that
>> >> >> > it is easier that the doofus cop Hill looked at the rims on the .38
>> >> >> > special cases and got it exactly wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He may well have simply been reading... many automatic cases *SAY*
>> >> >> "Auto" on the bottom. Not all, but many.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah, but if they say ".38" they are revolver cartridges. Those
>> >> > found at the scene did say .38, or that's what Hill said. But then
>> >> > Jerry Hill said they came from an automatic pistol. Bad call. They
>> >> > came from Oswald's pistol and had firing pin marks to prove it.
>> >>
>> >> Begging the question again.
>> >>
>> >> And telling an obvious lie as well. For example:
>> >> https://loungecdn.luckygunner.com/lounge/media/38-super-3.jpg
>> >>
>> >> This says ".38" - yet it's clearly *NOT* a "revolver" cartridge.
>> >>
>> >> If you don't start citing for your assertions, I'm merely going to
>> >> start calling you a liar.
>>
>>
>> The silence is getting embarrassing...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > If you see a rim, that means a
>> >> >> > revolver.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> Nope. Not true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As anyone can see here:
>> >> >> https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c9d3e25cd28e75fb5ad1fd82dadc917b-c
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You'd have us believe that *ALL* of these are revolver cartridges.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I'd have you learn something about firearms! We'll start the
>> >> > lesson right here. A "rim" on a pistol cartridge (for our purposes) is
>> >> > something that sticks out beyond the diameter of the case, so its
>> >> > slide into a cylinder is stopped.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nah, it's time to start labeling you a liar.
>> >>
>> >> A "rim" can either extend past the diameter of the case, OR IT ALSO
>> >> CAN *NOT* EXTEND PAST THE DIAMETER OF THE CASE.
>> >>
>> >> In both cases, it's referred to as a "rim."
>> >>
>> >> Citing from "Cartridges of the World" , page 14: "Rimless cartridges
>> >> **HAVE A RIM** and base of the same diameter..."
>> >>
>> >> You're clearly someone who's learned "just enough" to be dangerous,
>> >> but aren't really knowledgeable on the topic.
>>
>>
>> More silence... an admission that you cannot cite.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > In that series of loaded ammo rounds
>> >> > you can see just two cartridges with a rim. You don't even need to
>> >> > look at the notations to ID them. Those are revolver calibers, and the
>> >> > rest are from autos. Clear as day.
>> >> >
>> >> > And one of the revolver rounds shown in your picture is a .38
>> >> > special, the caliber used by Oswald to kill Tippit.
>> >>
>> >> Again, begging the question.
>> >>
>> >> It's interesting to note for the record that this is the SECOND time
>> >> you've evaded the topic of "expert witness shopping" done by the
>> >> Warren Commission.
>> >>
>> >> I think you'd best run back to the censored forum before you REALLY
>> >> get spanked!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not by you.
>>
>> And yet, you refused to answer any of the points I raised above.
>>
>> You lose!
>>
>> Nor am I interested in even reading the rest of your post - you REFUSE
>> to debate, no need to hear you rant and rave when you've been
>> completely silent as I proved your assertions to be lies above...
>
> Lurkers, these retards always resist looking at the right things,
> and always insist you look at the wrong things they focus on.
Dufus, as well as most other believers, absolutely REFUSE to define
the term "evidence" - because they know that much of what they call
the "wrong things" are factual evidence in this case.
>> It would be truly unique if I ever ran into an honest and
>> knowledgeable believer...
I rather believe that it would be a true contradiction - so I'll never
actually meet a knowledgeable believer.
wrote:
>On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 12:49:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:42:15 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:57:15 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 19:53:53 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:24:56 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 18:08:37 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 8:36:49 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> >> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >> >> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >> >> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> >> >> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> >> >> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> >> >> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 8:36:49 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> >> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >> >> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >> >> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> >> >> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> >> >> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> >> >> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>> >> >> >> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> >> >> >> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> >> >> >> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> >> >> >> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> >> >> >> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
>> >> >> >> NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>> >> >> >> doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>> >> >> >> ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>> >> >> >> any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>> >> >> >> doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>> >> >> >> ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>> >> >> >> any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>> >> >> >> is downright silly.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> is downright silly.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>> >> >> >> scene. The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>> >> >> >> intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>> >> >> >> evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>> >> >> >> have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>> >> >> >> mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>> >> >> >> place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
>> >> >> >> evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>> >> >> >> have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>> >> >> >> mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>> >> >> >> place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>> >> >> >> the murder happening at 1:15.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> the murder happening at 1:15.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>> >> >> >> killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>> >> >> >> have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>> >> >> >> have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
>> >> >> >> the bullets to the gun...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
>> >> >> >> THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
>> >> >> >> testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
>> >> >> >> by believers...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> the bullets to the gun...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
>> >> >> >> THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
>> >> >> >> testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
>> >> >> >> by believers...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Nor will David or "Dud" explain it now...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Let the running begin...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
>> >> >> >> certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
>> >> >> >> was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
>> >> >> >> truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
>> >> >> >> David's posts... watch for it!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
>> >> >> >> "Dud" lies about it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This believer has much in common with David - he picks one narrow
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Let the running begin...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> David is a past master of mixing truth with fiction... it's a virtual
>> >> >> >> certainty that Oswald owned a pistol - it's complete nonsense that it
>> >> >> >> was show to have been used in the Tippit murder. This tactic of mixing
>> >> >> >> truth with fiction is something we'll see time and time again with
>> >> >> >> David's posts... watch for it!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And watch as David runs from responding to this ENTIRE post... and
>> >> >> >> "Dud" lies about it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> issue to address, and simply ignores everything else:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And continues to do so...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >Anybody can see the 4 bullets recovered from Tippit here:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Begging the question. You can't, of course, put them in the Oswald
>> >> >> pistol, or in the cartridges "found" at the scene.
>> >> >
>> >> > I wouldn't expect to.
>> >>
>> >> Then you cannot use them to define whether they were fired from a
>> >> revolver or an automatic... as the bullet type may suggest one or the
>> >> other, BUT CANNOT PROVE DEFINITIVELY WHAT WAS USED TO FIRE IT.
>> >>
>> >> This is quite basic for anyone who is familiar with weaponry.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence... an admission you lost.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Yes, they were cartridges "found" at the
>> >> > scene. Unless you want to put passers-by like Benavides into the
>> >> > conspiracy, too.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're trying to use the *bullets* to claim that it wasn't an
>> >> automatic. That simply doesn't follow.
>> >>
>> >> Unless you *could* match those bullets to the shells found.
>> >>
>> >> Which, of course, simply isn't possible.
>> >>
>> >> Nor does Benavides have anything at all to do with the chain of
>> >> custody for those shells.
>>
>>
>> More silence...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >https://www.jdtippit.com/evidence_nov.htm
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > These are .357 diameter bullets with 5 lands and grooves. They have
>> >> >> > had partial jackets or no jackets (probably the latter, as no metal
>> >> >> > jacket can be seen in any of them). They are simply lead. Nobody sells
>> >> >> > simple lead bullet-loaded rounds for a semi-automatic pistol. And the
>> >> >> > the nearest kind of semi-auto .38 (the .38 Super) has very different
>> >> >> > looking bullets (with with factory loads, has a proper round nose and
>> >> >> > full metal jacket, like ammmo for any auto pistol). Also it has 6
>> >> >> > groves, so no dice on these being from a .38 Super.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > These look like ".38 special" bullets (which of course are .357
>> >> >> > diameter and often entirely lead or lead tipped). That's not rocket
>> >> >> > science. Even I can tell they aren't ".380" or "38 Super" bullets from
>> >> >> > a high powered automatic. They came from a revolver.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're trying to say that 'automatic' is always jacketed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simply not true.
>> >> >
>> >> > It was true in 1963. Perhaps not today with the automatic hollow
>> >> > points, but certainly back then, it was true.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No. You'll offer *NOTHING* other than your naked opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Bill DeShivers: "There were softpoint .38 auto (not Super) rounds made
>> >> in the 1950s."
>> >>
>> >> I suspect I'll be waiting forever for you to cite.
>>
>>
>> Another correct prediction on my part...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> It's true that automatics greatly favor jacketed ammo... it's *NOT*
>> >> true that you cannot find non-jacketed ammo for automatics.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> You **CANNOT** tell from the bullet, only from the case (or complete
>> >> >> cartridge, obviously)
>> >> >
>> >> >No, I can tell. Maybe YOU can't.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No citation, no reference, no nothing.
>> >>
>> >> You've given *NOTHING* to support your claim. (nor will you...)
>> >>
>> >> You'd better run back to the censored forum... because only citable
>> >> FACT is going to convince anyone in *this* forum.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> > Now, I cannot tell them from .38 S&W bullets, which would be .359.
>> >> >> > But the ballistics expert could, and he said quite properly that the
>> >> >> > .357" bullets from ".38 special" cartridges (as found in Oswald's
>> >> >> > pockets) fired in a .359 barrel (Oswald's rechambered Victory pistol
>> >> >> > originally made for the .38/200 British cartridge) came out very
>> >> >> > peculiarly, since they rattled down a barrel too large for them. He
>> >> >> > thought he could match ONE bullet to Oswald's pistol. But even if you
>> >> >> > don't believe him, any "automatic" these bullets went through, had to
>> >> >> > have an oversized .359 barrel like a British .38 revolver. (?) There
>> >> >> > are no .38 automatics like that. There are a few .38 specials like
>> >> >> > that, and Oswald happened to have one! But it's a Frankenstein weapon.
>> >> >> > I was sold cheap as a rechambered WW II surplus pistol, by the people
>> >> >> > Oswald bought it from. As A.J. Hidell. Yes, he didn't pick up the
>> >> >> > pistol at the post office, but he ordered it to his PO address, so
>> >> >> > it's clearly Oswald (or somebody using
>> >> >> >Oswald's box).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Watch and learn. The ballistics guy knows his stuff. I conclude that
>> >> >> > it is easier that the doofus cop Hill looked at the rims on the .38
>> >> >> > special cases and got it exactly wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He may well have simply been reading... many automatic cases *SAY*
>> >> >> "Auto" on the bottom. Not all, but many.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah, but if they say ".38" they are revolver cartridges. Those
>> >> > found at the scene did say .38, or that's what Hill said. But then
>> >> > Jerry Hill said they came from an automatic pistol. Bad call. They
>> >> > came from Oswald's pistol and had firing pin marks to prove it.
