CONSPIRACY-FLAVORED KOOKSHIT REVISITED (AND RE-STRANGLED BY THE REAL EVIDENCE)
David Von Pein
>>> "The extracted bullets {from J.D. Tippit's body} did not match the gun LHO had when he was arrested, how do you explain that?" <<<
The bullets were too mutilated, idiot. (Nicol did say one bullet could
be linked to Oz's gun, though.)
>>> "Automatic shells were found." <<<
No, they weren't.
No automatic shells are in the record. And furthermore, no automatic
weapon could have been involved, because witnesses verify that Oswald
(who was the ONLY person toting a gun on 10th St.) was emptying a
REVOLVER....not an "automatic".
Guess what? You're still batting triple-oh.
>>> "Also, the .38 shells in the National Archives do not match the revolver LHO had when he was arrested either, how do you explain this?" <<<
You're full of shit. The ONLY shells in evidence perfectly match
Oswald's S&W revolver. No amount of kookcrap you utter will change
that fact.
>>> "They took two Remingtons and two Winchesters from JDT, but the shells consisted of three Winchesters and one Remington. How do you explain this?" <<<
And what do you offer as an alternate solution to the "Oswald Did It"
scenario here? -- You think that somebody with an automatic plugged
Tippit with the exact type of bullet brands that Oswald happened to
have in his gun on 11/22?
And do you think the goofball plotters decided to plant some shells on
Tenth Street, but they failed to get the mixture of shells aligned
correctly with the bullets in Tippit?
How did the plotters manage to "plant" the real Oswald on 10th St.,
who was seen dumping shells in the Davises' yard?
Let's hear your alternate CT scenario and see if it can stand on its
own two legs.
>>> "They were from an automatic pistol according to the police on the scene." <<<
Not one policeman saw a single "automatic" shell. Not one.
You know why? Because all four shells in evidence are from Oswald's
gun, which was not an automatic.
Explain that. (Can you do that without pretending that the cops
planted evidence?)
>>> "Answer this for me, if LHO shot JDT with a revolver, why did he leave incriminating evidence like "spent shells" when he could have taken them with him?" <<<
Oh goodie. Now I have to play psychologist in order to explain the
evidence left behind. And if I can't come up with a good psychological
report to explain Mr. Oswald's actions on 11/22, then Rob-Kook gets to
believe that the evidence left behind by Oswald never existed. Is that
it, kookmeister?
How many more flimsy excuses have you got in your ten-gallon hat so
you can pretend your favorite patsy is innocent? Quite a few, no
doubt.
>>> "Do you have proof his {LHO's} gun had been fired?" <<<
Four bullets from Oswald's gun went into Tippit's body on 11/22/63,
idiot. So, yes, I have ample proof. (Via the shells and via the fact
that the ONLY GUNMAN on Tenth Street was named Lee H. Oswald.)
But Mr. Tippit will be glad to know that the guy who shot and killed
him couldn't have done it.
J.D.'s probably still alive in Florida. How 'bout that?
>>> "Do you have a match between his gun and the bullets in JDT?" <<<
Joseph Nicol says so.
But even without such a match, it doesn't matter, because there was
only ONE person firing a gun on 10th St. on 11/22, and that one person
was LHO, and LHO had a revolver on him when arrested, and that
revolver was linked to all four shells littering the front and side
yards of the Davis property.
>>> "I think the odds are great {due} to the real killer using a combination of those types of ammo in his automatic pistol, whoever he was." <<<
Nice coincidence that the "real" killer happened to have Remington and
Winchester missiles in his gun too that day.
And it was damn lucky for those always-fortunate plotters that the
bullets were too mangled to ELIMINATE Oswald's revolver as the murder
weapon.
And it was also lucky that one of those bullets from a NON-Oswald gun
that went into Tippit was (somehow) identified positively as a bullet
from OSWALD'S gun by Joseph D. Nicol, huh?
I guess Mr. Nicol must have been on the conspirators' payroll
too....right, Mr. Kook? Because you claim that an "automatic" gun
killed Tippit; but Nicol says otherwise. Go figure. ~shrug~
>>> "You are not mentioning that the prints on JDT's car, taken from where witnesses said the killer leaned, did not match LHO, how come?" <<<
Citation please? (Something you never, ever provide.)
Anyway, your point is moot, because the evidence shows that Oswald
FOLDED HIS ARMS and then leaned against the patrol car's door. (Was
Oswald supposed to leave an identifiable "forearm print" on the car?
And while wearing a jacket?) <chuckle break>
>>> "The bullets and shells did not match LHO's style of gun." <<<
A blatant lie.
>>> "You are assuming again that the shells found at the {Tippit} scene are the same ones found, right?" <<<
Huh? What's this double-speak? A form of Kook-Lingo, I suppose.
>>> "Poe initialed two shells, and yet his initials are nowhere to be found on the final evidence." <<<
Poe said he didn't remember marking them, idiot. But be sure to ignore
the following testimony:
Mr. BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
Mr. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/poe.htm
>>> "They couldn't link Oswald's gun with the bullets taken out of JDT because the bullets were too mutilated." <<<
And yet, incredibly, you feel confident enough to know those
"mutilated" bullets were positively from an "automatic" gun, right?
And those bullets, therefore, couldn't possibly have come from Oz's
gun, correct? (Go figure the logic of this.)
Fact: The lead from the Tippit bullets was consistent with bullets
fired from Oswald's S&W bored-out .38.
>>> "Even accepting that Oswald owned and possessed the weapon in question, and that the shells tested by the FBI had been fired from that weapon, the ballistics evidence is questionable." <<<
Only to a kook who wants Oswald innocent of this second November 22nd
murder too. To a reasonable person, however, the evidence is rock-
solid, and it all hangs your sweetheart named Lee Baby.
>>> "At least you are being fair." <<<
It's just too bad you never are.
>>> "But they {the shell casings} simply don't match LHO's gun. His gun had work done (rechambered) to it and required a fatter shell case; the ones found did not have this characteristic." <<<
If you spout this lie 58 more times today it'll still be a lie.
All four shells in evidence were fired from Oswald's gun. Live with
it. Deal with it. It's called an irreversible "FACT". .....
Mr. EISENBERG -- "By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to
the exclusion of all other weapons?"
Mr. NICOL -- "Correct."
Plus -- If you want to believe somebody was framing Oswald for the
Tippit murder too....why would they plant shells that could never in a
million years be traced to Ozzie's gun (via the "bulge" excuse CT-
Kooks constantly like to use)? That's nuts.
>>> "Only one person did this {i.e., positively identified Oswald as Tippit's lone killer} -- Helen Markham." <<<
Dead wrong, as usual. Three other witnesses did. But you'll ignore
Scoggins, Benavides, and Tatum. You have to. If you don't, Oswald is 4
times as guilty.
Plus, there are witnesses named Davis, Davis, Reynolds, Callaway,
Brock, Lewis, and Patterson -- who all saw Oswald fleeing the area of
the murder and saw NOBODY ELSE running from the crime scene.
But, maybe your "real killer" cloaked himself with the help of a
device supplied by James T. Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise.
Nice post, Rob. You managed to mangle 100% of the verified evidence
connected to Officer J.D. Tippit's murder. What a surprise.
BTW, why was there any need whatsoever to "frame" Oswald for Tippit's
murder too (as so many CT nuts seem to believe)?
If Oswald WASN'T really at the Tippit murder scene at all (as many
kooks firmly believe), then why wouldn't framing Oz for JUST the
President's murder have sufficed? Why complicate matters by trying to
set him up for DOUBLE the slayings on November 22nd?
So, per a lot of the kooks, the conspirators have doubled the
complexity of the case and doubled the chances of the patsy-framers
being caught by insisting upon needlessly framing LHO for Tippit's
murder too.
Wouldn't Ozzie hang from his noose just as easily for JUST having
killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?
(Do you see how stupid all this covert "frame-up" shit sounds when you
step outside its rickety framework for two seconds and peer in?)
David Von Pein
>>> "Brennan's affidavit reveals at least a half a dozen MAJOR and KEY discrepancies in the Warren Commission's THEORIZED version of the event." <<<
Actually it reveals ZERO such discrepancies between the affidavit
Brennan signed on 11/22 and Brennan's WC testimony a few months later.
Let's see.....
>>> "The W.C. ignored or twisted Brennan's descriptions." <<<
The WC did no such thing, of course. They let Brennan talk freely, and
Howard was free to say any damn thing he wanted, after such MULTIPLE
open-ended questions like:
"Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
recollect?"
"Just tell what else you saw during that afternoon."
"Anything you would like to add?"
But to a kook named Walter, the above type questions were being asked
by crooks and liars who wanted to "twist" Brennan's words.
>>> "Brennan said the gunman was in his early thirties..." <<<
Which is just exactly what he said in BOTH his affidavit and his WC
session.
>>> "He said the gunman weighed between 165 and 175 pounds..." <<<
Which is almost identical to his WC testimony.
Affidavit: "165-175 pounds".
WC Testimony: "160-170 pounds".
(You're really showing those "discrepancies" thus far, Mr. Walt-Kook.
Are you planning on proving your point sometime during this laundry
list?)
>>> "The two discrepancies in clothing color have already been counted." <<<
And Brennan said "light-colored" regarding the clothing in BOTH his
11/22 affidavit and his WC testimony.
Next....
>>> "Brennan said the man was STANDING..." <<<
When talking about the "standing vs. sitting" topic, Brennan actually
used the word "sitting" in his affidavit and not "standing":
"He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting
for the same thing I was, to see the President." -- Via Brennan's
11/22 Affidavit
But in front of the WC, Brennan said that he saw Oswald BOTH sitting
and standing at various times. So, there's really no "discrepancy" in
this regard either.
Next....
>>> "Brennan said that the window where he saw the gunman was WIDE OPEN (The Warren Commission theorized that it was only part of the way open)..." <<<
This point is never even mentioned in Brennan's affidavit. It only
came up during the WC session. So, therefore, there can be no
"discrepancy" in this regard either (from the affidavit to the
testimony), since Brennan never mentions the window "height" in his
November affidavit.
>>> "I believe that's six major discrepancies." <<<
No. It's really this many -- Zero.
I guess Walt-Kook really meant to say that the "discrepancies" exist
with respect to Brennan's UNIFORMLY-CONSISTENT observations (when
comparing his WC testimony and his 11/22/63 affidavit) vs. the actual
physical description of Lee Harvey Oswald.
But, of course, that isn't what Walt implies above (and what he
certainly implied in a previous post or two on this subject earlier on
December 1, 2007; [see quotes below direct from the lips of the kook
himself]).
Instead, Walt is implying that the WC had to "clear up" (per Walt's
verbiage) Brennan's language that exists in the affidavit, because
(quoting the Mega-Kook again) "Hoover and Johnson knew they had to
discredit Howard Brennan, because the naive fool had stepped right out
of the crowd and started speaking about what he's seen", so the WC
"decided to make him a "Star Witness" where they could get their pack
of silver tongued lawyers to "clarify" the plain english of Howard
Brennan's affidavit".
Hilarious stuff Walt.
It's hilarious because the Warren Commission did NO SUCH THING AT ALL.