>> >>
>> >> Begging the question again.
>> >>
>> >> And telling an obvious lie as well. For example:
>> >> https://loungecdn.luckygunner.com/lounge/media/38-super-3.jpg
>> >>
>> >> This says ".38" - yet it's clearly *NOT* a "revolver" cartridge.
>> >>
>> >> If you don't start citing for your assertions, I'm merely going to
>> >> start calling you a liar.
>>
>>
>> The silence is getting embarrassing...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > If you see a rim, that means a
>> >> >> > revolver.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> Nope. Not true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As anyone can see here:
>> >> >> https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c9d3e25cd28e75fb5ad1fd82dadc917b-c
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You'd have us believe that *ALL* of these are revolver cartridges.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I'd have you learn something about firearms! We'll start the
>> >> > lesson right here. A "rim" on a pistol cartridge (for our purposes) is
>> >> > something that sticks out beyond the diameter of the case, so its
>> >> > slide into a cylinder is stopped.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nah, it's time to start labeling you a liar.
>> >>
>> >> A "rim" can either extend past the diameter of the case, OR IT ALSO
>> >> CAN *NOT* EXTEND PAST THE DIAMETER OF THE CASE.
>> >>
>> >> In both cases, it's referred to as a "rim."
>> >>
>> >> Citing from "Cartridges of the World" , page 14: "Rimless cartridges
>> >> **HAVE A RIM** and base of the same diameter..."
>> >>
>> >> You're clearly someone who's learned "just enough" to be dangerous,
>> >> but aren't really knowledgeable on the topic.
>>
>>
>> More silence... an admission that you cannot cite.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > In that series of loaded ammo rounds
>> >> > you can see just two cartridges with a rim. You don't even need to
>> >> > look at the notations to ID them. Those are revolver calibers, and the
>> >> > rest are from autos. Clear as day.
>> >> >
>> >> > And one of the revolver rounds shown in your picture is a .38
>> >> > special, the caliber used by Oswald to kill Tippit.
>> >>
>> >> Again, begging the question.
>> >>
>> >> It's interesting to note for the record that this is the SECOND time
>> >> you've evaded the topic of "expert witness shopping" done by the
>> >> Warren Commission.
>> >>
>> >> I think you'd best run back to the censored forum before you REALLY
>> >> get spanked!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not by you.
>>
>> And yet, you refused to answer any of the points I raised above.
>>
>> You lose!
>>
>> Nor am I interested in even reading the rest of your post - you REFUSE
>> to debate, no need to hear you rant and rave when you've been
>> completely silent as I proved your assertions to be lies above...
>
> Lurkers, these retards always resist looking at the right things,
> and always insist you look at the wrong things they focus on.
Dufus, as well as most other believers, absolutely REFUSE to define
the term "evidence" - because they know that much of what they call
the "wrong things" are factual evidence in this case.
>> It would be truly unique if I ever ran into an honest and
>> knowledgeable believer...
I rather believe that it would be a true contradiction - so I'll never
actually meet a knowledgeable believer.
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 11:17:23 AM12/20/17
to
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:27:39 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Sadly, this isn't what you originally stated.
> In reality it is Ben who doesn`t believe the witnesses, lurkers.
A statement that you cannot support. Let's play a game... for every
name *YOU* post, I'll match it. Let's see who runs out of witnesses
first...
But, of course; you won't play.
It would **prove** you the liar.
> In reality it is Ben who doesn`t believe the witnesses, lurkers.
name *YOU* post, I'll match it. Let's see who runs out of witnesses
first...
But, of course; you won't play.
It would **prove** you the liar.
rob.s...@gmail.com
Dec 20, 2017, 12:23:55 PM12/20/17
to
Perhaps a giant wooden Badger
Bud
Dec 20, 2017, 12:46:27 PM12/20/17
to
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >> >>
> >> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
> >> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> >> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> >> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
> >> >
> >> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
> >> > Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
> >>
> >> "Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
> >> "conspiracy.
> >
> > I accept the standard dictionary definition of the word, lurkers.
>
> There's no such thing. You refuse to *NAME* which dictionary, and
> which definition.
<snicker> This is rich coming from Ben, who has been playing equivocation games about these things for months, lurkers. He has constantly and consistently refused to specify the exact concept he is employing when he uses words like "believe" or "completely".
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >> >>
> >> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
> >> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> >> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> >> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
> >> >
> >> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
> >> > Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
> >>
> >> "Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
> >> "conspiracy.
> >
> > I accept the standard dictionary definition of the word, lurkers.
>
> There's no such thing. You refuse to *NAME* which dictionary, and
> which definition.
> You're a coward, "Dud" - and have been running from this for so long
> that you haven't the foggiest why you *first* started running.
> >> >> Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
> >> >> among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
> >> >> corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
> >> >> how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
> >> >
> >> > Retard figuring, lurkers. Looking at the wrong things again.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your inability to refute the facts I just posted is shown here...
> >
> > The fact that these retards focus on the wrong things makes my
> > point for me, lurkers.
>
>
> Empty claim.
> Completely unsupported, and indeed, unsupportable.
The facts is the retards employ this approach all the time, they make pretend that a human being making a mistake is unfathomable, so they discount that possibility and move onto possibilities hundreds of times more fantastic. Who the fuck allows the media film if you are going to commit hanky panky? Who brought the extra rifle to throw into the mix? Where are the "two rifle" witnesses? Ben will never be able to walk us through these things offering an reasonable explanation for what is in evidence so his decades worth of "what about this?" amount to nothing.
> >>you
> >> resort to ad hominem virtually *EVERY* time you can't refute the
> >> facts.
> >
> > What is there left to say, lurkers? I look at the evidence in a
> > rational manner and conspiracy hobbyists look at the evidence like
> > retards.
>
>
> Another empty claim.
> This is apparently your only tactic, and so, not worth responding to
> the rest of the post...
rob.s...@gmail.com
Dec 20, 2017, 12:56:15 PM12/20/17
to
The key words being "reasonable people" for which Ben is not.
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 12:59:16 PM12/20/17
to
Here's the post that terrified Rob:
Bud
Dec 20, 2017, 1:05:19 PM12/20/17
to
I think this is another case of retards saying "It looks that way to me".
> >> >Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
> >> >among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
> >> >corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
> >> >how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
>
> What's the definition of "corroborating evidence?"
>
> Clearly you don't know what it means... since you deny it.
>
>
> > The holster is of no consequence.
>
>
> The photos of Oswald holding a rifle is of no consequence.
>
> > since it was such an ordinary happening
>
>
> Yep... Presidents get shot all the time, no big thing...
>
> >(not like gunshots or
> > something-- it's just a guy getting home early).
>
> Your unsupported and LYING opinion doesn't mean much, does it?
>
> You demonstrate your ignorance of the evidence in this claim. I
> suggest you'd better go learn about this, before you evern make this
> claim again.
>
> Tell us who the "housemaid" was...
>
> Then be prepared to be embarrassed at your provable ignorance...
>
>
> >> >Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
> >> >Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
> >> >the murder happening at 1:15.
> >
> > There was no such thing as a 1:12 bus. That comes out of your
> > fevered imagination. Also the idea that Dallas buses ran on a Swiss or
> > Japanese schedule, which (particularly on the day in question) is
> > risible.
>
>
> You're lying again, Steve.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
>
> I'd be impressed if you could refute this, or retract your lie.
>
> > Oswald, ex-marine with no reason to think he was in poor shape, had
> > 15 minutes to walk 0.9 miles. Wow. Call the FBI, because it can't be
> > right.
>
>
> No, he had about 4-8 minutes to cover that distance.
> Tell us Steve, do you believe you'll convince anyone by lying?
>
>
> >> >The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
> >> >killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
> >> >have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
> >
> > The evidence is one person who could easily have been mistaken, and
> > was later shown to be, when the cartridges were carefully examined.
>
>
> Begging the question again.
> You're presuming that the cartridges are the same ones that Sgt. Hill
> held in his hand.
>
> > Moreover, the case against Oswald is strong even without the
> > cartridges, since the bullets that killed Tippit were the same type as
> > in Oswald's revolver, made by the same two manufacturers. And the
> > bullets were fired by a Smith and Wesson revolver (not possibly an
> > automatic). And in addition, one with an oversized barrel (like
> > Oswald's). And Oswald tried to murder another policeman with the same
> > weapon.
>
>
> I'd be shocked if he *wasn't* found with the two different brands of
> cartridges.
> Sadly for you, this has a different possible explaination than the one
> you gave...
>
>
> >> >And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
> >> >the bullets to the gun...
> >> >
> >> >I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
> >> >THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
> >> >
> >> >... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
> >> >testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
> >> >by believers...
> >
> >
> > Because it doesn't matter. The same person who owned the pistol
> > owned the Carcano, since they were obtained in the same way. That
> > would be Oswald.
>
>
> Your gutless cowardice in refusing to address the point I made about
> "expert witness" shopping shows that *YOU* know you lost.
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2017, 1:07:41 PM12/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:56:13 -0800 (PST), rob.s...@gmail.com wrote:
>The key words being "reasonable people" for which Ben is not.
Your ad hominem doesn't answer the evidence I cite.
>The key words being "reasonable people" for which Ben is not.
Such cowardice!!!
Steve BH
Dec 21, 2017, 7:46:24 PM12/21/17
to
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 8:16:38 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:46:54 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >> >
> >> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >> >up by Oswald at the REA.
> >
> > And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the
> > REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show
> > ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was
> > principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
>
>
> Your uncited claims don't mean much coming from a proven liar, do
> they?
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:46:54 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >> >
> >> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >> >up by Oswald at the REA.
> >
> > And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the
> > REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show
> > ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was
> > principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
>
>
> Your uncited claims don't mean much coming from a proven liar, do
> they?
>
> >> >Nor are there any signatures on any
> >> >paperwork.
> >
> > There is a signatures of A. J. Hidell to order the pistol from Sea
> > Traders. Which match the writing of L.H.Oswald. And is also the person
> > Oswald authorized to get mail at his box. And also is the person
> > linked to Oswald with vaccination certificate, and in the Fair Play
> > for Cuba literature. And more importantly is the name on the fake ID
> > in Oswald's pocket for A.J. Hidell (featuring photo of Oswald) which
> > was forged from Oswald's own selective service card, and nobody
> > else's.
>
>
> You're lying again, Steve. Perhaps this is why you continually refuse
> to cite.
> >> >However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> >> >pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> >> >extremely likely that he owned it.
> >
> > That's big of you considering that he was captured with it in his
> > hand, cartridges in his pocket.
>
>
> Unlike you, I give valid and credible reasons for my stance.
>
> Why did those alleged cartridges have marks on them showing that
> they'd been in a gunbelt?
> >> >Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
> >> >among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
> >> >corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
> >> >how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
>
> What's the definition of "corroborating evidence?"
>
> Clearly you don't know what it means... since you deny it.
> > The holster is of no consequence.
>
>
> The photos of Oswald holding a rifle is of no consequence.
> Amusingly, you'll accept the statement *YOU* made, and deny the
> PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS STATEMENT I MADE.
>
> This tells the tale...
> > Any idiot trying
> > to frame somebody can plant a holster. Much harder is planting film of
> > the victim holding the firearm, and making his wife say she took it,
> > and also a negative, which can matched like a fingerprint to the
> > camera you also plant, and (for good measure) make the subject sign a
> > copy of the picture, and date it, and write "fascist hunter" on it in
> > Russian. Holster? That's amateur. You're only impressed with the
> > pistol holster because there's no rifle holster, and thus the pistol
> > holster become somehow gold to you.
>
>
> I do believe that this is the first time I've seen a believer
> acknowledge the possibility of a frameup.
>
> Good for you!
And how about his comment that the backyard photo was his head pasted on somebody else's body? Priceless. Except an original negative taken with Oswald's camera exists. Wups. And there is also the copy of it he sent to de Morhenschildt and signed! He did everything but write "Here I am, about to kill fascist Edwin Walker."
All we're left with is the fact that she was distracted by fiddling with the TV trying to find out about the president's shooting when Oswald rushed in, moving at a walk faster than she'd ever seen him go. But her estimate of time is based ONLY on the fact that she was trying to find info on the shooting.
But Walter Cronkite first cuts in to "As the World Turns" to announce the shooting (though of course not the death) on CBS TV at 12:40, which is a mere 10 minutes after the fact. Oswald could have come in at *any time* after that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/arts/television/as-the-world-turns-interrupted-by-kennedys-shooting.html
Suck on it.
> >> >Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
> >> >Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
> >> >the murder happening at 1:15.
> >
> > There was no such thing as a 1:12 bus. That comes out of your
> > fevered imagination. Also the idea that Dallas buses ran on a Swiss or
> > Japanese schedule, which (particularly on the day in question) is
> > risible.
>
>
> You're lying again, Steve.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
>
> I'd be impressed if you could refute this, or retract your lie.
> > Oswald, ex-marine with no reason to think he was in poor shape, had
> > 15 minutes to walk 0.9 miles. Wow. Call the FBI, because it can't be
> > right.
>
>
> No, he had about 4-8 minutes to cover that distance.
> Tell us Steve, do you believe you'll convince anyone by lying?
> >> >The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
> >> >killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
> >> >have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
> >
> > The evidence is one person who could easily have been mistaken, and
> > was later shown to be, when the cartridges were carefully examined.
>
>
> Begging the question again.
>
> You're presuming that the cartridges are the same ones that Sgt. Hill
> held in his hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wycqcFsTnA
> > Moreover, the case against Oswald is strong even without the
> > cartridges, since the bullets that killed Tippit were the same type as
> > in Oswald's revolver, made by the same two manufacturers. And the
> > bullets were fired by a Smith and Wesson revolver (not possibly an
> > automatic). And in addition, one with an oversized barrel (like
> > Oswald's). And Oswald tried to murder another policeman with the same
> > weapon.
>
>
> I'd be shocked if he *wasn't* found with the two different brands of
> cartridges.
>
> Sadly for you, this has a different possible explaination than the one
> you gave...
>
> >> >And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
> >> >the bullets to the gun...
> >> >
> >> >I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
> >> >THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
> >> >
> >> >... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
> >> >testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
> >> >by believers...
> > Because it doesn't matter. The same person who owned the pistol
> > owned the Carcano, since they were obtained in the same way. That
> > would be Oswald.
>
>
> Your gutless cowardice in refusing to address the point I made about
> "expert witness" shopping shows that *YOU* know you lost.
> >> I'm more than willing to simply ignore the 20 items that David
> >> supplied... let "sbharris" not be limited to just those 20 items...
> >> GIVE US ANYTHING AT ALL THAT LIMITS THE CRIME TO A SINGLE SUSPECT.
> >>
> >> But, (my crystal ball is screaming at me!) ... no-one will.
Ben Holmes
Dec 22, 2017, 1:33:21 PM12/22/17
to
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:46:22 -0800 (PST), Steve BH
<sbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 8:16:38 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:46:54 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >> >
>> >> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >> >up by Oswald at the REA.
>> >
>> > And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the
>> > REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show
>> > ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was
>> > principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
>>
>>
>> Your uncited claims don't mean much coming from a proven liar, do
>> they?
>
>http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html
Good of you to cite - people can now judge the biases of the cite.
<sbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 8:16:38 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:46:54 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >> >
>> >> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >> >up by Oswald at the REA.
>> >
>> > And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the
>> > REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show
>> > ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was
>> > principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
>>
>>
>> Your uncited claims don't mean much coming from a proven liar, do
>> they?
>
>http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html
>> >> >Nor are there any signatures on any
>> >> >paperwork.
>> >
>> > There is a signatures of A. J. Hidell to order the pistol from Sea
>> > Traders. Which match the writing of L.H.Oswald. And is also the person
>> > Oswald authorized to get mail at his box. And also is the person
>> > linked to Oswald with vaccination certificate, and in the Fair Play
>> > for Cuba literature. And more importantly is the name on the fake ID
>> > in Oswald's pocket for A.J. Hidell (featuring photo of Oswald) which
>> > was forged from Oswald's own selective service card, and nobody
>> > else's.
>>
>> You're lying again, Steve. Perhaps this is why you continually refuse
>> to cite.
>
> You just pick out a particular fact above that you don't believe,
> and are willing to fight about. Everything above is in the Warren
> Commission report, which you should read sometimes.
2915.
*CITE* for it.
And when you have, *I'll* cite.
But both you and I know you're caught in a blatant lie. (and I *can*
cite for it!)
And your honesty, or lack thereof, will be quickly shown by how you
answer.
>> >> >However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> >> >pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> >> >extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >
>> > That's big of you considering that he was captured with it in his
>> > hand, cartridges in his pocket.
>>
>>
>> Unlike you, I give valid and credible reasons for my stance.
>>
>> Why did those alleged cartridges have marks on them showing that
>> they'd been in a gunbelt?
>
> They have marks on them. We have no expert testimony that they have
> been in a gunbelt.
testimony - only a moron would think that they would intentionally
collect evidence that corroborates the idea of a frameup.
> Gerald "Jerry" Hill said they what looked like
> scotch tape residue on them, and lint. Since you like Hill's testimony
> so much, why don't you like THAT explanation for the later marks and
> rust (if that is what it is).
after all, the one who radioed in that the suspect was armed with an
automatic.
And if, as *YOU* believe, he was mistaken in that, then he's certainly
capable of being mistaken on the idea that scotch tape was the cause
of the residue.
If you actually *believe* this nonsense - tell us under what
circumstances one would use scotch tape with cartridges...
But you won't...
> In any case, so what?
evidence that they can't explain... and which contradicts their faith.
But any *honest* person would want an explanation, if only to firmly
reject any suggestion that Oswald was framed.
>> >> >Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
>> >> >among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
>> >> >corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
>> >> >how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
>> >
>> > Bullshit.
>>
>> What's the definition of "corroborating evidence?"
>>
>> Clearly you don't know what it means... since you deny it.
>
> And just as clearly you have no idea how to weigh it.
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE.
And that is simply wrong... any *honest* person - walking into
someone's home, and seeing a pistol holster - would come to the
obvious conclusion that someone in that home owned a pistol.
AND 999 TIMES OUT OF 1,000 THEY'D BE RIGHT.
Can you name anyone who owns a holster, but not a pistol?
> A pistol holster does not mean a pistol.
It's virtually a mathematical certainty.
A pistol holster has NO OTHER PURPOSE other than that connected with a
pistol.
> Nor does it tell what kind of pistol.
It doesn't have to. There's been *NO* debate about the *type* of
> Nor does it tell what kind of pistol.
pistol that Oswald owned. So that means that you're proposing a
strawman.
You'll have to fight that strawman all by yourself.
> A photo does mean a pistol and may show a kind of rifle and even
> identify a telling mark (and it incidentally shows a pistol and
> holster, too). Thus, much better evidence, and also much harder to
> fake, especially when you have Mrs. Oswald's testimony.
You're clearly the sort of person who thinks Aliens fly around on
bicycles.
I have a photo of an impromtu band performance in the DPD basement:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PRYTgNK0eKs/UopXXhhWkMI/AAAAAAAASCw/rDabcxD9bb0/s1600/Chris-Lee-Jack2a.jpg
>> > The holster is of no consequence.
>>
>> The photos of Oswald holding a rifle is of no consequence.
>
>See above.
I gave a perfect analogy, and you can't refute it.
>> Amusingly, you'll accept the statement *YOU* made, and deny the
>> PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS STATEMENT I MADE.
>>
>> This tells the tale...
>
> It does. You can't tell that a suspect-signed photo of a person
> wearing a pistol and holster is better evidence than an empty holster.
their residence isn't something you'd think of - you even deny that a
holster is virtually ALWAYS shows the presence of a pistol.
> Something in your brain is not working.
a liar (or more accurately, when you refuse to retract your statement
about PO Box 2915 - you will have.)