And that's obvious because Brennan's affidavit and his WC testimony
are almost IDENTICAL in substantive content. There's virtually NO
DIFFERENCES at all. But Walt thinks there are substantial differences
that needed to be "cleared up" (i.e., hidden from view, no doubt) by
the Warren Commission.
Walt (evidently) thinks that Howard L. Brennan's original November
22nd affidavit and Brennan's WC testimony are totally different
versions of what Brennan saw in Dealey Plaza. When, in fact, they are
almost identical.
And, quite obviously, the Warren Commission was not on a mission to
"twist" Brennan's words or to keep certain things out of the written
record, because they let Brennan speak freely and openly about what he
saw on 11/22, and (don't forget) THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED ALL OF
BRENNAN'S VERBATIM TESTIMONY RIGHT THERE IN THE SUPPORTING VOLUMES OF
THE WARREN REPORT FOR EVERYBODY TO LOOK AT ("discrepancies" regarding
Oswald's exact physical description and all).
Let's face it folks -- Walt's ready for a Kook Award. (He's long
overdue for one of those, in fact.)
David Von Pein
<large chuckle>
Yeah, I'll bet Walt's cardboard Plaza was much, much more "to scale"
and dead-on accurate than Dale Myers' exacting 10-years-in-the-making
"Secrets Of A Homicide" computer-enhanced DP model, huh?
There's probably no comparison at all. Almost any kook would go with a
homemade cardboard version (and a piece of "tubing"), rather than a 3D
computer model based on floor plans of the TSBD and the Hess &
Eisenhardt body draft of JFK's 1961 Lincoln Continental limo. Right,
Walter?
This image (based in large part on the Zapruder Film itself) is
probably all screwed up, right Walt?......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
Walt's ready for a rubber room.
David Von Pein
>>> "Nobody has any validated grounds for Oswald to be in the area of the Tippit killing site." <<<
Other than the ironclad FACT that he (Lee Harvey Oswald) WAS there at
the Tippit killing site and murdered Officer Tippit with his own .38
revolver ("validated grounds" for LHO's being at 10th & Patton or
not).
Once again (and as per usual), here we have a CTer totally ignoring
the SUM TOTAL of evidence that undeniably leads to Lee Oswald's guilt
(in this instance, the Tippit murder).
A CTer will completely dismiss the totality of "IT WAS OSWALD"
evidence and focus, instead, on the silliness of the "validated
grounds" for Mr. Oswald to be where he was at 1:14-1:15 PM on November
22, 1963.
Good grief.
=======================================
J.D. TIPPIT'S MURDER AND OSWALD'S HILARIOUS/GOOFY DEFENSE:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19
=======================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Someone saw LHO sneak into the balcony of the theatre before 1:06 p.m." <<<
I wonder how Oswald managed to get from 1026 Beckley to the Texas
Theater on Jefferson in about 2 minutes (or probably less), per this
kooky theory (based on the approx. times that are always used by CT-
Kooks to try and clear Oz of Tippit's murder)?
Talk about NOT HAVING ENOUGH TIME to do something. How do you kooks
explain this hunk of Superman-like speed exhibited by Mr. Oswald?
(Earlene Roberts is probably a big fat liar too, right?)
David Von Pein
>>> "Your question is not whether Lane is correct or not." <<<
Well, yeah...it kinda is.
>>> "Your question is what Lane believes. You'd rather make up false statements of what he believes in order to defame him." <<<
I guess I could call that "Turn About Is Fair Play", huh?
But I didn't make up any "false statements", bonehead. Just watch
Lane's '67 movie. He's purporting that Oswald might be Doorway Man...3
years after he knew the truth re. Lovelady (or at least he SHOULD have
known it...if he didn't look it up in the WR volumes, he's even more
the fool, as he would have then gone on camera blindly, lacking any
knowledge of Lovelady's '64 testimony).
>>> "Lane wanted a conspiracy?" <<<
Absolutely. Can there be any doubt, via his Markham arm-bending and
his distortions of fact in "RTJ"? Get real.
>>> "And waited until 1966?" <<<
Takes a while to write a book. Even one filled with shit, like "RTJ".
Do you think Lane wrote the book on a matchbook cover over the weekend
or something?
>>> "I got news for ya, pal, a lot of people thought it was a conspiracy within minutes and did not
have to wait for 1966." <<<
How many of those people were writing (and had completed) 478-page
books "within minutes" of the assassination, "pal"?
Geesh.
>>> "Again, you don't know what Lane said or thinks..." <<<
Sure, I do. And so do you. You just don't want to soil a wonderful CT
buddy like the grandiose Mister Lane, right? Right. Lane's record is
there for all to see. And it's a record of deceit, manipulation, and
conspiracy-for-a-buck. Great guy indeed.
>>> "The only misrepresentation here is that you constantly lie about what others have said." <<<
Fuck you. I haven't lied once, you retarded kook.
But Mr. Marsh, OTOH, has said....what was it about VB's book never,
ever seeing the light of day?? Over & over again.
Go back to the mod. section. I'm already sick of your shit here in the
outhouse.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8271ba11244aa8f0
>>> "The time {of Oswald's trek from Beckley to Tenth St.} can NOT BE determined with ANY certainty.......that's the whole point of contesting claims that he could. There is no set departure time, rate of walk or route.....no conclusion can be reached within the framework of the law." <<<
And isn't that just EXACTLY what I said in my last post (the one you
just responded to and excised this part re-printed below)?......
"People failing to "make the walk in time" via re-constructions after
11/22/63 is really pretty much worthless information....seeing as how
the two critical pieces of data (LHO's exact pace and the precise
timeline involved) to make a firm determination about OSWALD'S Nov. 22
movements are not known...and can never be known for certain." -- DVP;
09/15/07 AD
But, of course, there is plenty of OTHER (non-"time"-oriented and
non-"walking-speed"-related) evidence that proves beyond a shred of a
doubt that Oswald DID make that trip from Beckley Avenue to 10th
Street in WHATEVER TIME NECESSARY TO GET THERE.
THAT is an undeniable FACT, based on the OTHER evidence -- e.g.,
OSWALD'S bullet shells at scene and many witnesses seeing OSWALD at
the scene murdering Tippit or running away with a gun in tow just
afterward.
Why the topic of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder is even debated
is absolutely beyond all belief. But, round & round we go...decade
after decade.
Pa-thet-ic!
David Von Pein
A FELLOW LNer SAID:
>>> "You are telling us that both the neck and back wounds are entry wounds, through soft tissue, yet neither exited the body (ROTFLMAO)? In addition, there were no bullets. Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster?" <<<
DVP:
I'm tellin' you, Al....a CTer's best bet is to theorize something I
talked about the other day -- i.e., simply claim that the BACK bullet
and the NECK bullet COLLIDED with each other inside the President's
neck!
The two bullets then vaporized upon impact, leaving nary a trace of
the missiles behind in the body and (somehow) not causing any other
tissue damage after the vaporization took place.
Sounds about as logical as the Oliver Stone-like theory of TWO bullets
hitting soft tissue, with BOTH of these bullets stopping on a dime --
with both missiles disappearing off the face of the planet immediately
(as is the case with ALL unwanted "CT" bullets in this entire case,
per most conspiracy kooks).
Plus: The wounds line up to such "LHO In The SN" perfection on JFK's
body so as to make this TWO-bullet event (per CTers) look as though it
COULD have been a single-bullet event. Remarkable luck (yet again) for
the multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.
(And to think....Ollie Stone actually made lots of money by peddling
such impossible nonsense.)
CE903:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
David Von Pein
Allow me to re-word Vincent Bugliosi's quote yet again (changes I'm
making will appear in ALL CAPITAL letters):
"With respect to the CONTROVERSIAL "HEAD-SNAP" ISSUE, once you
establish and know that PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS STRUCK BY ONLY *ONE*
SINGLE BULLET (COMING FROM BEHIND JFK'S CAR), as has been done, then
you also necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer
is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless
alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy
theorists have raised through the years about THE REAR HEAD SNAP.
"IN MORE SIMPLE TERMS, ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS HIT IN THE HEAD BY ONE
BULLET FROM BEHIND (VIA THE INCONVERTIBLE PRESENCE OF THE *ONE* SINGLE
BULLET WOUND OF ENTRY ON THE *BACK* OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD), WHAT
DIFFERENCE DOES IT REALLY MAKE *WHICH* DIRECTION THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD
MOVED AFTER THIS SINGLE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD FROM *BEHIND*?
"JFK'S HEAD COULD HAVE DONE ITS LINDA BLAIR IMITATION (AND SPUN AROUND
23 TIMES AFTER BEING HIT BY OSWALD'S ONE AND ONLY BULLET FROM BEHIND)
AND THAT STILL WOULD NOT CHANGE THE *PROVEN FACT* THAT SHOWS THE
PRESIDENT WAS SHOT IN THE HEAD JUST *ONE TIME*, WITH THAT ONE HEAD
SHOT ORIGINATING FROM *BEHIND* THE PRESIDENT'S LIMOUSINE."
~~~~~~
Vince's original quote (for reference):
"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish
and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also
necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known
or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists
have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB; Page 953
of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
>>> "Explain to me the hole in the windshield at Parkland. .... One thing is for sure: IT CANNOT BE A CRACK. Therefore, CE350 is FAKED. .... If you believe the picture shows a crack, then you are ON crack." <<<
Mr. Richard Van Noord (CTer Extreme) has decided that his own
INTERPRETATION of a photograph (taken at some distance from the
Presidential limousine and then zoomed in on quite a bit) is the
GOSPEL TRUTH.
Nobody is allowed to argue with Richard Van Noord on HIS
INTERPRETATION of a little, itty-bitty part of a ZOOMED-IN, degraded
photograph of the limo's windshield.
If anybody dares say the zoomed-in image still does not show a
DEFINITIVE and PROVABLE "hole" (which, of course, it does not and
CANNOT, because of RObert Frazier's detailed "There Was No Hole In The
Windshield" testimony to the WC), then that person who says they
cannot see the "hole" or says it only looks like a "crack" is, well,
"cracked" in the head I guess.
On another forum recently, another person argued with Richard on this
"windshield hole" topic and pointed out what I thought was a pretty
good observation (although, I shall readily admit, I'm certainly no
photographic expert, so I could be wrong; but it just seems like
garden-variety common sense to me).....
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=64601&mesg_id=64601&page=
The observation made by the other person was: When looking at
Richard's super-sized digitized blow-up of the car's windshield in the
Parkland photograph, you can easily tell that many OTHER things in the
zoomed image have degraded to the point where things in the picture
seem to be almost cartoonish in nature (e.g., the rearview mirror and
the area between the sun visors and the steering wheel). Have a look:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/11856.jpg
By the way, here's the original, non-zoomed photo:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/11858.jpg
But Richard wants us to think that the super-small "hole" in the
windshield is shining through bright and clear and OBVIOUS within the
above-linked super-sized blow-up of the photo.
This similar "zoomed in" argument I think can also be made re. the
Mary Moorman picture and "Badge Man". Can we possibly expect the
teeny-
tiny image of "Badge Man" to GET BETTER as we blow "him" up to
enormous oversized proportions in the ALREADY-CRAPPY Moorman Polaroid
image?