>> > Any idiot trying
>> > to frame somebody can plant a holster. Much harder is planting film of
>> > the victim holding the firearm, and making his wife say she took it,
>> > and also a negative, which can matched like a fingerprint to the
>> > camera you also plant, and (for good measure) make the subject sign a
>> > copy of the picture, and date it, and write "fascist hunter" on it in
>> > Russian. Holster? That's amateur. You're only impressed with the
>> > pistol holster because there's no rifle holster, and thus the pistol
>> > holster become somehow gold to you.
>>
>> I do believe that this is the first time I've seen a believer
>> acknowledge the possibility of a frameup.
>>
>> Good for you!
>
> And you refuse to comment on the quality of said frame. If Oswald
> was framed, it was the best job in history. And Oswald helped frame
> himself, too, as he refused to say anything about the Alex Hidell
> forgery card in his pocket. A real framed person would say "YOU PUT
> THAT CARD IN MY POCKET!!" Oswald just refused to comment, then later
> said "You know just as much about it as I do."
> And how about his comment that the backyard photo was his head
> pasted on somebody else's body? Priceless. Except an original negative
> taken with Oswald's camera exists. Wups. And there is also the copy of
> it he sent to de Morhenschildt and signed! He did everything but write
> "Here I am, about to kill fascist Edwin Walker."
photography to know that this is fairly simplistic.
One simply demonstration of this is the FBI "recreation" where they
cut out the head. I'm sure you've seen it.
>> >> >This item, as well as all of David's 20 other points, has ABSOLUTELY
>> >> >NOTHING to do with the "sole guilt" of anyone. This particular topic
>> >> >doesn't address Dealey Plaza at all - and despite David's claim that
>> >> >ALL of these 20 items show the "sole guilt" of Oswald, it's clear to
>> >> >any honest person that it *completely* fails to do so.
>> >> >
>> >> >That this pistol was the murder weapon in the Tippit case - however...
>> >> >is downright silly.
>> >> >
>> >> >Before Oswald can be shown to be a suspect, you have to get him to the
>> >> >scene. The Warren Commission, and believers ever since... have
>> >> >intentionally misled people on the timeline - the most credible
>> >> >evidence CLEARLY shows that Tippit was shot and killed before it would
>> >> >have been possible for Oswald to have walked the nine-tenths of a
>> >> >mile. The more credible estimates of the time of the murder *ALL*
>> >> >place it before the time that the Warren Commission did.
>> >
>> > There is no "credible evidence." There is a housemaid saying Oswald
>> > left at "about 1". No Western Union timestamp. No other witnesses.
>> > Just one person who had no particular reason to even look at a clock,
>>
>> She'd just found out that JFK had been killed, and that was so
>> ordinary, that like millions of other Americans, she had no
>> recollection of that time frame.
>>
>> > since it was such an ordinary happening
>>
>> Yep... Presidents get shot all the time, no big thing...
No refutation that would be credible to others...
>> >(not like gunshots or
>> > something-- it's just a guy getting home early).
>>
>> Your unsupported and LYING opinion doesn't mean much, does it?
>>
>> You demonstrate your ignorance of the evidence in this claim. I
>> suggest you'd better go learn about this, before you evern make this
>> claim again.
>>
>> Tell us who the "housemaid" was...
>>
>> Then be prepared to be embarrassed at your provable ignorance...
>
> I've always known who it was. And it's a shame the Warren Commission
> cut off housemaid Earlene Roberts when she was clearly about to say
> why she was unsure of the time.
was a "housemaid."
Under *NO* other circumstances, would you make such a claim.
> All we're left with is the fact that she was distracted by fiddling
> with the TV trying to find out about the president's shooting when
> Oswald rushed in, moving at a walk faster than she'd ever seen him go.
> But her estimate of time is based ONLY on the fact that she was trying
> to find info on the shooting.
>
> But Walter Cronkite first cuts in to "As the World Turns" to
> announce the shooting (though of course not the death) on CBS TV at
> 12:40, which is a mere 10 minutes after the fact. Oswald could have
> come in at *any time* after that.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/arts/television/as-the-world-turns-interrupted-by-kennedys-shooting.html
>
>Suck on it.
Your *SPECULATION* can't over-ride the facts.
It would indeed be interesting to find out what the Warren Commission
didn't want Roberts to say.
You can't provide even *ONE* witness that was stopped from testifying
to something *favorable* to the Warren Commission's case.
I can list dozens.
I quite doubt that Earlene Roberts was prevented from saying something
that would have made the case against Oswald stronger.
>> >> >Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
>> >> >Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
>> >> >the murder happening at 1:15.
>> >
>> > There was no such thing as a 1:12 bus. That comes out of your
>> > fevered imagination. Also the idea that Dallas buses ran on a Swiss or
>> > Japanese schedule, which (particularly on the day in question) is
>> > risible.
>>
>> You're lying again, Steve.
>>
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
>>
>> I'd be impressed if you could refute this, or retract your lie.
>
>There's nothing to refute.
This proves it... I cited - AND YOU SIMPLY DENIED IT.
Did you even click on the link?
What time did the FBI state that the bus would get to that corner?
> There is no 1:12 bus. There is a bus which the transportation people
> estimated stopped at that corner about 1:12, and one every 10 minutes.
arrive at 1:12.
Now you're admitting that I was correct.
Which is it?
WHAT TIME DID THE FBI GIVE AS THE TIME THAT THE BUS WOULD ARRIVE AT
THAT LOCATION?
> But buses do not run like Swiss watches in the U.S. (trying taking
> one, sometime), and we have no idea whether the bus on that day had
> already come and gone, or had yet to come. If you're going to keep
> asserting that the bus that was supposed to come at 1:12 had to come
> at 1:12, and not 1:11 or 1:13, I'll just call you a damn fool who must
> live in the basement.
There are only two ways someone would refer to a bus they're waiting
for... the location or the time. They might say that they're waiting
for the bus to 'Ventura' - or they might say they're waiting for the
1:12.
What they *DON'T* ever say is "I'm waiting for the 1:10, 1:11, 1:12,
1:13, or 1:14 bus..." or "I'm waiting for the bus that comes here
somewhere around 1:12."
This is simply common ordinary English - and when you base your
arguments on terminology like this, you simply show yourself to be a
foolish little kid.
Grow up.
You claimed that the idea of a 1:12 bus came out of my "fevered
imagination" - yet I cited for it.
You can't even retract OBVIOUS lies you tell.
And that fact tells the tale...
>> > Oswald, ex-marine with no reason to think he was in poor shape, had
>> > 15 minutes to walk 0.9 miles. Wow. Call the FBI, because it can't be
>> > right.
>>
>> No, he had about 4-8 minutes to cover that distance.
>
>No, he had anything from 12:45 to 1:13 to cover that distance.
*ONLY* evidence that exists.
And believing the Warren Commission on the time of the Tippit murder,
rather than the most credible evidence.
>> Tell us Steve, do you believe you'll convince anyone by lying?
>
> Tell us, Ben, do you believe you'll convince anyone by retarded
> reasoning, bad facts, and no life experience with buses? Call me a
> liar again and I'll just start calling you Basement Retard Ben. Is the
> Asperger or Tourette problem worse today?
You claimed that the reference to a 1:12 bus came out of my "fevered
imagination."
You claimed that Hidell was authorized to accept mail at P.O. Box
2915.
Those are just two of the *OBVIOUS* lies you've told.
Now, either DEFEND YOUR CLAIM TO THE TRUTH, retract the lies you told,
or accept the truth when I label you a liar.
I'm only doing so on the basis of citable proof.
>> >> >The best, earliest, and most *credible* evidence shows that the Tippit
>> >> >killer used an automatic pistol. This is simply beyond dispute. (I
>> >> >have no doubt, however, that lyin "Dud" will do so!)
>> >
>> > The evidence is one person who could easily have been mistaken, and
>> > was later shown to be, when the cartridges were carefully examined.
>>
>> Begging the question again.
>>
>> You're presuming that the cartridges are the same ones that Sgt. Hill
>> held in his hand.
>
> You're presuming Sgt. Hill ever held them in his hand. He never said
> so.
Here's a good explanation of the problem you have:
****************************************************
No Way To Explain away the "38" in "automatic 38"
The Dallas Police Dept. had a problem. At 1:41pm, Sgt. Gerald Hill
radioed, "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed
with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol." (DPD radio logs) They
concocted a two-part solution. First, Hill was instructed to deny that
he even sent the transmission. (And transcriber GD Henslee affixed
other names to the 1:41 entry in his transcription.) It worked. The
second part was unnecessary, because although Hill had passed on
responsibility for the message to one R.D. Stringer (v7p57), Stringer
was not called to testify. ["That probably is R.D. Stringer, [who]
would have been using the same call number...." Actually, Stringer's
call number was 551, not 550-2 (CE 1974 p188)] If he had been called,
Stringer would probably have used the same explanation which Hill did,
years later, when he confessed to having sent the message: "I assumed
that it was an automatic simply because we had found all the hulls in
one little general area". (With Malice 2013 p322)
But, as Dale Myers explains (p323), DPD would have had a further
problem, at least if Commission counsel had grilled Stringer more
thoroughly than they had grilled Hill. The "automatic" problem is not
unimportant, but it's, in effect at least, a smokescreen for a
knottier one How did Hill know that the shells were 38s? Myers has no
answer. Because, it would seem, Hill, or Patrolman Poe, or both, would
have had to handle the hulls themselves, & Hill told Myers that he in
fact did handle them (p321)! That would, in fact, seem to be the only
way that the police would have known both the type of weapon & the
calibre of the hulls--either from the stamp (38 AUTO or 38 SPL) or
from their appearance, their size, shape, etc. And thus no mistake
could have been made re "38"--or "AUTO".... Hill, Poe, Stringer,
Myers--no one could explain "38", or explain away "the suspect ir
armed with an automatic 38"....
dcw
****************************************************
Now, will you retract your claim? Or will you simply ignore the fact
that you've been proven wrong again?
> He told the Warren Commission he just examined three cases in a
> cigarette pack shown him by Poe.
not three...
> And he left out his radio broadcast
> that they were automatic 38's.
> Much later he tried to explain his
> error by saying nobody had told him that the cases came from a
> somebody shaking them out of a revolver. Duh. You are relying on THIS
> guy's testimony? He looks better for the frame-up, not the expert
> crew.
well. Summers... although he reported a .32 automatic rather than a
.38 automatic. Hill is to be believed here, because he based his
statement on an examination of the cases.
All of the *later* statements that contradict the earliest statements
are the ones you believe, in contradiction to the ordinary dictum that
the earliest is more credible than the later...
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wycqcFsTnA
>
>
>> > Moreover, the case against Oswald is strong even without the
>> > cartridges, since the bullets that killed Tippit were the same type as
>> > in Oswald's revolver, made by the same two manufacturers. And the
>> > bullets were fired by a Smith and Wesson revolver (not possibly an
>> > automatic). And in addition, one with an oversized barrel (like
>> > Oswald's). And Oswald tried to murder another policeman with the same
>> > weapon.
>>
>> I'd be shocked if he *wasn't* found with the two different brands of
>> cartridges.
>>
>> Sadly for you, this has a different possible explaination than the one
>> you gave...
>
>We're waiting.
accomplish?
>> >> >And when the Warren Commission couldn't develop testimony that linked
>> >> >the bullets to the gun...
>> >> >
>> >> >I REPEAT... WHEN THE WARREN COMMISSION **COULDN'T** DEVELOP TESTIMONY
>> >> >THAT LINKED THE BULLETS TO THE GUN...
>> >> >
>> >> >... they simply went "expert" hunting and found someone who would
>> >> >testify the way they wanted. This has *NEVER* been credibly explained
>> >> >by believers...
>
> It's never proven by you. What is your citation for the idea that
> they went "shopping" at all? You pulled that out of your butt,
> Basement Ben.
The FBI was good enough, until they COULD NOT provide the evidence
needed, so they called someone who would.
It's a FACT that Nicol provided what Frazier would not.
And *still*... unexplained by believers...
>> > Because it doesn't matter. The same person who owned the pistol
>> > owned the Carcano, since they were obtained in the same way. That
>> > would be Oswald.
>>
>> Your gutless cowardice in refusing to address the point I made about
>> "expert witness" shopping shows that *YOU* know you lost.
>
> You did MAKE any point.
misstyped what you *meant* to say.
> It's your bald assertion that they went
> "witness shopping" just because you want to believe it.
> The fact that
> the WC had 3 witnesses vs. 1 who disagreed on this point, by itself
> means nothing at all.
>> >> I'm more than willing to simply ignore the 20 items that David
>> >> supplied... let "sbharris" not be limited to just those 20 items...
>> >> GIVE US ANYTHING AT ALL THAT LIMITS THE CRIME TO A SINGLE SUSPECT.
>> >>
>> >> But, (my crystal ball is screaming at me!) ... no-one will.
>
> No circumstantial evidence ever limits a crime to one suspect.
I've made a very clear assertion - David made the claim that he was
proving the *SOLE GUILT* of Oswald.
Yet not only did *NOTHING* he give offer the *SLIGHTEST* support to a
lone gunman - YOU CAN'T OFFER ANYTHING AT ALL - EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T
RESTRICT YOU TO JUST DAVID'S 20 ITEMS!!!
So my point has been well proven - David lied.
And now, by running from the question posed, you're lying too. If only
by omission.
You refuse to acknowledge that there's no evidence that restricts this
crime to a single person.
Even the Warren Commission only asserted that they could not "find"
any evidence for a conspiracy.
David went far further than that... and lied in doing so.
> You
> can always posit another one, or two more, or ten more. Adding another
> suspect to a crime is the easiest thing in the world. You name me a
> crime where the suspect wasn't apprehended red-handed at the scene,
> and I'll posit an accomplice. J.Wilkes Booth and Lincoln? How do we
> know the Washington cop John Frederick Parker, who was supposed to be
> guarding the theater door, but was next door having a beer, wasn't IN
> on the plot? Makes sense to me. Other people were in on the plot,
> which was definitely a conspiracy. Why not Parker? And why poor Mrs.
> Surratt? Parker did way more damage. That's the problem with hunting
> conspiracies. You get Mr. Julius Rosenberg, and your net sweeps up
> Mrs. Rosenberg.
David made the POSITIVE assertion that he'd shown ONLY ONE PERSON
guilty of the murders.
You try to argue something different, rather than address the question
I posed.
That fact tells the tale...
rob.s...@gmail.com
Dec 22, 2017, 3:01:04 PM12/22/17
to
healyd...@gmail.com
Dec 22, 2017, 4:52:13 PM12/22/17
to
Bud
Dec 22, 2017, 6:27:22 PM12/22/17
to
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 1:33:21 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:46:22 -0800 (PST), Steve BH
> <sbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 8:16:38 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:46:54 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
> >> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> >> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >> >> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >> >> >up by Oswald at the REA.
> >> >
> >> > And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the
> >> > REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show
> >> > ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was
> >> > principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your uncited claims don't mean much coming from a proven liar, do
> >> they?
> >
> >http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html
>
>
> Good of you to cite - people can now judge the biases of the cite.
The retard claim to follow the evidence, but as Ben shows here they really don`t, lurkers. When the evidence goes against their silly ideas they merely contrive reasons to ignore it.
> <sbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 8:16:38 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:46:54 -0800 (PST), sbha...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:36:51 -0800, Ben Holmes
> >> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
> >> >> >> in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
> >> >> >The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
> >> >> >up by Oswald at the REA.
> >> >
> >> > And for good reason. At the time you could pick up a pistol at the
> >> > REA without a signature. All you had to do is pay for it COD and show
> >> > ID in the name of the recipient showing you were over 18. The law was
> >> > principally intended to keep pistols out of the hands of minors.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your uncited claims don't mean much coming from a proven liar, do
> >> they?
> >
> >http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html
>
>
> Good of you to cite - people can now judge the biases of the cite.
> >> >> >Nor are there any signatures on any
> >> >> >paperwork.
> >> >
> >> > There is a signatures of A. J. Hidell to order the pistol from Sea
> >> > Traders. Which match the writing of L.H.Oswald. And is also the person
> >> > Oswald authorized to get mail at his box. And also is the person
> >> > linked to Oswald with vaccination certificate, and in the Fair Play
> >> > for Cuba literature. And more importantly is the name on the fake ID
> >> > in Oswald's pocket for A.J. Hidell (featuring photo of Oswald) which
> >> > was forged from Oswald's own selective service card, and nobody
> >> > else's.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Steve. Perhaps this is why you continually refuse
> >> to cite.
> >
> > You just pick out a particular fact above that you don't believe,
> > and are willing to fight about. Everything above is in the Warren
> > Commission report, which you should read sometimes.
>
>
> Start with showing that Hidell was authorized to get mail at P.O. Box
> 2915.
> *CITE* for it.
>
> And when you have, *I'll* cite.
>
> But both you and I know you're caught in a blatant lie. (and I *can*
> cite for it!)
>
> And your honesty, or lack thereof, will be quickly shown by how you
> answer.
>
>
> >> >> >However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
> >> >> >pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
> >> >> >extremely likely that he owned it.
> >> >
> >> > That's big of you considering that he was captured with it in his
> >> > hand, cartridges in his pocket.
> >>
> >>
> >> Unlike you, I give valid and credible reasons for my stance.
> >>
> >> Why did those alleged cartridges have marks on them showing that
> >> they'd been in a gunbelt?
> >
> > They have marks on them. We have no expert testimony that they have
> > been in a gunbelt.
>
> Nor would the Warren Commission *EVER* have attempted to get such
> testimony - only a moron would think that they would intentionally
> collect evidence that corroborates the idea of a frameup.
> > Gerald "Jerry" Hill said they what looked like
> > scotch tape residue on them, and lint. Since you like Hill's testimony
> > so much, why don't you like THAT explanation for the later marks and
> > rust (if that is what it is).
>
>
> I'm quite amazed that you'd *DARE* use Sgt. Hill's opinion... he was,
> after all, the one who radioed in that the suspect was armed with an
> automatic.
>
> And if, as *YOU* believe, he was mistaken in that, then he's certainly
> capable of being mistaken on the idea that scotch tape was the cause
> of the residue.
> If you actually *believe* this nonsense - tell us under what
> circumstances one would use scotch tape with cartridges...
> But you won't...
>
>
> > In any case, so what?
>
> This is a *very* common interjection made by believers when faced with
> evidence that they can't explain... and which contradicts their faith.
The retards hate it when you don`t focus on their go-nowhere issues. They want everyone to be as stumped as they are, lurkers. Whenever I challenge Ben to take one of these issues somewhere he tries to make it about me, as if I am to blame for his ineptitude.
Look here, Ben was asked the significance and he goes on a rant, rather than show significance.
> But any *honest* person would want an explanation, if only to firmly
> reject any suggestion that Oswald was framed.
> >> >> >Unlike the rifle, there *WERE* things connected with a pistol found
> >> >> >among his possessions - as would normally be the case. This
> >> >> >corroborating evidence shows his ownership of the pistol... and shows
> >> >> >how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!
> >> >
> >> > Bullshit.
> >>
> >> What's the definition of "corroborating evidence?"
> >>
> >> Clearly you don't know what it means... since you deny it.
> >
> > And just as clearly you have no idea how to weigh it.
>
> Tut tut tut, Steve - YOU'RE DENYING THAT IT EVEN AMOUNTS TO
> CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE.
"...and shows how *unlikely* it is that he owned the rifle!"
The poster is right, lurkers, it is bullshit, the holster doesn`t speak to the ownership of the rifle at all.
> And that is simply wrong... any *honest* person - walking into
> someone's home, and seeing a pistol holster - would come to the
> obvious conclusion that someone in that home owned a pistol.
>
> AND 999 TIMES OUT OF 1,000 THEY'D BE RIGHT.
>
> Can you name anyone who owns a holster, but not a pistol?
>
>
> > A pistol holster does not mean a pistol.
>
> Yes... it does.
>
> It's virtually a mathematical certainty.