Moorman's picture is NOT a very good picture (quality-wise) TO BEGIN
WITH. But Gary Mack, Jack White, & Co. think that a very small area in
the far background of that lousy picture is going to be able to
produce such discernible DETAILS like: A cop's "arm band"; a
policeman's "badge"; and even the eyes and eyebrows of "Badge Man".
IMO, that's just flat-out crazy.
But, YMMV. And if you're a "BM" fan, it will. Greatly, no doubt.
>>> "You made the case for me: you don't understand how objects can become "cartoonish" when zoomed. It's quite simple, David, the steering wheel, the rearview mirror and the chrome above the visors WERE REFLECTING LIGHT. And the more you focus, or zoom, on them, they become "cartoonish." .... When you understand lighting and how it affects the zoom in pictures, maybe you'll understand." <<<
Okay. If you say so, Richard. But, IMO, this zoomed-in image is a
total joke and a total mess. .....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/11856.jpg
But if you want to think it "proves conspiracy" (which you obviously
do think the photo accomplishes), well, good for you. I'm happy I was
the one who provided you the definitive proof of that grandiose,
multi-
gun, one-patsy conspiracy that you've been anxious to prove all these
years (seeing as how it was my posting of the Parkland limo photo in
question that led you to your "It Was A Hole For Sure!" revelation).
I'm not sure whether to pat myself on the back or just keep my mouth
in its current wide-open position as I marvel at the insanity
exhibited by certain conspiracy theorists.
Which would you suggest I do, Dick?
David Von Pein
RE.: THE SBT AND THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL PROGRAM "BEYOND THE MAGIC
BULLET":
Patrick, I've admitted that the Discovery Channel program isn't spot-
on perfect. It really couldn't be, unless you have a Time Machine
marked "12:29 PM, 11/22/63" and want to shoot the real JFK & JBC from
the TSBD window.
But that Discovery Channel SBT test shot generally travelled the same
path that CE399 did, right down to the bullet tumbling after hitting
NO HARD OBJECTS IN THE MOCK JFK NECK.
The test bullet then enters the mock JBC back sideways, breaks RIBS
(JBC happened to have a rib busted remember); the bullet, instead of
staying inside the mock Connally thorax/trunk, then proceeds to EXIT
the mock JBC chest (just like the real Connally); the bullet then
continues on into the JBC mock wrist (just like the Real McCoy); the
bullet then still doesn't stop at the simulated wrist; it goes on to
strike the mock thigh and it bounces off, spent from its 399-like
journey.
And then the bullet comes out -- guess what? -- COMPLETELY INTACT. In
1 piece. Not fragmented. AND with a rounded nose! Just like CE399.
You're dreaming if you think all of this "SBT-like" stuff could come
THAT close to 399 perfection (via a real-life test with real WCC/MC
ammunition from Oswald's bullet "lots") and still continue to believe
that the Single-Bullet Theory is utterly implausible or (per most
CTers) completely "impossible".
And your take on the CBS Special from '67 is typical CT dreck too. The
CBS people INVESTIGATED the whole case, from JFK's autopsy, to the
angles in the Plaza (with test shots from a tower with a moving
target), to the Tippit murder, to Ruby killing Oz, to CE399, to re-
examining witnesses, etc., etc. -- and they reached the ONLY
reasonable conclusion (like the WC did) -- LHO ALONE WITH THREE SHOTS.
Any other conclusion is based on a whole bunch of wishful thinking
(the perceived case-solving greatness of "patspeer.com"
notwithstanding).
The SBT lives. And always will. (Until Pat Speer, or somebody, can
come up with those extra bullets...or, at the very LEAST, come up with
some sort of credible explanation as to why two bullets smashed into
JFK and failed to exit the other side, which is what the vast majority
of conspiracists believe happened. And CTers like to hang the word
"Magic" around the LNers' neck. CTers, give me a break. And another
BULLET!!!! Please!!)
David Von Pein
>>> "LHO's prints belong at the sniper's nest. He worked there daily, you know." <<<
Oswald's prints "belong at the sniper's nest"??? That's the first time
I've heard anybody phrase it exactly like that. And, frankly, it's a
stupid way to phrase it, IMO.
On a daily basis, CTers continue to dismiss and/or ignore the amazing
BUILD-UP of the TOTALITY of the print/shell/rifle/paper bag evidence
that was ALL OSWALD'S AND ONLY OSWALD'S on that 6th Floor on November
22nd.
What are the odds of Oswald actually NOT being at that SN window at
12:30 on 11/22/63? The odds of him not being there must be almost a
negative number. Because, given the sum total of "OZ WAS HERE"
evidence, it's obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald WAS at that window, and
WAS firing a rifle at JFK at 12:30. .....
1.) Oswald's prints are the ONLY *IDENTIFIABLE* FRESH PRINTS on TWO
different boxes located DEEP inside the Sniper's Nest.
2.) Shells from Oswald's gun are in the Nest.
3.) Oswald's own gun is on the same 6th Floor (near the staircase,
which Oswald would have had to use to escape the sixth floor, due to
the elevators being on the FIFTH floor at that point in time).
4.) Witnesses physically SEE an "Oswald-like" person either shooting
at JFK's car or they see an "Oswald-like" person at the window just
seconds prior to the motorcade's arrival in the Plaza.
5.) And an empty paper sack (similar in handmade taped-up style to the
one seen being carried by LHO that morning) is in the Nest too....and
that bag has two of Oswald's prints on it!*
* = Number 5 above is, IMO, the kicker...i.e., the thing that
positively should tell any reasonable person that Lee Oswald was there
in that Sniper's Nest at 12:30 on Nov. 22nd.
HIS PRINTS ARE ON AN ITEM (AN *EMPTY* PAPER BAG) THAT HAS NO LOGICAL,
REASONABLE, AND *INNOCENT* REASON FOR BEING WHERE IT WAS FOUND SHORTLY
AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S MURDER!
Lee Harvey Oswald inadvertently signed his own name to the President's
murder. Many times over in fact! And he HIMSELF practically told the
world he was guilty, just as Vincent Bugliosi correctly pointed out in
a courtroom in 1986.....
"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us he
was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he had
said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us?
Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
consciousness of guilt. If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it
necessary to deny purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store
in Chicago? Why did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he
find it necessary to do that if he's innocent?" -- V. Bug.
aeffects
<nothing of course>
Son, quoting yourself off your own blog, is cheesy at best. Have you
no shame, Nutter? The SBT is a sham, even a first year JFK
assassination researcher comes to that conclusion....
As old Steve Keating use to use, "you're a hoot", Davey....A Lone Nut/
LHO/SBT laugh a minute!
Carry on huckster! -- Carry on
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi obviously never visited this newsgroup." <<<
Smart man, Vince.
Because visiting this place to gain insight into "serious" CTs would
be like watching The Comedy Channel for intense drama.
>>> "But this newsgroup is on the cutting edge of the debate." <<<
~Huge LOL Here~
By "the cutting edge", you must mean -- Spitting out any stupid theory
any kook with a keyboard can think of off the top of his head.
E.G.: Walt's numerous idiotic, unsupportable (in-his-OWN-head-alone)
theories...like the "Moving Window" theory re. Brennan....and the "JFK
was shot in the neck and through the back at Z161 or earlier and then
continued to wave to the crowd for 25 more Z-Film frames" hunk of
silliness.
Plus, there's Don Willis' "Danny Arce Killed JFK" theory.
And there's Bob Harris' great one which involves a shot at
Z285...being based in great part on Jackie's and Nellie's "leaning in"
toward their shot-up husbands.
And Gil's (really Bill Miller's...or even somebody before Miller)
theory re. JFK trying to "cough up" a bullet.
And, of course, the nonsense involving SS Agent Hickey killing the
President by pure ACCIDENT.
And dozens of additional "cutting edge" theories that never happened
and aren't supported by a lick of physical evidence. Such as: Umbrella
Man, Milteer, E. Howard Hunt, Badge Man, Marrion Baker was "assigned"
to rub out the Patsy, Tippit shot at JFK, imposter Oswalds everywhere
you look, etc., etc.
"Cutting edge"??
More like "Cutting crap".
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you or Vincent even KNOW what the 4 different stories from Baker are?" <<<
No, I certainly don't know the "four different stories". Can't wait to
hear your CT version of "Baker Times 4" however. That oughta be good.
But, if I were a betting VB shill/promoter, I suppose I'd bet that you
will say that one of the "Baker Four" has Marrion seeing a "Coke in
hand"; while version #2 does not see the Coke (which is the original
"story" he gave to the WC, and which Roy Truly corroborated when Roy
said Oswald had "nothing" in either hand).
"Story #3" must be something along these lines, I would surmise ---
Baker saw Oswald running naked out the front door of the TSBD while
screaming "the girl in the polka-dot dress, Judyth Baker, did it! I'm
just a patsy! And the bitch stole my clothes too! Hussy!"
"Story #4" --- Baker encounters NOT Lee Oswald in the lunch room at
12:32 PM, but, instead, Baker sees David Ferrie and Clay Shaw in the
lunch room....both men appeared hot, sweaty, and somewhat amorous when
encountered by Mr. Baker. Baker, flustered at seeing these two men in
the raw, quietly slipped away to the third floor. Later, Baker
substituted an "I Saw Oswald" story for the "real sordid truth" of the
matter.
Details @ 11 on EyeWitness Thirteen CT-Kook News!!
David Von Pein
>>> "I choose NOT to enlighten you on {Marrion} Baker's Lies." <<<
Aww...I'm crushed. Please tell me! Please!! I'll do ANYTHING!!
I'm now filled with a feeling of total inadequacy and supreme defeat
because I cannot be "enlightened" by hearing Tom's incredible case-
solving breakthrough regarding Officer Baker's TEN-SECOND encounter
with assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
Oh, well...back to the drawing board....I'll tell Vince B. we can't
use Baker's WC comments in the book any longer. Dammit. Just when we
strong-armed the guy and showered him with payola to "tell it our
way". Crap!
And -- What about John Connally's "multiple versions" of his "story"?
He DOES have more than just one, you know (re. his thoughts as to
whether the SBT is doable/possible, that is). Which of these versions
do the CTers endorse? (As if I need to ask.)
In short....almost EVERY witness who has repeated his/her "story" a
thousand times to different people for many decades is BOUND to have
"multiple story variations". This doesn't mean they are "liars" or "LN
plants" or "WC asslickers". It means one thing above all others......
People are "human".*
* = This observation, however, possibly excludes some rabid CT kooks.
Further testing is needed to arrive at a firm conclusion re. the kooks
in this "human" matter. Patent is still pending.
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5d70e360...
>
> >>> "Bugliosi obviously never visited this newsgroup." <<<
>
> Smart man, Vince.
>
> Because visiting this place to gain insight into "serious" CTs would
> be like watching The Comedy Channel for intense drama.
>
> >>> "But this newsgroup is on the cutting edge of the debate." <<<
>
> ~Huge LOL Here~
>
> By "the cutting edge", you must mean -- Spitting out any stupid theory
> any kook with a keyboard can think of off the top of his head.
>
> E.G.: Walt's numerous idiotic, unsupportable (in-his-OWN-head-alone)
> theories...like the "Moving Window" theory
Duhh...Dumbass, It wasn't the window that moved. It was the gunman
who moved about from window to window. Howard Brennan and several
other witnesses saw him behind the window on the east end of the sixth
floor BEFORE the motorcade arrived, but Howard Brennan saw him leave
that window and reappear a couple of times. At the Time of the
shooting Brennan sw him STANDING and bracing the HUNTING rifle against
the side of the WIDE OPEN window at the WEST end of the sixth floor.
Brennan immediately took cover on the EAST side of the wall he'd been
sitting on to put the wall between himself and the gunman in the WEST
end window.
re. Brennan....and the "JFK
> was shot in the neck and through the back at Z161 or earlier and then
> continued to wave to the crowd for 25 more Z-Film frames" hunk of
> silliness.
If you had the IQ of a gnat you'd know that the Z film is a fraud, and
worthless for determining the chronology of the actions that took
place at the time of the shooting..
David Von Pein
>>> "If you had the IQ of a gnat you'd know that the Z film is a fraud..." <<<
~slaps forehead~
Oh, yeah! That's right!
How silly of me to forget that the Z-Film is a "fraud".
Kinda makes you wonder, though, why some member of the all-
encompassing "LET'S GET OZZIE" plot didn't take the time to do
something about phonying-up the Robert Croft photo (a picture that a
mega-kook named Cakebread thinks is showing us a piece of JFK's shirt
flying out the back of the car due to a bullet just having passed
through JFK from the front)?
With all of the various hunks of photo "fraud" occurring in Dallas in
1963-1964, you'd THINK that the boob plotters would have confiscated
an important, conspiracy-proving pic like Croft's (seeing as how it's
obviously depicting a bullet striking Kennedy from the front, per Walt
The Kook). Right? Right. .....
http://Kennedy-Photos.blogspot.com
BTW,
Here's a project that a fellow LNer might like to undertake (perhaps I
myself will do it some day; but right now, I'm about to have a bite to
eat, and the prospect of wading through a lot of Walt's CT-filled
tripe doesn't bode well for the digestive tract, as we all know).....
The project being: Find at least one previous forum post authored by
Mega-Kook Walt wherein he utilizes and props up any of the imagery
seen in the Zapruder Film (which is a film that he said was "a fraud"
just a moment ago) as being real, authentic, and unaltered film
footage.
Knowing how kooks like Walt work, and how they are always
contradicting themselves from one day to the next and from one theory
to the next, I'd be willing to wager a couple bucks that somebody can
find a post in the Google archives someplace where Walt The Kook
endorses the Z-Film as being the Real McCoy (i.e., not a "fraud"/
fake).
I'm not positive that such a prior post exists in the Kook's archives,
but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did. My guess would be that
at some point in the past Walt (like most CT nuts are wont to do)
probably has said something like: "These frames of the Z-Film prove
conspiracy!"
And, of course, the whole notion of the Z-Film being a "fraud" and yet
the REAR HEAD SNAP being left IN a film that's now considered a
"fraud" by the kooks is just the type of "contradiction" we'd expect
from clowns like Cakebread and Healy.
If somebody unearths a post of Walt's that, in effect, has him
endorsing the film as NOT being a "fraud" (after a point in time when
he had already spouted his opinion about the film being said "fraud"),
then that person who unearths the post will receive two free copies of
Vincent Bugliosi's upcoming paperback (short) version of his JFK book
-- "FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY" (retail price per copy: $17.95 USD).
Good luck.
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/057cb2e3...
>
> >>> "The extracted bullets {from J.D. Tippit's body} did not match the gun LHO had when he was arrested, how do you explain that?" <<<
"The bullets were too mutilated, idiot. (Nicol did say one bullet
could be linked to Oz's gun, though.)"
Now he says this, earlier you were saying the bullets were matched to
the revolver LHO had on him. I love the "could be" as this is NOT
what ballistics is about, it is about matching and not matching, not
could be, should be or would have been business. Try to fool someone
else.
> >>> "Automatic shells were found." <<<
"No, they weren't."
Yes they were. Automatic pistols also leave a different mark from the
firing pin than a revolver and this mark was on the shells Benavides
gave to Poe.
"No automatic shells are in the record. And furthermore, no automatic
weapon could have been involved, because witnesses verify that Oswald
(who was the ONLY person toting a gun on 10th St.) was emptying a
REVOLVER....not an "automatic"."
Of course NOT as LHO had a revolver on him. You are assuming the
record is correct despite it NOT agreeing with what the officers and
witnesses said.
"Guess what? You're still batting triple-oh."
Only in your bizzaro world, where everything is backwards.
> >>> "Also, the .38 shells in the National Archives do not match the revolver LHO had when he was arrested either, how do you explain this?" <<<
"You're full of shit. The ONLY shells in evidence perfectly match
Oswald's S&W revolver. No amount of kookcrap you utter will change
that fact."
I guess all who have gone to the Archives and witnessed the shells on
display, which lack the bulge of a special, are lying then?
> >>> "They took two Remingtons and two Winchesters from JDT, but the shells consisted of three Winchesters and one Remington. How do you explain this?" <<<
"And what do you offer as an alternate solution to the "Oswald Did It"
scenario here? -- You think that somebody with an automatic plugged
Tippit with the exact type of bullet brands that Oswald happened to
have in his gun on 11/22?"
I think a real killer, and possible two like Clemmons said, shot him
dead. The killer(s) was an expert with a handgun. The reason two
killers may be possible is ammo is sold by type, and the fact there
were two types of ammo used makes it highly suspect it could have been
LHO. Also, where would he have gotten this ammo? The WC never showed
where LHO purchased ammo from.
"And do you think the goofball plotters decided to plant some shells
on Tenth Street, but they failed to get the mixture of shells aligned
correctly with the bullets in Tippit?"
You keep saying "goofball" plotters when the truth is they knew their
actions would be covered up, therefore, they had NO fear of doing
anything that worked.
"How did the plotters manage to "plant" the real Oswald on 10th St.,
who was seen dumping shells in the Davises' yard?"
You have NO witness beyond Markham, and she is highly suspect, who
said it was LHO on 10th St. None. I have read all of the witness
testimonies and none positively said it was LHO on their own.
"Let's hear your alternate CT scenario and see if it can stand on its
own two legs."
We have gone over this before. JDT was part of the conspiracy and his
job was to get LHO and the real assassins to Redbird Airport. LHO
changed plans and did not answer the honk of JDT as he suspected he
was in trouble. JDT ran into the real assassins of JFK and they killed
him to seal the case against LHO. In fact, Belin said the JDT killing
was the Rosetta stone of the case as it showed how maniacal LHO was,
when in fact, there is no real connection between the crimes at all.
One does NOT prove the other.
> >>> "They were from an automatic pistol according to the police on the scene." <<<
"Not one policeman saw a single "automatic" shell. Not one."
Really? How come we have the following from DPD transcripts?
Patrolman H.W. Summers in Dallas police unit number 221 (the
designation for the squad car) reported that an "eyeball witness to
the getaway man" had been located. The suspect was described as having
black wavy hair, wearing an Eisenhower jacket of light color, with
dark trousers and a white shirt. He was "apparently armed with a .32,
dark finish, automatic pistol," which he had in his right hand.
Moments later, Sergeant G. Hill reported that "the shell at the scene
indicates that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than
a pistol."
Please explain these.
"You know why? Because all four shells in evidence are from Oswald's
gun, which was not an automatic."
You are full of it. The two shells Benavides gave to Poe (seen by
Hill as well) were initialed by Poe and W.E. Barnes, yet when Poe was
shown the four shells by the WC he could NOT ID them as the ones he
had initialed, why?
"Explain that. (Can you do that without pretending that the
copsplanted evidence?)"
Explain what? IT seems you have the explaining to do Lucy!
> >>> "Answer this for me, if LHO shot JDT with a revolver, why did he leave incriminating evidence like "spent shells" when he could have taken them with him?" <<<
"Oh goodie. Now I have to play psychologist in order to explain the
evidence left behind. And if I can't come up with a good psychological
report to explain Mr. Oswald's actions on 11/22, then Rob-Kook gets to
believe that the evidence left behind by Oswald never existed. Is that
it, kookmeister?"
You don't mind playing psychologist when it benefits you do you? I
mean you always seem to know what LHO was thinking in regards to
shooting JFK in your mind, why can't you answer this question?
"How many more flimsy excuses have you got in your ten-gallon hat so
you can pretend your favorite patsy is innocent? Quite a few, no
doubt."
Nice job of evading a question you KNOW has NO rational answer for it.
> >>> "Do you have proof his {LHO's} gun had been fired?" <<<
"Four bullets from Oswald's gun went into Tippit's body on 11/22/63,
idiot. So, yes, I have ample proof. (Via the shells and via the fact
that the ONLY GUNMAN on Tenth Street was named Lee H. Oswald.)"
I'm an idiot? Prove your statement above as the FBI couldn't. They
couldn't prove beyond all doubt (i.e. a ballistic match) that those
bullets in JDT matched LHO, period. You have NO proof, it is all hot
air.
"But Mr. Tippit will be glad to know that the guy who shot and killed
him couldn't have done it."
I don't think he cares who did it as he is dead.
"J.D.'s probably still alive in Florida. How 'bout that?"
I never said that and it does not pertain to the case. It also
doesn't change the fact you have NO proof of LHO shooting JDT.
> >>> "Do you have a match between his gun and the bullets in JDT?" <<<
"Joseph Nicol says so."
NO he didn't. Three of the bullets are conveniently to messed up
(meanwhile a bullet that causes 7 wounds and breaks 3 bones is fine
for identification in the JFK case, go figure) to be ID'd. I mean
they just went into his body and they are too mutilated, meanwhile,
two fragments in the limo are accused of breaking a windshield,
denting hardened chrome and blowing JFK's head apart and yet are still
good enough for ID purposes. Very strange. As for the fourth bullet
we know it is not a match as all we got was "could be" from Nicol.
"But even without such a match, it doesn't matter, because there was
only ONE person firing a gun on 10th St. on 11/22, and that one person
was LHO, and LHO had a revolver on him when arrested, and that
revolver was linked to all four shells littering the front and side
yards of the Davis property."
All this is your say-so, you have NO proof. Cases are won with
evidence and proof and you have NONE. You have to learn to accept
that.
> >>> "I think the odds are great {due} to the real killer using a combination of those types of ammo in his automatic pistol, whoever he was." <<<
"Nice coincidence that the "real" killer happened to have Remington
and Winchester missiles in his gun too that day."
Yes, this is very strange as ammo is sold in lots by one type. It
would suggest to me we were dealing with professionals who had access
to various ammo. The WC never showed where LHO purchased his ammo,
why?
"And it was damn lucky for those always-fortunate plotters that the
bullets were too mangled to ELIMINATE Oswald's revolver as the murder
weapon."
Read above. I don't think they were too mangled, I think they just
knew they did NOT match LHO's revolver so they said this as they were
afraid they may have to produce them for viewing.
"And it was also lucky that one of those bullets from a NON-Oswald gun
that went into Tippit was (somehow) identified positively as a bullet
from OSWALD'S gun by Joseph D. Nicol, huh?"
Show me where he POSITIVELY identifies the one bullet as coming from
LHO's revolver. I want to see this.
"I guess Mr. Nicol must have been on the conspirators' payroll
too....right, Mr. Kook? Because you claim that an "automatic" gun
killed Tippit; but Nicol says otherwise. Go figure. ~shrug~"
Nicol says nothing really, he is all wishy-washy like the others. He
was a government worker and they do what they are told.