>
> A pistol holster has NO OTHER PURPOSE other than that connected with a
> pistol.
> > Nor does it tell what kind of pistol.
>
> It doesn't have to. There's been *NO* debate about the *type* of
> pistol that Oswald owned. So that means that you're proposing a
> strawman.
>
> You'll have to fight that strawman all by yourself.
>
> > A photo does mean a pistol and may show a kind of rifle and even
> > identify a telling mark (and it incidentally shows a pistol and
> > holster, too). Thus, much better evidence, and also much harder to
> > fake, especially when you have Mrs. Oswald's testimony.
>
> Tell this fable in Hollywood... you'll get a good laugh.
> You're clearly the sort of person who thinks Aliens fly around on
> bicycles.
> I have a photo of an impromtu band performance in the DPD basement:
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PRYTgNK0eKs/UopXXhhWkMI/AAAAAAAASCw/rDabcxD9bb0/s1600/Chris-Lee-Jack2a.jpg
>
>
> >> > The holster is of no consequence.
> >>
> >> The photos of Oswald holding a rifle is of no consequence.
> >
> >See above.
>
>
> Nope. Failed.
>
> I gave a perfect analogy, and you can't refute it.
>
> >> >> >Indeed, the bus schedules show that the murder happened earlier. Helen
> >> >> >Markham came out to wait for the 1:12pm bus - and would have missed
> >> >> >the murder happening at 1:15.
> >> >
> >> > There was no such thing as a 1:12 bus. That comes out of your
> >> > fevered imagination. Also the idea that Dallas buses ran on a Swiss or
> >> > Japanese schedule, which (particularly on the day in question) is
> >> > risible.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Steve.
> >>
> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11029#relPageId=73
> >>
> >> I'd be impressed if you could refute this, or retract your lie.
> >
> >There's nothing to refute.
>
> You're lying, Steve.
>
> This proves it... I cited - AND YOU SIMPLY DENIED IT.
>
> Did you even click on the link?
>
> What time did the FBI state that the bus would get to that corner?
It would have been better if the FBI asked Markham what bus she took and then interviewed the diver of that bus and asked when it got to the Jefferson stop. There is a bus schedule in evidence that stops at the Jefferson stop and proceed into downtown Dallas with a stop near Markham`s work at the Eatwell diner. It is the Lancaster 55 which I will link to below...
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11524&relPageId=8
If this was Markham`s bus it could never have gotten to the Jefferson stop before 1:20 or later.
>
> > Much later he tried to explain his
> > error by saying nobody had told him that the cases came from a
> > somebody shaking them out of a revolver. Duh. You are relying on THIS
> > guy's testimony? He looks better for the frame-up, not the expert
> > crew.
>
> He was, of course, corroborated by an earlier radio transmission as
> well. Summers... although he reported a .32 automatic rather than a
> .38 automatic. Hill is to be believed here, because he based his
> statement on an examination of the cases.
> All of the *later* statements that contradict the earliest statements
> are the ones you believe, in contradiction to the ordinary dictum that
> the earliest is more credible than the later...
> The FBI was good enough, until they COULD NOT provide the evidence
> needed, so they called someone who would.
> It's a FACT that Nicol provided what Frazier would not.
> And *still*... unexplained by believers...
>
> >> > Because it doesn't matter. The same person who owned the pistol
> >> > owned the Carcano, since they were obtained in the same way. That
> >> > would be Oswald.
> >>
> >> Your gutless cowardice in refusing to address the point I made about
> >> "expert witness" shopping shows that *YOU* know you lost.
> >
> > You did MAKE any point.
>
> Yep... I did. But I suspect that you're just too excited, and
> misstyped what you *meant* to say.
>
>
> > It's your bald assertion that they went
> > "witness shopping" just because you want to believe it.
>
>
> You can't explain Nicol... nor will you.
> > The fact that
> > the WC had 3 witnesses vs. 1 who disagreed on this point, by itself
> > means nothing at all.
>
> Joseph Nicol.
>
>
> >> >> I'm more than willing to simply ignore the 20 items that David
> >> >> supplied... let "sbharris" not be limited to just those 20 items...
> >> >> GIVE US ANYTHING AT ALL THAT LIMITS THE CRIME TO A SINGLE SUSPECT.
> >> >>
> >> >> But, (my crystal ball is screaming at me!) ... no-one will.
> >
> > No circumstantial evidence ever limits a crime to one suspect.
>
> A strawman. This isn't what I've stated.
>
> I've made a very clear assertion - David made the claim that he was
> proving the *SOLE GUILT* of Oswald.
>
> Yet not only did *NOTHING* he give offer the *SLIGHTEST* support to a
> lone gunman - YOU CAN'T OFFER ANYTHING AT ALL - EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T
> RESTRICT YOU TO JUST DAVID'S 20 ITEMS!!!
>
> So my point has been well proven - David lied.
> And now, by running from the question posed, you're lying too. If only
> by omission.
>
> You refuse to acknowledge that there's no evidence that restricts this
> crime to a single person.
Steve BH
Dec 22, 2017, 6:27:51 PM12/22/17
to
2915. *CITE* for it. And when you have, *I'll* cite.
ANSWER:
I don’t have to cite for it because I didn’t write it. The box I meant was in New Orleans. Oswald authorized his wife and A. J. Hidell as other recipients for his New Orleans box 30016 (the one right after Dallas, to which his Dallas mail was forwarded, after May 14, 1963). The list of people authorized for the Dallas box 2915 was thrown away, per normal procedure, after the box was closed, as you very well know. We don’t know who was, or was not, on it.
Here is the Warren Commission on the matter of Alek Hidell:
Among other identification cards in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest were a Selective Service notice of classification, a Selective Service registration certificate,23 and a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps,24 all three cards being in his own name. Also in his wallet at that time were a Selective Service notice of classification and a Marine certificate of service in the name of Alek James Hidell.25 On the Hidell Selective Service card there appeared a signature, "Alek J. Hidell," and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald.26 Experts on questioned documents from the Treasury Department and the FBI testified that the Hidell cards were counterfeit photographic reproductions made by photographing the Oswald cards, retouching the resulting negatives, and producing prints from the retouched negatives. The Hidell signature on the notice of classification was in the handwriting of Oswald. (See app. X, p. 572.)
In Oswald's personal effects found in his room at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Dallas was a purported international certificate of vaccination signed by "Dr. A. J. Hideel, Post Office Box 30016, New Orleans. 28 It certified that Lee Harvey Oswald had been vaccinated for smallpox on June 8, 1963. This, too, was a forgery. The signature of "A. J. Hideel" was in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. 29 There is no "Dr. Hideel" licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana.30 There is no post office box 30016 in the New Orleans Post Office but Oswald had rented post office box 30061 in New Orleans on June 3, 1963, listing Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell as additional persons entitled to receive mail in the box.32 The New Orleans postal authorities had not discarded the portion of the application listing the names of those, other than the owner of the box, entitled to receive mail through the box. Expert testimony confirmed that the writing on this application was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. 33
Hidell's name on the post office box application was part of Oswald's use of a nonexistent Hidell to serve as president of the so-called New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. (As discussed below in ch.VI, p. 292.) Marina Oswald testified that she first learned of Oswald's use of the fictitious name "Hidell" in connection with his pro-Castro activities in New Orleans.34 According to her testimony, he compelled her to write the name "Hidell" on membership cards in the space designated for the signature of the "Chapter President." 35 The name "Hidell" was stamped on some of the "Chapter's" printed literature and on the membership application blanks.36 Marina Oswald testified, "I knew there was no such organization. And I know Hidell is merely an altered Fidel, and I laughed at such foolishness." 37 Hidell was a fictitious president of an organization of which Oswald was the only member.38
When seeking employment in New Orleans, Oswald listed a "Sgt. Robt. Hidell" as a reference on one job application 39 and "George Hidell" as a reference on another.40 Both names were found to be fictitious.41 Moreover, the use of "Alek" as a first name for Hidell is a further link to Oswald because "Alek" was Oswald's nickname in Russia.42 Letters received by Marina Oswald from her husband signed "Alek" were given to the Commission.43
That’s pretty impressive. The Hidell card was forged from Oswald’s own selective service card, because the original signature on the original card had to retouched to get rid of it, and that left blank marks over lines (it’s the errors and blots that hang you, not the perfections). Also, of course, it’s Oswald’s passport photo.
As for the rifle going to Oswald, that could have happened in any one of several ways, according to the expert. The Postal Inspector of Dallas, Holmes, said a card would have gone into Oswald’s box for a package that didn’t fit (like a rifle) no matter whose name was on it. And that anybody with the card (presuming to have a key to the box) could then pick up the package with the card, no ID necessary.
================
Mr. HOLMES. All right, part I of this application is simply the instructions on a combination box, and instructions to the patron is torn off, and he keeps it or they throw it away. Portions 2 and 3 are completed, too. 2 gives the applicant's name, the name of his corporation or firm he represents, if applicable, the kind of business, the business address, the home address, and the place for his signature and the date. On the third portion is a box for him to indicate whether he wants all mail in the box, or Just whether he wants some other disposition and so on, and a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box other than the applicant himself, and he firs in that. These two portions then remain together in the file of the post office where he made application,
Mr. LIEBELER. That is portions 2 and 3?
Mr. HOLMES. Until he relinquishes the box. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away.
It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.
Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes; as it so happens, even though they closed the box in New Orleans, they still had part 3 and it showed that the mail for Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell was good in the box. They hadn't complied with regulations. They still had it there.
Mr. LIEBELER. It was a lucky thing.
Mr. HOLMES. We wish they had here.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now is this regulation that says section 3 should be torn off and thrown away, is that a general regulation of the Post Office Department?
Mr. HOLMES. It is in the Post Office Manual Instructions to employees; yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?
Mr. HOLMES. Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application.
Mr. LIEBELER. Right.
Mr. HOLMES. Now he did tell me in personal interrogation that no one was permitted to get mail in that box but him.
Mr. LIEBELER. He said that same thing about the box in New Orleans, too, didn't he?
Mr. HOLMES. He did at first, and then----
Mr. LIEBELER. Then you showed him portion three of the application and then he changed his story?