> >>> "You are not mentioning that the prints on JDT's car, taken from where witnesses said the killer leaned, did not match LHO, how come?" <<<
"Citation please? (Something you never, ever provide.)"
You are full of it as I passed this on before. W.E. Barnes was part
of the crime scene unit and he was vital in showing Markham to be
wrong about the passenger side window. She claimed it was up and LHO
leaned in to talk with JDT, but Barnes took pictures of the car and it
shows the window to be UP! As for the prints (which he dusted the car
for) he told the WC:
"There were several smear prints. None of value....No legible prints
were found."
"Anyway, your point is moot, because the evidence shows that Oswald
FOLDED HIS ARMS and then leaned against the patrol car's door. (Was
Oswald supposed to leave an identifiable "forearm print" on the car?
And while wearing a jacket?) <chuckle break>"
What proof is this? Did he also scream through a closed window? As
Barnes said the window was up and the pictures he took show the window
was up, ONLY your shaky witness said otherwise. Officer Barnes would
be corraborated by Virginia Davis as she arrived at the car very
quickly after the shooting and she said it was definitely up.
> >>> "The bullets and shells did not match LHO's style of gun." <<<
"A blatant lie."
Prove it to be so. I want a no doubt about it statement, NO could
be's.
> >>> "You are assuming again that the shells found at the {Tippit} scene are the same ones found, right?" <<<
"Huh? What's this double-speak? A form of Kook-Lingo, I suppose."
I guess I was saying you are assuming the shells presented by the WC
are the same ones found by Benavides and the Davis sisters.
> >>> "Poe initialed two shells, and yet his initials are nowhere to be found on the final evidence." <<<
"Poe said he didn't remember marking them, idiot. But be sure to
ignore the following testimony:"
Mr. BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
Mr. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."
Let's take this one step at a time, okay? He did say the above
statement before the WC, but in doing so he should have been
reprimanded by the DPD. Why? Because to not have marked the shells he
was disobeying an order. Sgt. Hill told him to mark them for chain of
evidence when they were given to him by Benavides. Here is what Sgt.
Hill testified to:
"Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent
jackets from shells (notice he says three) ...I TOLD Poe to maintain
the chain of evidence as small as possible, for him to retain these at
that time, and to be sure and MARK them for evidence." (VII, 48-49)
Poe was shown four shells by the WC, he picked out Q-77 and Q-75, this
was incorrect as he should have picked out Q-74, which the police
claimed was in the cigarette package Benavides gave him. Two months
after the hearings Poe told FBI agent Bardwell Odum that "he recalled
marking these casings before giving them to (Dallas Police Seargent
W.E.) Barnes, but he stated after a thorough examination of the four
cartridges shown to him on June 12, 1964, he CANNOT locate his marks;
therefore, he CANNOT postively identify any of these cartridges as
being as the same ones he received from Benavides." (XXIV, 415)
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/poe.htm
> >>> "They couldn't link Oswald's gun with the bullets taken out of JDT because the bullets were too mutilated." <<<
"And yet, incredibly, you feel confident enough to know those
"mutilated" bullets were positively from an "automatic" gun, right?
And those bullets, therefore, couldn't possibly have come from Oz's
gun, correct? (Go figure the logic of this.)"
You still don't understand the American judicial system do you? The
defense doesn't have to prove innocence, the prosecution has to prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The inability to match the bullets
to the revolver LHO had on him hurts the prosecution's case. The
defense doesn't have to prove anything.
"Fact: The lead from the Tippit bullets was consistent with bullets
fired from Oswald's S&W bored-out .38."
This is hardly a "fact", it is a made-up assertion from a man who
lives in a bizzaro world.
> >>> "Even accepting that Oswald owned and possessed the weapon in question, and that the shells tested by the FBI had been fired from that weapon, the ballistics evidence is questionable." <<<
"Only to a kook who wants Oswald innocent of this second November 22nd
murder too. To a reasonable person, however, the evidence is rock-
solid, and it all hangs your sweetheart named Lee Baby."
You have it backwards, only a kook would accept the meager "could
be's" as proof.
> >>> "At least you are being fair." <<<
"It's just too bad you never are."
Sorry, you have NO proof or evidence, I can't help that.
> >>> "But they {the shell casings} simply don't match LHO's gun. His gun had work done (rechambered) to it and required a fatter shell case; the ones found did not have this characteristic." <<<
"If you spout this lie 58 more times today it'll still be a lie."
It is the truth and you know it. In fact, the FBI couldn't match
bullets to the revolver even when they had just fired them in the
lab. The work on the barrel messed up the ID process.
"All four shells in evidence were fired from Oswald's gun. Live with
it. Deal with it. It's called an irreversible "FACT". ....."
Prove it. I want to see in no uncertain terms they do. I want
definitive statements.
"Mr. EISENBERG -- "By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also
to
the exclusion of all other weapons?"
Mr. NICOL -- "Correct.""
I don't believe this either, but we are talking about the bullets in
JDT remember? Nice try though.
"Plus -- If you want to believe somebody was framing Oswald for the
Tippit murder too....why would they plant shells that could never in a
million years be traced to Ozzie's gun (via the "bulge" excuse CT-
Kooks constantly like to use)? That's nuts."
Not really, the knew the cover-up arm would take care of it and they
did, didn't they? Only a few people who live in a fantasyland can't
see the lack of proof as a hinderance to their assertions.
> >>> "Only one person did this {i.e., positively identified Oswald as Tippit's lone killer} -- Helen Markham." <<<
"Dead wrong, as usual. Three other witnesses did. But you'll ignore
Scoggins, Benavides, and Tatum. You have to. If you don't, Oswald is 4
times as guilty."
You are wrong again. Show me where they said this in WC testimony.
Scoggins said the man he saw was walking "west", not east. He also
said he never saw Markham. Scoggins would be taken to the same lineup
as Whaley, the one where he said you could pick LHO out because he was
in there with teenagers and was complaining about it. The FBI or the
SS showed Scoggins pictures and he told the WC: "I think I picked the
wrong one. He told me Oswald was the other one." (III, 335) Benavides
would NOT say the shooter was LHO until many years later and it was
still questionable at that point.
"Plus, there are witnesses named Davis, Davis, Reynolds, Callaway,
Brock, Lewis, and Patterson -- who all saw Oswald fleeing the area of
the murder and saw NOBODY ELSE running from the crime scene."
NONE of them said it was LHO.
"But, maybe your "real killer" cloaked himself with the help of a
device supplied by James T. Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise.
Nice post, Rob. You managed to mangle 100% of the verified evidence
connected to Officer J.D. Tippit's murder. What a surprise."
Well you could put it all to bed by providing solid proof and
evidence, but of cours you can't.
"BTW, why was there any need whatsoever to "frame" Oswald for Tippit's
murder too (as so many CT nuts seem to believe)?"
To make him look more insane and to silence JDT as well.
"If Oswald WASN'T really at the Tippit murder scene at all (as many
kooks firmly believe), then why wouldn't framing Oz for JUST the
President's murder have sufficed? Why complicate matters by trying to
set him up for DOUBLE the slayings on November 22nd?"
Perhaps JDT was a shooter like some researchers have said, who knows,
but they obviously wanted him dead for a reason and it worked out well
as they could pin it on LHO.
"So, per a lot of the kooks, the conspirators have doubled the
complexity of the case and doubled the chances of the patsy-framers
being caught by insisting upon needlessly framing LHO for Tippit's
murder too."
You're rambling.
"Wouldn't Ozzie hang from his noose just as easily for JUST having
killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?"
No, as there is NO proof or evidence to show he shot JFK.
"(Do you see how stupid all this covert "frame-up" shit sounds when
you step outside its rickety framework for two seconds and peer in?)"
No, I only see how stupid it is to not admit there was a conspiracy
when it is so obvious.
David Von Pein
>>> "Earlier you were saying the bullets were matched to the revolver LHO had on him." <<<
Nope. Wrong again, Mr. Kook. (As per usual.)
I never once made such a definitive statement about the Tippit
bullets. I have said previously that the bullets taken from Tippit's
body were "consistent with" bullets test-fired from Oswald's revolver
(and this is, indeed, a truism, no matter how much you kooks like to
deny it).
And the bullet SHELLS are tied irrevocably to Oswald's .38 "to the
exclusion", yes. But I never said the bullets themselves were
definitively linked to Oz's gun (except for a portion of Joe Nicol's
testimony, where he does say ONE of the 4 missiles was tied to Oz's
gun "to the exclusion").
So, once again, we have Kook Rob misstating something. Similar to the
time when Rob said that I at one time said that Oswald fired "4 shots"
at JFK (which, naturally, is something I have never once said in my
whole life).
Is it any wonder the kooks keep chasing their tails (and "tales"), and
their make-believe theories filled with their make-believe assassins
and "patsy-framers"?
They can't even get the simplest of things accurate.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Earlier you were saying the bullets were matched to the revolver LHO had on him." <<<
"Nope. Wrong again, Mr. Kook. (As per usual.)
I never once made such a definitive statement about the Tippit
bullets. I have said previously that the bullets taken from Tippit's
body were "consistent with" bullets test-fired from Oswald's revolver
(and this is, indeed, a truism, no matter how much you kooks like to
deny it)."
This is NOT how a ballistics match is done, you match the bullets and
or fragments in the bodies to the weapon. Here you are saying they
were firing bullets and trying to show they were consistent with those
found in the body. Either the bullets/fragments in the bodies match
the gun or they don't.
"And the bullet SHELLS are tied irrevocably to Oswald's .38 "to the
exclusion", yes. But I never said the bullets themselves were
definitively linked to Oz's gun (except for a portion of Joe Nicol's
testimony, where he does say ONE of the 4 missiles was tied to Oz's
gun "to the exclusion")."
Empty cartridges being tied to a gun means nothing if you can't show
the bullets that were in them were the reason for the death or
wounding. Those bullets could have been fired into a wall two weeks
earlier, you have NO proof. The D.A. can certainly go to court with
this very weak evidence but good luck with that.
"So, once again, we have Kook Rob misstating something. Similar to the
time when Rob said that I at one time said that Oswald fired "4 shots"
at JFK (which, naturally, is something I have never once said in my
whole life)."
Hardly, you have said because Nicol said "could be" the fourth bullet
was from LHO's revolver. You can deny all you want, but you have said
this quite often.
"Is it any wonder the kooks keep chasing their tails (and "tales"),
and their make-believe theories filled with their make-believe
assassins and "patsy-framers"?
They can't even get the simplest of things accurate."
Nice try, but you have said this, but you realize you can't get away
with it with me.
David Von Pein
There's nothing like being a CT-Kook who loves to isolate stuff, is
there Robert?
"Isolating" selected pieces of evidence is a CTer's problem a lot of
the time....with your statement above being a perfect example of this
problem (or, in this instance, it could be called mere "silliness").
A TIPPIT "FACT CHECKLIST":
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a gun at Tippit on 10th St. by
multiple witnesses (Rob will now come back and claim that ONLY Markham
saw the actual shooting and IDed Oswald; naturally, he'll be
wrong...as per usual, of course).
2.) Oswald was also seen by multiple witnesses (Davis, Davis, and
Benavides) SHAKING SHELLS FROM A REVOLVER (and it can't be an
"automatic", btw, because if it were there'd be no reason to shake the
shells out of the gun).
3.) Those 4 shells on the ground dumped by Oswald himself were found
and picked up by the above-mentioned THREE different witnesses (Davis,
Davis, Benavides).
4.) Those 4 shells were linked to Oswald's own .38 revolver "to the
exclusion".
5.) No other gunmen were seen on 10th Street other than Lee Oswald.
(Utilizing Acquilla Clemons' account of seeing "two" men at the scene
of the crime won't cut the ice either. She didn't see the actual
shooting itself; she saw the aftermath. The closest witnesses to the
shooting confirm there was only ONE person with a gun--and that one
person was Lee Harvey Oswald. Period.)
6.) Oswald, when arrested, had on him a Smith & Wesson .38 Special
revolver that was the gun that was positively shown to have ejected
the fours shells that littered 10th Street in Oak Cliff on 11/22/63.
7.) The four bullets (slugs) removed from the dead body of 39-year-
old, 11-year DPD veteran J.D. Tippit were mutilated to the point where
the FBI could not make a definitive determination as to whether the
bullets had been fired through Oswald's S&W .38 revolver or not.
But independent firearms expert Joseph D. Nicol of Illinois did say
that it was his belief, based on his examination of those same 4
bullets, that one of the 4 bullets had sufficient striations and
markings on it so that it could be said to have positively come from
LHO's gun.
============
Now, to a reasonable person examining all seven of the above points of
evidence concerning the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, the only
possible conclusion that can be reached is: "Lee Oswald, using his own
revolver, shot Officer Tippit four times".
But, to a CT-Isolationist (aka: a kook), the above seven points
(somehow) add up to NO EVIDENCE at all leading to Lee Oswald's guilt
in the Tippit murder. With a CTer like Robby, instead, deciding to
isolate #7 from the remainder of the items listed above.
And by performing this isolating act, and removing the item from the
large SUM TOTAL of obvious "LHO Is Guilty" evidence, the CT-Kook
thinks he can claim a CT victory and go home (evidently).
But unfortunately for the kook, the OTHER SIX POINTS AREN'T GOING TO
SUDDENLY VANISH. Those items of evidence are still there in the mix
too, despite a kook's attempts to ignore or skew them beyond
recognition.
>>> "Nice try, but you have said this, but you realize you can't get away with it with me." <<<
Get away with what?? Saying something that you said I said but I
really didn't say at all?
Just three more words are needed to end this post with a good deal of
style (and undeniable truth):
Rob, you're nuts.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Empty cartridges being tied to a gun means nothing if you can't show the bullets that were in them were the reason for the death or wounding. Those bullets could have been fired into a wall two weeks earlier, you have NO proof. The D.A. can certainly go to court with this very weak evidence but good luck with that." <<<
"There's nothing like being a CT-Kook who loves to isolate stuff, is
there Robert?
"Isolating" selected pieces of evidence is a CTer's problem a lot of
the time....with your statement above being a perfect example of this
problem (or, in this instance, it could be called mere "silliness")."
What are you mumbling about?
"A TIPPIT "FACT CHECKLIST":
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a gun at Tippit on 10th St. by
multiple witnesses (Rob will now come back and claim that ONLY Markham
saw the actual shooting and IDed Oswald; naturally, he'll be
wrong...as per usual, of course)."
Well, you could come back with all the testimony that shows multiple
witnesses positively ID'ing LHO, couldn't you?
"2.) Oswald was also seen by multiple witnesses (Davis, Davis, and
Benavides) SHAKING SHELLS FROM A REVOLVER (and it can't be an
"automatic", btw, because if it were there'd be no reason to shake the
shells out of the gun)."
Correction, they saw the killer, not LHO, shake out shells from his
prop gun.
"3.) Those 4 shells on the ground dumped by Oswald himself were found
and picked up by the above-mentioned THREE different witnesses (Davis,
Davis, Benavides)."
And the officer involved (Poe) could NOT indentify them later as his
initials were gone, and the Davis sisters would say the shells they
turned over were NOT the same as the ones the WC would show them later
on.
"4.) Those 4 shells were linked to Oswald's own .38 revolver "to the
exclusion"."
Why were the shells NOT mentioned by the DPD for 6 days in their
reports? We know this to be true because the DPD would write a summary
containing ALL of the evidence in the JDT case on the day of the
crime, and there is NO mention of cartridges in this summary, why? We
can only suspect they just used the empty shells their sample shooting
created to frame LHO with.
"5.) NO OTHER GUNMEN WAS SEEN ON 10TH STREET OTHER THAN LEE OSWALD.
(Utilizing Acquilla Clemons' account of seeing "two" men at the scene
of the crime won't cut the ice either. She didn't see the actual
shooting itself; she saw the aftermath. The closest witnesses to the
shooting confirm there was only ONE person with a gun--and that one
person was Lee Harvey Oswald. Period.)"
This is an out and out fib, as NO one saw LHO on 10th St. Show me
their testimony saying it was POSITIVELY LHO.
"6.) Lee Harvey Oswald, when arrested, had on him a Smith & Wesson .38
Special revolver that was the gun that was positively shown to have
ejected the fours shells that littered 10th Street in Oak Cliff on
11/22/63."
Not on the day of the crime according to the DPD summary of evidence
found - again - there was NO mention of cartridges in this summary.
"7.) The four bullets (slugs) removed from the dead body of 39-year-
old, 11-year DPD veteran J.D. Tippit were mutilated to the point where
the FBI could not make a definitive determination as to whether the
bullets had been fired through Oswald's S&W .38 revolver or not. But
independent firearms experts Joseph D. Nicol of Illinois did say that
it was his belief, based on his examination of those same 4 bullets,
that one of the 4 bullets had sufficient striations and markings on it
so that it could be said to have positively come from LHO's gun."
Bullcrap. Show me where he says this in the WC testimony.
> ============
"Now, to a reasonable person examining all seven of the above points
of evidence concerning the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, the only
possible conclusion that can be reached is: "Lee Oswald, using his own
revolver, shot Officer Tippit four times"."
Sure, if reasonable=insane! You have NO proof!
"But, to a CT-Isolationist (aka: a kook), the above seven points
(somehow) add up to NO EVIDENCE at all leading to Lee Oswald's guilt
in the Tippit murder. With a CTer like Robby, instead, deciding to
isolate #7 from the remainder of the items listed above."
You could easily show me the WC testimony to support your assertions.
"And by performing this isolating act, and removing the item from the
large SUM TOTAL of obvious "LHO Is Guilty" evidence, the CT-Kook
thinks he can claim a CT victory and go home (evidently).:"
I have no idea what you are babbling about.
"But unfortunately for the kook, the OTHER SIX POINTS AREN'T GOING TO
SUDDENLY VANISH. Those items of evidence are still there in the mix
too, despite a kook's attempts to ignore or skew them beyond
recognition."
I don't want those points to vanish as they show how you have NO proof
or evidence!
> >>> "Nice try, but you have said this, but you realize you can't get away with it with me." <<<
"Get away with what?? Saying something that you said I said but I
really didn't say at all?"
You have tried to claim that Nicol said one of the bullets was tied to
LHO's gun, don't deny it.
"Just three more words are needed to end this post with a good deal of
style (and undeniable truth):
Rob, you're nuts."
Well, since Dave-squared lives in bizzaro world that means I'm sane.
He is the one with the problem.
David Von Pein
>>> "You have tried to claim that Nicol said one of the {Tippit} bullets was tied to LHO's gun, don't deny it." <<<
Why would I deny it. I did, of course, say that. And so did Nicol, you
moron. Why not read his testimony and find out? .....
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine
whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605,
604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of
class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that
would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent
variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the
projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not
good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that
of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest
possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be
positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have
designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to
lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same
weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to
the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.
David Von Pein
Already done it (multiple times).
Is it truly POSSIBLE to be as big a kook as Robby is pretending to be?
Simply awesome in Kook Scope.
Markham saw LHO on 10th St.
Scoggins saw LHO on 10th St.
Tatum saw LHO on 10th St.
Benavides saw LHO on 10th St.
V. Davis saw LHO on 10th St. (cutting across her yard).
B. Davis saw LHO on 10th St. (cutting across her yard).
All six are liars, right Rob?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "This is an out and out fib, as NO one saw LHO on 10th St. Show me their testimony saying it was POSITIVELY LHO." <<<
"Already done it (multiple times).
Simply awesome in Kook Scope.
Markham saw LHO on 10th St.
Scoggins saw LHO on 10th St.
Tatum saw LHO on 10th St.
Benavides saw LHO on 10th St.
V. Davis saw LHO on 10th St. (cutting across her yard).
B. Davis saw LHO on 10th St. (cutting across her yard).
All six are liars, right Rob?"
Nice try, I want to see the actual part of their WC testimony that
show them saying the killer was LHO.
robcap...@netscape.com
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. NICOL. Correct."
The ironic part is the FBI expert, Cunningham, said this was "NOT
possible." (III, 475)
David Von Pein
Already provided it (probably multiple times). But keep on pretending
it's never been shown to you.
You, of course, already know that all of those people positively IDed
LHO as being on 10th Street (Benavides in 1967 and Tatum in 1978, the
others doing so in front of the WC and/or in their 11/22/63
affidavits)....you're just acting like the nutcase you've molded
yourself into being (for some inexplicable reason that nobody could
possibly fathom).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c69c8c48034723e
David Von Pein
>>> "So the FBI controlled the crime scene? What about the DPD that collected the lions share of the evidence immediately after the shooting? Was the DPD involved with the FBI in the conspiracy? How about the SS, after all they were closest to the action and must have known of and/or seen something, dont you think?" <<<
Not only that, but the Secret Service actually collected (i.e., took
"control of"--for a brief time) ALL THREE of the "bullet" items of
evidence that lead straight to LHO's rifle -- CE399, CE567, and CE569.
All of those items were initially "controlled" and seized by the SS --
not the FBI or DPD.
So, the CT-Kooks who think that everything was magically "controlled"
by evil patsy-framing forces immediately after the assassination have
pretty much no choice but to include all of the following
organizations as being part of the "plot" and/or "cover-up":
The DPD, the Sheriff's Dept., the USSS, and the FBI.
Anybody have any idea HOW the amazing "patsy plotters" managed to get
ALL of those entities to volunteer to participate in their crazy
"Let's Blame Only Oswald" ruse?
Just silly beyond all belief (as are almost all conspiracy theories.).
But the conspiracy-loving kooks of the world can't stop "isolating"
bits & pieces of evidence (in lieu of looking at the SUM TOTAL of the
evidence in the case as well as the SUM TOTAL of conspiracy-tinged
absurdity that they are trying to peddle day-in/day-out).
And since the CTers refuse to stop isolating stuff, and since they
also insist on mangling the evidence too (via their unsupportable
interpretations of what the evidence really indicates), and since they
refuse to place on the table ANY kind of logical, coherent, believable
theory that fits with the evidence in the case....the conspiracy
theorists of the world are, therefore, destined to forever chase their
own tails (and tales) and are destined to forever continue their
search for bullets that never existed and assassins that were never
there.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Nice try, I want to see the actual part of their WC testimony that show them saying the killer was LHO." <<<
"Already provided it (probably multiple times). But keep on pretending
it's never been shown to you.