Mr. HOLMES. I said how about Marina Oswald, and he said, well, she was my wife. What is wrong with that? And I said how about A. J. Hidell, and he said I don't know anything about that. And I said look here. And he said, well, I don't know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be followed when that package came in?
Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?
Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in case?
Mr. HOLMES. That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?
Mr. HOLMES. Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it.
Suck on that, Ben.
There has been a great deal of discussion, some of it on this board many years ago, regarding the question of whether people whose name is not on the “entitled to receive” part of a PO box paperwork, can in fact get material mailed to the box. The Dallas Postal Inspector above answers that for packages (see above) and says, clearly, “YES.” Whether it’s true for cards and letters he isn’t specifically asked, but it’s irrelevant, because we only care about one package going to PO Box 2915—the Carcano assassination rifle. And the question is answered by the relevant expert. For which, some conspiracy theorists (CTs) have charged Holmes with being part of the (massive) conspiracy. That’s what happens to experts—any experts— who say something CTs don’t like.
Holmes also points out something else CTd don’t like, which is that once the card goes in the box for the package, even had I.D. or signature been required after that (as at the REA office) Oswald STILL could have gotten the rifle, just has he had the pistol (which clearly he DID get). By using his fake ID card.
The question of whether or not Oswald put down his wife and AJ Hidell as recipients on his Dallas PO (as he did his New Orleans PO) is interesting, but irrelevant. The fact that he did it in New Orleans is suggestive that he did it in Dallas (except to basement-dwelling retards) but ultimately, it makes no difference to the question of Oswald’s access to the AJ Hidell rifle from Klein’s.
Given this, it’s very odd that some CTs have rejected the idea that nothing more than a PO box key was needed to get any mail from a PO Box (including a package too large for it) in 1963. What is their point? The need for ONLY a key makes a separate actor ordering a rifle at the same time Oswald actually is ordering a pistol, and thus getting the rifle from the post office without Oswald knowing, maximally EASY. All we need is a key to duplicate Oswald (or whoever) who has forged Oswald writing on an AJ Hidell order to Klein’s. For a cheap rifle with no use in March, 1963, since JFK is far away and has not planned to come to Dallas where Oswald and the rifle will be.
But clearly the HARDER this is, the harder a conspiracy is. At the point that the Dallas post office actually REFUSES to let go of a package addressed to a name on a PO box that isn’t listed as an authorized recipient, no matter how good the extra person’s ID, you get the rifle held up as a package with a bad address. And then presumably returned to sender. But this did not happen. It was shipped March 20, and somebody picked it up March 25. Clearly, the ease of doing that had to be such that it could be done, because it was done. Very few CT’s have questioned that a Carcano was shipped to “AJ Hidell at PO 2915” and picked up. They just don’t want Oswald to pick it up. But leaving AJ Hidell off Oswald’s PO box pickup list doesn’t help Oswald any. Worse: arguing that only AJ Hidell could pick it up, but that he couldn’t have picked it up, due to supposedly really-tight regulations on PO box recipients not listed, REALLY hurts the conspiracy case, because now we have a rifle in the Dallas post office with no place to go and nobody who can pick it up (not even Oswald). Can chaos be far behind?
Since this weapon didn’t go back to Klein’s, perhaps it’s still in the Dallas post office. (Somebody should check). It would be in the REALLY dead letter boxes, probably in the basement. The other duplicate rifle with the same serial number in the National Archives is a problem, but it can be solved later, after Warren-Apologists apologize.
The method of conspiracy theorists is not to suggest a simpler explanation of the facts, which also happens to fit a conspiracy. Instead, they posit reality to be in such a way as to make the accepted facts IMPOSSIBLE, then do not have an alternative. They simply throw up their hands and run around in circles, telling those with simplest explanation that they must be “wrong” because there is a paradox, which cannot possibly be resolved in favor of the simple. A world of chaos is what they want, not an explanation.
Steve BH
Dec 23, 2017, 2:37:44 AM12/23/17
to
> > Gerald "Jerry" Hill said they what looked like
> > scotch tape residue on them, and lint. Since you like Hill's testimony
> > so much, why don't you like THAT explanation for the later marks and
> > rust (if that is what it is).
>
>
> I'm quite amazed that you'd *DARE* use Sgt. Hill's opinion... he was,
> after all, the one who radioed in that the suspect was armed with an
> automatic.
>
> And if, as *YOU* believe, he was mistaken in that, then he's certainly
> capable of being mistaken on the idea that scotch tape was the cause
> of the residue.
> And that is simply wrong... any *honest* person - walking into
> someone's home, and seeing a pistol holster - would come to the
> obvious conclusion that someone in that home owned a pistol.
>
> AND 999 TIMES OUT OF 1,000 THEY'D BE RIGHT.
>
> Can you name anyone who owns a holster, but not a pistol?
> > A pistol holster does not mean a pistol.
>
> Yes... it does.
>
> It's virtually a mathematical certainty.
>
> A pistol holster has NO OTHER PURPOSE other than that connected with a
> pistol.
> I have a photo of an impromtu band performance in the DPD basement:
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PRYTgNK0eKs/UopXXhhWkMI/AAAAAAAASCw/rDabcxD9bb0/s1600/Chris-Lee-Jack2a.jpg
> This would take a book all by itself... I do know enough about
> photography to know that this is fairly simplistic.
>
> One simply demonstration of this is the FBI "recreation" where they
> cut out the head. I'm sure you've seen it.
>
> It's clearly a LIE on your part to keep claiming that Earlene Roberts
> was a "housemaid."
> Your *SPECULATION* can't over-ride the facts.
> > There is no 1:12 bus. There is a bus which the transportation people
> > estimated stopped at that corner about 1:12, and one every 10 minutes.
>
> Tut tut tut, Steve - you just got through DENYING that a bus would
> arrive at 1:12.
>
> Now you're admitting that I was correct.
>
> Which is it?
>
> WHAT TIME DID THE FBI GIVE AS THE TIME THAT THE BUS WOULD ARRIVE AT
> THAT LOCATION?
> There are only two ways someone would refer to a bus they're waiting
> for... the location or the time. They might say that they're waiting
> for the bus to 'Ventura' - or they might say they're waiting for the
> 1:12.
>
> What they *DON'T* ever say is "I'm waiting for the 1:10, 1:11, 1:12,
> 1:13, or 1:14 bus..." or "I'm waiting for the bus that comes here
> somewhere around 1:12."
>
> This is simply common ordinary English - and when you base your
> arguments on terminology like this, you simply show yourself to be a
> foolish little kid.
>
>
> >> > Oswald, ex-marine with no reason to think he was in poor shape, had
> >> > 15 minutes to walk 0.9 miles. Wow. Call the FBI, because it can't be
> >> > right.
> >>
> >> No, he had about 4-8 minutes to cover that distance.
> >
> >No, he had anything from 12:45 to 1:13 to cover that distance.
>
>
> You're simply speculating when he left, rather than following the
> *ONLY* evidence that exists.
> But you *ARE* a liar.
>
> You claimed that the reference to a 1:12 bus came out of my "fevered
> imagination."
> You claimed that Hidell was authorized to accept mail at P.O. Box
> 2915.
Ben Holmes
Dec 23, 2017, 1:23:49 PM12/23/17
to
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:27:50 -0800 (PST), Steve BH
Yes Steve, you did.
This would be like saying: "UFO's exist."
This is an ENTIRELY correct and accurate statement... there are indeed
many sightings of flying objects that are unidentified. This has been
admitted by one and all.
But if I said, "Green aliens from Neptune are here. UFO's exist."
I've just told a lie... because the *accurate* phrase now has a
DIFFERENT MEANING.
You clearly and precisely connected A PARTICULAR P.O. Box to Oswald's
purchasing of a pistol.
YOU LIED!!!
And nothing you say can evade that simple fact, you INTENTIONALLY
misled any readers who aren't familiar with the TRUE evidence in this
case.
Tell us Steve, why do defenders of the Warren Commission so *commonly*
post sloppy and inaccurate information while trying to defend their
faith in the Warren Commission's theory?
In other words, WHY THE LYING??
This would be like saying: "UFO's exist."
This is an ENTIRELY correct and accurate statement... there are indeed
many sightings of flying objects that are unidentified. This has been
admitted by one and all.
But if I said, "Green aliens from Neptune are here. UFO's exist."
I've just told a lie... because the *accurate* phrase now has a
DIFFERENT MEANING.
You clearly and precisely connected A PARTICULAR P.O. Box to Oswald's
purchasing of a pistol.
YOU LIED!!!
And nothing you say can evade that simple fact, you INTENTIONALLY
misled any readers who aren't familiar with the TRUE evidence in this
case.
Tell us Steve, why do defenders of the Warren Commission so *commonly*
post sloppy and inaccurate information while trying to defend their
faith in the Warren Commission's theory?
In other words, WHY THE LYING??
Ben Holmes
Dec 23, 2017, 1:29:25 PM12/23/17
to
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 23:37:42 -0800 (PST), Steve BH
So you're admitting that you *KNOW* the FBI cite that I've been
holding... you *KNOW* that the P.O. Box you connected with Oswald's
purchase of a pistol DID NOT allow others to pickup at that box.
**YOU CLEARLY KNEW** all along... and yet you intentionally lied to
everyone.
That fact tells the tale.
For anyone else interested, you can turn to page four of this cite:
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
A cite that Steve has just implied he already knows about - yet he
intentionally lied on this topic.
holding... you *KNOW* that the P.O. Box you connected with Oswald's
purchase of a pistol DID NOT allow others to pickup at that box.
**YOU CLEARLY KNEW** all along... and yet you intentionally lied to
everyone.
That fact tells the tale.
For anyone else interested, you can turn to page four of this cite:
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
A cite that Steve has just implied he already knows about - yet he
intentionally lied on this topic.
Steve BH
Dec 24, 2017, 9:53:32 PM12/24/17
to
On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 10:29:25 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Start with showing that Hidell was authorized to get mail at P.O. Box
>> 2915.
>>
>> *CITE* for it.
>>
>> And when you have, *I'll* cite.
>
>
>What for?