You, of course, already know that all of those people positively IDed
LHO as being on 10th Street (Benavides in 1967 and Tatum in 1978, the
others doing so in front of the WC and/or in their 11/22/63
affidavits)....you're just acting like the nutcase you've molded
yourself into being (for some inexplicable reason that nobody could
possibly fathom)."
I want to see it now! You are claiming 6 people positively ID'd LHO
in 1963/1964, so show it. 1978?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c8c794ab940c2808
>>> "The shift report {made out by Emory Roberts} reflects what was supposed to happen." <<<
But not what you (Anthony Marsh) seem to think was "supposed to
happen", because you (Anthony Marsh) seem to think, via your previous
posts on this topic, that Roberts assigned Rybka to a right-side
RUNNING BOARD position on the Queen Mary SS follow-up Cadillac,
instead of Rybka being (mistakenly) assigned, per Roberts' report, to
the CENTER OF THE REAR SEAT.
Would you care to now change your theory regarding Agent Rybka being
assigned a running-board slot on QM on 11/22/63, Tony?
>>> "And it's still very likely that a grassy knoll shooter could (and would) have killed the President, even with extra SS agents being in Dealey Plaza and even with an agent riding on the back bumper on JFK's side of SS-100-X at precisely 12:31 PM." <<<
Ahhh, the mysterious Grassy Knoll assassin rears his (invisible!) head
once more. Nice, Tony. Nice.
Too bad that you think that JFK had "no hole" at all in the back of
his head. Odd that a GK shooter could hit JFK in the head from the
Knoll and produce "no hole" at all in the BOH. And on top of that hunk
of amazing shooting, the bullet fired by this invented GK shooter ALSO
managed to produce no hole or damage to the LEFT side of JFK's head
(or brain) whatsoever.
That was one incredible job of killing the President from a GK
position, Tony. The killer became invisible. His bullet became
undetectable in JFK's body. And the bullet that killed Kennedy somehow
produced NO DAMAGE TO JFK's HEAD WHATSOEVER.
Now who's got a Magic Bullet?
Tony, please tell us (if you haven't already) how the GK shooter's
bullet hit JFK in the head and produced no wounds to Kennedy's head at
all? (Tell us just for the laughs, mind you.)
>>> "President Kennedy pointed out just that morning how easy it would be." <<<
And Jack was 100% right too. For, Oswald's feat WAS relatively easy.
And it was pulled off by Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, without the need
for any extra shooters firing from Grassy Knolls.
aeffects
<nothing of course>
I see we're still performing a public service... keeping you mental
midgets off the streets of america, thank GAWD for USENET boards
David Von Pein
>>> "You are claiming 6 people positively ID'd LHO in 1963/1964, so show it." <<<
Wrong again, kook. I never said Benavides and Tatum IDed LHO
positively in '63-'64. In fact, I specifically mentioned the 1967 and
1978 dates for those two witnesses in my last post, you moron. Right
here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4af504db08dc4dd9
But, anyway, here's the testimony and statements showing LHO to be the
guilty cop-killer that all reasonable people know him to be. (These
are, of course, statements that the CT-Kook already is fully aware of,
no doubt...but he doesn't want to admit having ever seen these
statements before.) .....
HELEN MARKHAM:
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said
number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman. ....
Mr. BALL. When you identified Oswald--it was the number 2 man--were
you told the number 2 man whom you identified in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I was not.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever told his name?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. BALL. Ever told his name later?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Nobody, nobody told me nothing.
Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the
lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had
seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/markham1.htm
WILLIAM SCOGGINS:
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike
that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I
identified him.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/scoggins.htm
VIRGINIA DAVIS:
Mrs. DAVIS. The boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J. D.
Tippit. ....
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the
time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of
the gun. ....
Mr. BELIN. What about the man you identified as No. 2? Would you say
for sure that he was the man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I would say that was him for sure.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
BARBARA DAVIS:
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. BALL. Number 2 you recognized? Did you tell any policeman there
anything after you recognized them?
Mrs. DAVIS. I told the man who had brought us down there.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him
Mrs. DAVIS. That I thought number 2 was the man that I saw.
Mr. BALL. That you saw?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. By number 2, was the man you saw the man you saw doing what?
Mrs. DAVIS. Unloading the gun.
Mr. BALL. And going across your yard?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
JACK TATUM (1978):
"This young white male was looking into the squad car from the
passenger side. The next thing I knew I heard something that sounded
like gun shots as I approached the intersection. (10th & Patton). I
heard three shots in rapid (illegible). I went right through the
intersection, stopped my car and turned to look back.
"I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young
white man standing near the front of the squad car. Next, this man
with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but
instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police
officer who was lying in the street.
"At that point this young man looked around him and then started
to walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small
run in my direction, I sped off in my auto." -- JACK R. TATUM;
February 1, 1978
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tatum.htm
JACK TATUM (1986):
"{Jack} Tatum sees a man in a light tan-gray jacket start off in
Tatum's direction, hesitate at the rear of the police car, then step
back into the street and fire one more shot, right into the head of
the officer {J.D. Tippit} on the ground. .... [Footnote:] I asked
Tatum at the {1986} London trial {"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"} if he
got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom he identified at
the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked if there was
"any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald. "None
whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23, 1986, p.
200)" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 79 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
DOMINGO BENAVIDES (1967):
EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "Is there any doubt in your mind that
Oswald was the man you had seen shoot Tippit?"
DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "No, sir; there was no doubt at all. Period. I
could even tell you how he combed his hair and the clothes he wore
and what-have-you and the details....and if he'd had a scar on his
face, I could have probably told you about it. You don't forget things
like that."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You are claiming 6 people positively ID'd LHO in 1963/1964, so show it." <<<
"Wrong again, kook. I never said Benavides and Tatum IDed LHO
positively in '63-'64. In fact, I specifically mentioned the 1967 and
1978 dates for those two witnesses in my last post, you moron."
You have memory issues as you have said numerous times 6 people ID'd
LHO as the killer of JDT.
"But, anyway, here's the testimony and statements showing LHO to be
the guilty cop-killer that all reasonable people know him to be.
(These are, of course, statements that the CT-Kook already is fully
aware of, no doubt...but he doesn't want to admit having ever seen
these statements before.) ....."
Oohhh goodie, he is finally posting it!
"HELEN MARKHAM:
"Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said
number two?"
I like how Dave-squared skipped the other FIVE times they asked her
about who she identified before this! They finally broke all rules of
questioning by guiding her to the right answer.
"Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman. ....
Mr. BALL. When you identified Oswald--it was the number 2 man--were
you told the number 2 man whom you identified in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, I was not.
Mr. BALL. Were you ever told his name?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No.
Mr. BALL. Ever told his name later?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Nobody, nobody told me nothing.
Mr. BALL. Well, the man that you identified as the number 2 man in the
lineup in the police station, you identified him as the man you had
seen shoot Officer Tippit?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did."
No she didn't. I love this selective quoting of the testimony. Let's
look at some other parts of her testimony.
Q. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these
four men?
Markham: Yes, sir.
Q. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Markham: NO, sir.
Q. You did not? Did you see anybody -- I have asked you that question
before -- did you recognize anybody from their face?
Markham: From their face, NO.
Q. Did you indentify anybody in these four people?
Markham: I didn't KNOW nobody.
Q. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look
like anybody you had seen before?
Markham: NO. I had NEVER seen none of them, none of these men.
Q. No one of the four?
Markham: NO one of them.
Q. No one of all four?
Markham: NO, sir. (III, 310)
Does this sound positive to you? Not to me and this constant coaching
and harrassing would not have been allowed in court. What section of
her testimony is your section from? Here is her IDENTIFICATION:
Q. You recognized him from his appearance?
Markham: I asked -- I looked at him. When I saw this man I WASN'T
sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me. (III, 311)
Wow!! I'm overwhelmed with this ID.
"WILLIAM SCOGGINS:
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike
that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I
identified him."
It has been a question of concern for 44 years as to whether Scoggins
got a good enough look at the killer's fact to make a positive ID.
Q. When you saw the officer fall, when was the next place that you saw
the man, or did you see him at the same time as you saw the officer
fall, the other man?
Scoggins: No. I saw him coming kind of toward me around that cutoff
through there, and he NEVER did look at me. (III, 327)
As I said yesterday he would "pick" LHO out of the same slanted lineup
fellow cab driver Whaley would. The one that had LHO with teenagers
who were dressed totally different and as Whaley said you could hear
LHO giving it to the police for this improper lineup. It would not
have been difficult to select him. Later when shown photos by the FBI
or SS he couldn't pick LHO out. "I think I picked the wrong picture,"
he told the WC, "he told me the other one was Oswald." (III, 335)
He would say the man was walking west, like everyone but Markham, and
he would say he never saw Markham, and both would NOT be mentioned by
the WC. He would also tell them the jacket worn by the killer was
DARKER than CE162.
"VIRGINIA DAVIS:
Mrs. DAVIS. The boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J. D.
Tippit. ....
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the
time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of
the gun. ....
Mr. BELIN. What about the man you identified as No. 2? Would you say
for sure that he was the man you saw running with the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. I would say that was him for sure."
Yet she would testify that the killer had "on a light-brown-tan
jacket." Why?
"BARBARA DAVIS:
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. BALL. Number 2 you recognized? Did you tell any policeman there
anything after you recognized them?
Mrs. DAVIS. I told the man who had brought us down there.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell him
Mrs. DAVIS. That I thought number 2 was the man that I saw.
Mr. BALL. That you saw?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. By number 2, was the man you saw the man you saw doing what?
Mrs. DAVIS. Unloading the gun.
Mr. BALL. And going across your yard?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, sir."
How come she testified that the man fleeing was "a black coat" when
she saw him running across her lawn? (III, 347) The WC would show
Barbara CE162 by counsel and asked, "Does this look anything like the
jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?" She
replied, "NO, sir." (III, 347) They wouldn't even bother to show the
jacket to her sister when she testified. There is alot of doubt here
for me and I'm sure a defense lawyer would have had some fun with
this.
"JACK TATUM (1978):
"This young white male was looking into the squad car from the
passenger side. The next thing I knew I heard something that sounded
like gun shots as I approached the intersection. (10th & Patton). I
heard three shots in rapid (illegible). I went right through the
intersection, stopped my car and turned to look back.
"I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young white
man standing near the front of the squad car. Next, this man with a
gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of
running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer
who was lying in the street.
"At that point this young man looked around him and then started to
walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small run
in my direction, I sped off in my auto." -- JACK R. TATUM; February 1,
1978"
Where does he mention LHO?
"JACK TATUM (1986):
"{Jack} Tatum sees a man in a light tan-gray jacket start off in
Tatum's direction, hesitate at the rear of the police car, then step
back into the street and fire one more shot, right into the head of
the officer {J.D. Tippit} on the ground. .... [Footnote:] I asked
Tatum at the {1986} London trial {"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"} if he
got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom he identified at
the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked if there was
"any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald. "None
whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23, 1986, p.
200)" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 79 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)"
Just like you don't accept ARRB or more recent stuff, I don't accept
this. This was a rigged trial for Bugman and the WC apologists. IF
he thought LHO was the man why did he NOT say this before 1986?
"DOMINGO BENAVIDES (1967):
EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "Is there any doubt in your mind that
Oswald was the man you had seen shoot Tippit?"
DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "No, sir; there was no doubt at all. Period. I
could even tell you how he combed his hair and the clothes he wore and
what-have-you and the details....and if he'd had a scar on his face,
I could have probably told you about it. You don't forget things like
that.""
Same here. He had been harrassed non-stop since the shooting and his
brother was shot and his father was shot, so I don't blame him, but it
doesn't change his statements and actions during 1963/64.
David Von Pein
>>> "You have memory issues as you have said numerous times 6 people ID'd LHO as the killer of JDT." <<<
Actually, of course, several MORE witnesses (not just "6") positively
IDed LHO as either JDT's killer or as the ONE & ONLY man fleeing with
a gun just after the shooting.
But for the narrowed purposes of the previous "6 witnesses IDed LHO"
conversation, we were talking about witnesses who were specifically ON
TENTH STREET.
Of course, you knew this was different than the approx. 13 witnesses
that I COULD have mentioned who positively IDed Oswald as being in the
GENERAL AREA of the shooting (with a gun!).
If you'd like to expand the witness parameters, I'd be happy to choke
to death your little "LHO SHOT NO ONE" fairy tale some more by
bringing up names like Callaway, and Patterson, and Guinyard, and
Reynolds, and Lewis, and Russell, and Brock.
You DO realize that you're showing yourself to be an idiot by claiming
Oswald didn't shoot J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63, don't you Rob?
Or are you in your "I'll Pretend To Be A Rabid CT-Kook By Ignoring All
The Evidence" mode today?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You have memory issues as you have said numerous times 6 people ID'd LHO as the killer of JDT." <<<
"Actually, of course, several MORE witnesses (not just "6") positively
IDed LHO as either JDT's killer or as the ONE & ONLY man fleeing with
a gun just after the shooting."
Sure, just like these people said LHO did the shooting. This was a
rigged hearing with NO defense attorney or judge so anything they said
is open for debate. I still see no witness who made a positive ID and
left NO reseasonable doubt.
"But for the narrowed purposes of the previous "6 witnesses IDed LHO"
conversation, we were talking about witnesses who were specifically ON
TENTH STREET.
Of course, you knew this was different than the approx. 13 witnesses
that I COULD have mentioned who positively IDed Oswald as being in the
GENERAL AREA of the shooting (with a gun!)."
Bring them on, but the witensses the closest to the shooting could NOT
ID LHO beyond all doubt, so good luck with witness who were further
away.
"If you'd like to expand the witness parameters, I'd be happy to choke
to death your little "LHO SHOT NO ONE" fairy tale some more by
bringing up names like Callaway, and Patterson, and Guinyard, and
Reynolds, and Lewis, and Russell, and Brock."
Go for it, I've already debated your buddies over at aaj on this and
NONE of these people positively ID'd LHO beyond all doubt either.
"You DO realize that you're showing yourself to be an idiot by
claiming Oswald didn't shoot J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63, don't you Rob?"
I'm only a kook to a man who lies to himself constantly by believing a
story with NO proof or evidence.
"Or are you in your "I'll Pretend To Be A Rabid CT-Kook By Ignoring
All The Evidence" mode today?"
NO, I'm in the "I have all the proof" on my side frame of mind.
David Von Pein
Uttering the above bullshit for the 408th time doesn't make it any
truer. In fact, it makes you look even more like a kook than ever
before.
It's kind of like refusing to believe that the sun rises in the east
every morning.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dc786671680ac2bc
>>> "There is no evidence worth a damn any bullet exited JFK's throat. When you have every single witness at Parkland saying "it appeared to be an entrance". How the hell do you get an exit out of that?" <<<
Simple -- There was no bullet(s) LEFT IN KENNEDY'S BODY. Period. And
there was certainly no damage inside JFK's neck/upper back that would
account for a bullet to have simply stopped inside the President's
body (let alone the TWO stopped bullets that anti-SBT kooks require in
this regard, including the upper-back wound).
Plus.....
"Common sense tells us that seeing only the wound to the front
of the president's neck [and not seeing the corresponding entry wound
in JFK's back at any time], the Parkland doctors would instinctively
have been more inclined to think of it as an entrance wound. Almost
anyone would be so predisposed." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 414 of
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
Plus.....
If that throat wound wasn't an exit wound, the $64K Q is --- WHERE IS
THE DAMN BULLET??
And the next question is -- WHERE IS THE *OTHER* BULLET THAN WENT INTO
KENNEDY'S BACK BUT ALSO NEVER EXITED THE OTHER SIDE??
Another "plus" from VB.....
"Though conspiracy theorists are almost unanimous in believing
that the president was shot from the front and his throat wound was an
entrance wound, they are strangely silent as to what happened to this
bullet after it entered the president's throat. .... It would be
virtually impossible for a bullet entering the soft tissue of the neck
at a speed of 2,000 feet per second to stop inside the neck and not
exit the body." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 416 of "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" (c.2007)
>>> "Besides, the wound was half the size of the back entrance." <<<
Nobody measured the throat wound with any precision, idiot.
Plus.....
"These experiments [involving the firing of MC/WCC bullets at a
simulated JFK upper back and neck] confirmed beyond all of my doubts
that the smallness of the exit hole in the front of Kennedy's neck was
due to the fact that the skin was supported by a firm collar band,
which restrained it from bulging and bursting open ahead of the
exiting bullet. .... If the bullet had not exited from the President's
neck just AT the collar band, the exit wound might have been much
larger." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; Page 239 of "KENNEDY & LINCOLN" (c.
1980)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f18bcb78b94d9d8
~~~~~~~
So, I guess the CT-Kooks should go back to the drawing board and think
up some new stupid-sounding pro-CT arguments to berate the perfectly-
logical Single-Bullet Theory.
In short --
The SBT fits every last piece of evidence connected with the wounding
of JFK & JBC.
The SBT works perfectly.
The SBT makes sense.
The SBT is correct.
David Von Pein
>>> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and planting of evidence." <<<
Now, suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a lousy chain of custody.
Where did you scrape that crap up from, Mr. Super-Kook? Is that in
another of your favorite CT books?
I love it! The kooks aren't satisfied with complaining about the
backyard pictures...or CE399...or the two "Poe" shells on 10th Street.
No, no. Suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a bad chain of
possession connected to it.
And that would also include (in ADDITION to Bullet CE399, the Backyard
Photographs, and the two bullet cartridge cases that were handed over
to Officer J.M. Poe by witness Domingo Benavides).....
The non-Poe bullet shells on 10th Street.
The three bullet shells in the SN.
The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial # C2766).
The S&W .38 revolver that Oswald had ON HIM when arrested.
The two front-seat bullet fragments found in the Presidential
limousine.
The smaller bullet fragments found in the limousine (which were not
EXCLUDED as having come from Rifle C2766; i.e., they were consistent
with having come from that rifle).
The bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist (which, again,
were consistent with WCC/MC bullet lead).
The bullet fragments plucked from JFK's head (one of which was said by
Vincent Guinn, via NAA, to have come from Oswald's rifle).
The bullet lead removed from the inside surface of the limousine's
windshield (which was lead that was found to be "similar in
composition" [Robert Frazier's words] to Bullet CE399 and the front-
seat bullet fragments).
The bullets plucked from Officer Tippit's body (one of which was said
to be positively from Oswald's gun, per Joseph Nicol).
The autopsy photographs of President Kennedy.
The autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy.
The official autopsy report (which was signed and confirmed by all
three autopsists).
The paper bag in the SN (with LHO's prints on it).
The multiple LHO prints on the boxes in the SN.
The fibers found in the empty paper bag.
The fibers found wedged into the rifle.
The jacket that was found at the Texaco gas station.
The Zapruder Film (which many conspiracy-loving kooks actually think
has been "altered" in some way....with some of those CT nuts going so
far as to imply that the film has been--get this!--"wholly
fabricated" [verbatim verbiage from the back cover of Jim Fetzer's
book of insanity, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"]).
The paper trail of documents that shows that Lee Harvey Oswald
positively ordered and paid for Rifle C2766 and the S&W revolver.*
* = I'm not sure if the kooks really consider these documents "weak"
on the "chain of custody" level. But many kooks certainly do think
that all of the various "A.J. Hidell" documents, in Oswald's own
handwriting, are not to be trusted. It's just one more sign of
"Anybody But Oswald" disease, of course.
===============
Now, for context, after listing the above pieces of physical evidence
that all lead down the "Oswald Did It" path, let me now repeat
Robkook's earlier hunk of hilarity (it's even funnier now, after
seeing my list above).....
"The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes
it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering
and planting of evidence."
Robby.....a net awaits you.
robcap...@netscape.com
It is very true, did Benavides ID LHO in 1964 at the WC hearing or
not? He did not. He wouldn't do it until 1967 and then it is very
suspect as people tend to be more accurate closer to the event.
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/da474dbd...
>
> >>> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and planting of evidence." <<<
"Now, suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a lousy chain of
custody."
Okay, probably all, but there could be one or two small items they got
right, so I don't want to box myself into a corner. Let's phrase it
this way, ALL the important physical evidence was botched, okay?
"Where did you scrape that crap up from, Mr. Super-Kook? Is that in
another of your favorite CT books?"
No, I got it from the alleged evidence and proof the WC put forth.
NONE of it adds up to anything.
"I love it! The kooks aren't satisfied with complaining about the
backyard pictures...or CE399...or the two "Poe" shells on 10th Street.
No, no. Suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a bad chain of
possession connected to it."
It does, and you know it.
Thanks for outlining the "evidence" and you are right, ALL of it had
major issues with it and it does NOT show LHO to be guilty.
"The Zapruder Film (which many conspiracy-loving kooks actually think
has been "altered" in some way....with some of those CT nuts going so
far as to imply that the film has been--get this!--"wholly
fabricated" [verbatim verbiage from the back cover of Jim Fetzer's
book of insanity, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"])."
Of course it was altered, it was locked up for 12 years, do you really
believe NOTHING was done with it during those years?
"The paper trail of documents that shows that Lee Harvey Oswald
positively ordered and paid for Rifle C2766 and the S&W revolver.*"
Or lack of paper trail as all we have supposedly is a "microfilm"
copy.
"* = I'm not sure if the kooks really consider these documents "weak"
on the "chain of custody" level. But many kooks certainly do think
that all of the various "A.J. Hidell" documents, in Oswald's own
handwriting, are not to be trusted. It's just one more sign of
"Anybody But Oswald" disease, of course."
I consider them to be faked more than weak on the chain of custody,
but how they got into the official record is highly suspicious as
well.
> ===============
"Now, for context, after listing the above pieces of physical evidence
that all lead down the "Oswald Did It" path, let me now repeat
Robkook's earlier hunk of hilarity (it's even funnier now, after
seeing my list above)....."
NONE of this "evidence" you listed shows LHO did it, that is why there
has been a debate for 44 years. IF it really showed beyond all doubt
LHO did it there would be NO debate.
"The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very
easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and
planting of evidence."
Robby.....a net awaits you."
I stand by my comment and nothing you have posted here changes that.
You know this is all very weak "proof" and "evidence" but you insist
on playing games.