So you're admitting that you *KNOW* the FBI cite that I've been
holding... you *KNOW* that the P.O. Box you connected with Oswald's
purchase of a pistol DID NOT allow others to pickup at that box.
**YOU CLEARLY KNEW** all along... and yet you intentionally lied to
everyone.
That fact tells the tale.
For anyone else interested, you can turn to page four of this cite:
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
A cite that Steve has just implied he already knows about - yet he
intentionally lied on this topic.
=============
>> Start with showing that Hidell was authorized to get mail at P.O. Box
>> 2915.
>>
>> *CITE* for it.
>>
>> And when you have, *I'll* cite.
>
>
>What for?
So you're admitting that you *KNOW* the FBI cite that I've been
holding... you *KNOW* that the P.O. Box you connected with Oswald's
purchase of a pistol DID NOT allow others to pickup at that box.
**YOU CLEARLY KNEW** all along... and yet you intentionally lied to
everyone.
That fact tells the tale.
For anyone else interested, you can turn to page four of this cite:
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
A cite that Steve has just implied he already knows about - yet he
intentionally lied on this topic.
Comment: this is just too funny. But the Ben "cite" above does give me the chance to discuss CE 2585, which appears to be the FBI's June 3, 1964 analysis of certain conspiratorial claims made in the early book WHO KILLED KENNEDY? by Thomas B. Buchanan.
I say "appears to be" because I cannot figure out how CE 2585 got admitted into evidence as an FBI report, or who wrote it. It has no place where it is admitted as Commission evidence (that I can find). It has no signature to authenticate it. It has no signature page. The Commission cites it, just as clueless Ben Holmes does, but otherwise it just floats out there, in the appendix. Nobody has ever bothered to look at the end of this thing closely in 53 years, as far as I can tell.
"Wait," you say, of course it has a signature page. See the signature: "Olin W. James." Yes, I see it. But the handwriting at the end of the document refers to a 5 Jan 1958 gunshot wound. And the document itself, at the end, is stamped June 1958, and also has a different CE number: 2586.
It IS CE 2586, the next exhibit. It is the end of a 22 May 1958 FBI document investigating the shooting death of a Marine private named Martin D. Schrand, USMC on 5 Jan. 1958. The document investigating the shooting of Prvt. Schrand is part of the next CE exhibit CE 2586, and this is noted on the commission appendix index, and the document page. The exhibit 2586 exists to corroborate the testimony of a marine named Powers who served with Oswald, who said that Martin Schrand has accidentally shot himself with shotgun while on guard duty. Oswald is not being implicated in any way in Schrand's death -- it's just Powers talking about the entangled lives of three marines, of which one is Powers and the others are Oswald and Schrand.
Perusal of the rest of the documents in CE 2586 fails to locate the signature page of CE 2585. Nor is it in CE 2583 or 2584. It appears lost. Or perhaps it never had a signature page! And ends at the end of the page with conclusion rebuttal #32, without even a space, and a normal pagination for page -10- and no (end). This seems unlikely to me. Does the FBI simply produce lists of imperious findings, without any accountability for them at all, like edicts from God? And without (end)? If so, those must have been a bugger to FAX.
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2586.pdf
In any case, we don't know who in the FBI wrote CE 2585, or is responsible for its conclusions. Or at least, I do not. (Anyone who does is encouraged to reply to this). Maybe J. Edger Hoover Himself wrote it, but declined to sign.
All this is germane because anonymous and imperious document CE 2585 is the source of the infamous FBI "finding" that (claim 12):
"Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A.Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas."
Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, in his testimony noted that it didn't matter anyway, as anybody with a key to a box could get anything in it, which would have been delivered to any name, so long as the box number was correct. No matter what the application said. So the FBI's conclusion (from a partial application) was something they had no way to know, and in any case, was irrelevant since the part 3 name list was not strictly followed.
The FBI got the evidence from Holmes to begin with:
Mr. BELIN. I notice over here in--a notation on the side 11-22-63, with some initials on it. Do you know what that is?
Mr. HOLMES. Those are my initials and they indicate that I took the original box application from the post office records on that date.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with it?
Mr. HOLMES. I turned it over to an FBI agent at a later date. I don't know when.
And Holmes IS the expert, here, not the FBI.
CE 2585 had some other problems. Under claim 11 it says: "Examination of the
rifle used in the assassination does not reveal the name of the manufacturer of
the weapon. However, it is noted that there is an inscription thereon that the rifle was made in Italy."
This is a bit like the FBI saying that a cell phone it found didn't have the name of the manufacturer, but leaving off the fact that it had an inscribed apple on it. The Carcano says "Terni" with crown, which is the sigil of the Terni arms factory (Regia fibbrica d’armi di Terni). The problem is the FBI is out of their depth, here. Which is fine for an American criminal investigation organization, but gets laughable when the FBI is taken to be the experts in post office box use, bus route times, old WW II rifle names and makers (Mannlicher-Carcano-- REALLY??), and so on. You trust experts in their areas of expertise-- all else you verify with the experts who really ARE the experts. This is true of the FBI no less than any organization.
Even if they write memos which they leave endless-- by design or error.
Ben Holmes
Dec 26, 2017, 10:26:34 AM12/26/17
to
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 18:53:31 -0800 (PST), Steve BH
<sbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 10:29:25 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> >> Start with showing that Hidell was authorized to get mail at P.O. Box
> >> 2915.
> >>
> >> *CITE* for it.
> >>
> >> And when you have, *I'll* cite.
> >
> >
> >What for?
>
> So you're admitting that you *KNOW* the FBI cite that I've been
> holding... you *KNOW* that the P.O. Box you connected with Oswald's
> purchase of a pistol DID NOT allow others to pickup at that box.
>
> **YOU CLEARLY KNEW** all along... and yet you intentionally lied to
> everyone.
>
> That fact tells the tale.
>
> For anyone else interested, you can turn to page four of this cite:
> https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
>
> A cite that Steve has just implied he already knows about - yet he
>intentionally lied on this topic.
>
>=============
>
>
>Comment: this is just too funny.
You think it's funny when you get caught lying?
<sbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 10:29:25 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> >> Start with showing that Hidell was authorized to get mail at P.O. Box
> >> 2915.
> >>
> >> *CITE* for it.
> >>
> >> And when you have, *I'll* cite.
> >
> >
> >What for?
>
> So you're admitting that you *KNOW* the FBI cite that I've been
> holding... you *KNOW* that the P.O. Box you connected with Oswald's
> purchase of a pistol DID NOT allow others to pickup at that box.
>
> **YOU CLEARLY KNEW** all along... and yet you intentionally lied to
> everyone.
>
> That fact tells the tale.
>
> For anyone else interested, you can turn to page four of this cite:
> https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
>
> A cite that Steve has just implied he already knows about - yet he
>intentionally lied on this topic.
>
>=============
>
>
>Comment: this is just too funny.
Ben Holmes
Dec 27, 2017, 12:56:13 PM12/27/17
to
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:46:26 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Your cowardice continues...
wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> >> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> >> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> >> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
>> >> > Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
>> >>
>> >> "Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
>> >> "conspiracy.
>> >
>> > I accept the standard dictionary definition of the word, lurkers.
>>
>> There's no such thing. You refuse to *NAME* which dictionary, and
>> which definition.
>
> <snicker> This is rich ...
>On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:17:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:24:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 10:52:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 14:00:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11:36:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> > 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used
>> >> >> > in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The evidence of ownership here is actually less than for the rifle.
>> >> >> The FBI never even bothered to try to document the pistol being picked
>> >> >> up by Oswald at the REA. Nor are there any signatures on any
>> >> >> paperwork. However, I don't believe that Oswald denied owning the
>> >> >> pistol, and for that reason (as well as the holster) - I find it
>> >> >> extremely likely that he owned it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Plus it was ripped out of his hands in the Texas theater, lurkers.
>> >> > Ben is good enough to allow that Oswald owned it, but just barely.
>> >>
>> >> "Dud," on the other hand, is too terrified to even *define* the term
>> >> "conspiracy.
>> >
>> > I accept the standard dictionary definition of the word, lurkers.
>>
>> There's no such thing. You refuse to *NAME* which dictionary, and
>> which definition.
>
Your cowardice continues...
Ben Holmes
Dec 27, 2017, 12:56:13 PM12/27/17
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 27, 2017, 12:57:34 PM12/27/17
to
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:27:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
> The Retard...
You prove yourself a liar each time you "respond" to a "retard."
You clearly don't realize that you've just shown that you know you
lost...
wrote:
You prove yourself a liar each time you "respond" to a "retard."
You clearly don't realize that you've just shown that you know you
lost...
Bud
Dec 27, 2017, 6:57:53 PM12/27/17
to
Bud
Dec 27, 2017, 7:00:15 PM12/27/17
to
Ben Holmes
Jan 6, 2018, 12:54:16 PM1/6/18
to
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 16:00:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> I made all the points...
Just not the winning ones.
Just not the winning ones.
Ben Holmes
Jan 6, 2018, 12:54:16 PM1/6/18
to
Bud
Jan 7, 2018, 5:19:47 PM1/7/18
to
Bud
Jan 7, 2018, 5:21:43 PM1/7/18
to
Ben Holmes
Jan 21, 2018, 11:31:21 AM1/21/18
to
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 14:21:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> If this guy is an an expert ...
Yep. He's an expert.
Yep. He's an expert.
Ben Holmes
Jan 21, 2018, 11:31:24 AM1/21/18
to
Ben Holmes
Jan 21, 2018, 11:32:40 AM1/21/18
to
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 14:19:46 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> Ben was forced to retreat ...
And yet, Dufus still can't show that Hidell was authorized to get mail
at P.O. Box 2915.
Dufus runs... EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
And yet, Dufus still can't show that Hidell was authorized to get mail
at P.O. Box 2915.
Dufus runs... EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Jason Burke
Jan 21, 2018, 12:03:25 PM1/21/18
to
Jason Burke
Jan 21, 2018, 12:03:33 PM1/21/18
to
On 1/21/2018 8:31 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
Jason Burke
Jan 21, 2018, 12:03:41 PM1/21/18
to
On 1/21/2018 8:31 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bud
Jan 21, 2018, 7:38:23 PM1/21/18
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages