The TRUTH about the Tippit Shooting
Steve
turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
know) but I will try once again.
For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
1. How many times was Tippit shot?
2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
5. Who killed Tippit? (Of course none of you idiots know a name but
just IN GENERAL who does your evidence reveal killed Tippit?)
6. What happened to the Tippit murder weapon?
7. What happened to the Tippit murder bullets?
8. Where did Tippit's killer flee to?
Whew. This should be pretty easy with all of the evidence you group
of nuts have amassed over the years. Let's see how YOUR explanation
agrees with the evidence.
Steve
Three hours and none of the conspiracy clowns have any answers to
solve this relatively simple murder? ALL of those files Rosstards and
you can't explain what happened? ALL of those videos Giltard and you
are unable to explain AHYTHING that happened that afternoon in Oak
Cliff?
Tsk...tsk...tsk...
Sean Smiley
> turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> know) but I will try once again.
>
> For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
>
> 1. How many times was Tippit shot?
> 2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
Like Homicide Capn Fritz said, they needed witnesses to JFK's killer
'cause there were no real witnesses to the shooter in Dealey.
> 3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
> 4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
Auto .38, just like Sgt Hill said.
> 5. Who killed Tippit? (Of course none of you idiots know a name but
> just IN GENERAL who does your evidence reveal killed Tippit?)
> 6. What happened to the Tippit murder weapon?
> 7. What happened to the Tippit murder bullets?
Hulls & slugs switched.
> 8. Where did Tippit's killer flee to?
One gunman fled thru an old house between the alley off Patton &
Jefferson. As per witness Reynolds & scads of cops & newsmen
searching ye building....
I'll leave the other questions to those interested in same.
Incidentally, too bad this case wasn't wrapped up in 3 hours in '63.
Oh yeah, it was. In fact it was wrapped up in --several days, or
weeks. (That's a minus.) Whenever shooters & patsy were welcomed on
board.
dcw
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
A few issues. You conveniently avoided the clothing issue since many
eyewitnesses described a gunman wearing clothing and a jacket just
like the clothing was wearing at the time. Do you have even one speck
of evidence to support the claim that the original bullets and hulls
were switched? It is easy to make such a claim but noticably
difficult to support it with evidence. How does your explanation take
into consideration the casings found by Barbara and Virginia Davis
matching Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Also, how does your invisible gunman happen to fire the shots at
Tippit, yet all credible generally agreed the gunman looked exactly
like Lee Harvey Oswald?
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Like Homicide Capn Fritz said, they needed witnesses to JFK's killer
'cause there were no real witnesses to the shooter in Dealey."
Apparently you choose to ignore Howard Brennen, Bob Jackson, Arnold
Rowland, and Amos Euins
David Von Pein
>>> "Apparently you choose to ignore Howard Brenn[a]n, Bob Jackson, Arnold Rowland, and Amos Euins." <<<
And Mal Couch.
And James Worrell.
Gil Jesus
> Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> know) but I will try once again.
Save your breath.
It's not our job to prove Oswald innocent.
It's YOUR job to prove him guilty.
Now, are you going to deal with these issues, or are you going to
continue to run from them:
Find the photograph of the paper "gunsack" on the 6th floor.
Show us where Pete Barnes marked the shells J.M. Poe gave him
and where he identified those markings as his under oath.
According to Sgt. Barnes, Capt. George Daughty retrieved a shell from
the Tippit murder scene. Where is it ?
When you can answer the questions and prove your case against Oswald ,
THEN you can start asking questions of your own.
Otherwise, you're just another stupid blowhard.
Bud
> On Apr 30, 8:58 am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> > turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> > the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> > Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> > the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> > know) but I will try once again.
>
> > For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
>
> > 1. How many times was Tippit shot?
> > 2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
>
> Like Homicide Capn Fritz said, they needed witnesses to JFK's killer
> 'cause there were no real witnesses to the shooter in Dealey.
>
> > 3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
> > 4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
>
> Auto .38, just like Sgt Hill said.
Then why weren`t the shells found by the patrol car?
Sean Smiley
How The Secret Service Prepped Barbara & Virginia Davis To Discredit
Hill's "Automatic .38"
When Sgt. Gerald Hill radioed from the Tippit scene that the "shells
at the scene" indicated that the murder weapon was an automatic, it
started in motion a sort of Project Neutralize. The first half of the
project was relatively easy: Enlist a witness to claim that he found
two of the four shells in a small area, near the shooting site, thus
suggesting the use of an automatic. The second half proved not quite
so easy, because one knotty problem with same was not caught until
after the project was set in motion. If the first half handily
accounted for the radioed "automatic", the second half was meant to
seal the deal for "revolver": Hulls three & four were to be found
much *later*--after Hill's 1:41 transmission--and *further away* from
the site of the shooting. Time and Distance were the keys--but a
problem developed on the Time front....
Said problem must first have been detected when someone looked closely
at witness Barbara Jeanette Davis's 11/22/63 affidavit, specifically
this sentence:
When the police arrived I showed one of them where I saw this man
emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Oh, shit! might have been the detector's cry. Because the police
began arriving about 1:20--there were some 7 officers at the scene by
1:23. And because Barbara Davis's phrasing here suggests that the
shell in question was found very easily, because it was found where
she "saw this man emptying his gun". Because her words here suggest
that the third hull must have been found well *before* 1:41, and maybe
there'd be questions as to why Hill would then have radioed
"automatic".
Sister-in-law Virginia Davis's 11/22 affidavit was less specific, but
essentially repeated Barbara Davis's words:
Jeanette found a empty shell that the man had unloaded and gave it to
the police.
She, too, makes it sound as if hull three was found right where they
"saw the boy cutting across [their] yard".
On December 1, 1963, the knotty problem was solved. The Secret
Service took affidavits that day from both women, and the latter
expanded on their 11/22 affidavits. Barbara Davis:
The man was on the sidewalk directly in front of me and was shaking
shells from a pistol into his hand as he walked.... After the police
arrived we searched the area on the side of my house which faces
Patton St. and found a spent cartridge case.
Yes, that would explain why the Davises did not find hulls right off--
in this case, neither would actually have seen the gunman drop a shell
on the ground. They would really have had to look. Now, let's see
what Virginia Davis said:
The man had a revolver in his left hand and was shaking the shells out
of it into his right hand.... When the police arrived we searched the
area on the side of the house that faces Patton Street, and Barbara
found a gun shell that had been fired.
Actually--you will have noticed--the sisters-in-law do not so much
expand here on the finding of hull three (as detailed in their
original affidavits) as simply substitute one clause for another: For
"I showed one of [the policemen] where I saw this man emptying his
gun", Barbara Davis says "we searched the area on the side of my house
which faces Patton St". Might happen, naturally, without guidance.
But Virginia Davis makes an almost identical substitution: For "the
man had unloaded [as he] was cutting across our yard", she now says
"we searched the area on the side of the house that faces Patton
Street"! Guidance. Subornation even. And ruinously obvious.
Instructive here: Left to their own devices, before the Warren
Commission, Virginia Davis would say that the shells were found
"beside the apartment", or "by my front door of the apartment where we
live" (v6p463), and Barbara Davis would say "in the grass beside the
house" (v3p345). Too late. The anti-improvisatory, exacting hand of
the Secret Service lies heavily, and irrevocably, on the 12/1 birth of
the shells-in-the-hand story.
The time factor has been solved, but a little too obviously. Too
obviously, the sisters-in-law are parroting a third person, not
necessarily SS Agent John J. Giuffre, though he was the one who took
their affidavits, and is on the hot seat until further notice. Too
obviously, the story of the shells emptied into the hand has been made
up, and roles assigned, obviously to cancel out Hill's transmission,
and also Barbara Davis's initial suggestion of easily-discoverable
hulls. The time and distance factors for hulls three and four have
been nullified. Four hulls, then, were, it seems, found in one little
area near the site of the shooting....
dcw
Sean Smiley
No, Fritz did: "I instructed [my men] to get those witnesses over for
ID just as soon as they could, & for us to prepare a real good case on
the officer's killing so we would have a case to hold him without bond
while we investigated the President's killing, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE SO
MANY WITNESSES."
(Fritz, in "With Malice", p207, from his WC testimony)
Sean Smiley
> On Apr 30, 3:45 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 8:58 am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> > > turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> > > the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> > > Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> > > the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> > > know) but I will try once again.
>
> > > For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
>
> > > 1. How many times was Tippit shot?
> > > 2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
>
> > Like Homicide Capn Fritz said, they needed witnesses to JFK's killer
> > 'cause there were no real witnesses to the shooter in Dealey.
>
> > > 3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
> > > 4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
>
> > Auto .38, just like Sgt Hill said.
>
> Then why weren`t the shells found by the patrol car?
We don't really know that they weren't.
dcw
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Apr 30, 11:58=EF=BF=BDam, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
>> turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
>> the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>>
>> Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
>> the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
>> know) but I will try once again.
>
>Save your breath.
>
>It's not our job to prove Oswald innocent.
Bingo! The investigation, such that it was, isn't *our* responsibility. If an
investigation isn't done properly, and evidence is flatly manufactured, then of
*course* any speculation into what REALLY happened is going to be different
based on whoever gives it a try.
But the explanation of the evidence SHOULD be reasonable and
non-conspiratorial... and this is where the kooks foul up - they simply cannot
provide reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations.
It's up to Steve, and other kooks like him, to explain why Chaney wasn't
questioned by the WC... it's up to Steve, and other kooks like him to explain
why the WC, run by lawyers who knew better, ran a prosecution rather than a fact
finding investigation. It's up to Steve, and other kooks like him to explain why
the WC & HSCA simply *lied* outright about their evidence in order to come to
their "conclusions".
But the evidence to LNT'er kooks is like kryptonite to Superman... gotta stay
away from it.
>It's YOUR job to prove him guilty.
Indeed, simply to provide a coherent, REASONABLE and believable theory that
accounts for the evidence.
But it can't be done.
>Now, are you going to deal with these issues, or are you going to
>continue to run from them:
>
>Find the photograph of the paper "gunsack" on the 6th floor.
>
>Show us where Pete Barnes marked the shells J.M. Poe gave him
>and where he identified those markings as his under oath.
>
>According to Sgt. Barnes, Capt. George Daughty retrieved a shell from
>the Tippit murder scene. Where is it ?
>
>When you can answer the questions and prove your case against Oswald ,
>THEN you can start asking questions of your own.
>
>Otherwise, you're just another stupid blowhard.
Cowardly trolls.... is what they are.
Most of 'em refuse to debate the evidence... the few that do, lie about the
evidence.
And if you really want clarity about what happened, Doug Horne has put together
a very reasonable explanation that fits the known evidence.
Unfortunately for kooks like Steve - it's not "non-conspiratorial" in nature.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Sean Smiley
Euins said the shooter was a "colored man". When did Jackson &
Rowland suggest the shooter was Oswald? Didn't Mal Couch say "wide
open window"? Hardly a witness for the 6th floor, let alone Oswald.
Worrell too seemed uncertain re 5th or 6th floor window. And do you
really want to open the Brennan can o' worms again??
dcw
Sean Smiley
I left that for someone else
dcw
since many
> eyewitnesses described a gunman wearing clothing and a jacket just
> like the clothing was wearing at the time. Do you have even one speck
> of evidence to support the claim that the original bullets and hulls
> were switched? It is easy to make such a claim but noticably
> difficult to support it with evidence. How does your explanation take
> into consideration the casings found by Barbara and Virginia Davis
> matching Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons?
> Also, how does your invisible gunman happen to fire the shots at
> Tippit, yet all credible generally agreed the gunman looked exactly
> like Lee Harvey Oswald?
It took Scoggins some 24 hours to agree. Callaway I maintain saw
nobody. See my post on the Davises, which suggests that they did not
see the shooter, or at least not a shooter bearing a revolver.
Virginia Davis & LJ Lewis said they called the cops first, then saw
the gunman, which means it was just the witness with Tippit's gun.
Benavides apparently went downtown, but did not attend a lineup for
some reason.
dcw
Gil Jesus
> On Apr 30, 6:19�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Apparently you choose to ignore Howard Brenn[a]n, Bob Jackson, Arnold Rowland, and Amos Euins." <<<
Did any of Von Pein's witnesses actually identify Oswald in the
window ?
ROBERT JACKSON
Mr. SPECTER. Now, were you able to see anyone in front of those boxes?
Mr. JACKSON. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Whether or not you could identify anyone, could you see
even the form or outline of the man?
Mr. JACKSON. No, sir
( 2 H 160 )
ARNOLD ROWLAND
�
Mr. ROWLAND. I just couldn't identify him...........I just didn't
have a good enough look at his face.
( 2 H 185 )
AMOS EUINS
Mr. UNDERWOOD. It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand
when he said his name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had
seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a
rifle. He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him
over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle officers
were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and
asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said "Yes,
sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a colored
man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes,
sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand
was what I thought his name was Eunice.
( 6 H 170 )
MALCOLM COUCH
Mr. COUCH I saw no one in that window---just a quick l-second glance
at the barrel.
( 6 H 157 )
> Worrell too seemed uncertain re 5th or 6th floor window. �
He also said he heard 4 shots, but Von Pein won't mention that:
Mr. SPECTER. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. WORRELL. Four.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe anything at about that time?
Mr. WORRELL. Yes, sir, I looked up and saw the rifle, but I would say
about 6 inches of it.
Mr. SPECTER. And where did you see the rifle?
Mr. WORRELL I am not going--I am not too sure but I told the FBI it
was either in the fifth or the sixth floor on the far corner, on the
east side.
( 2 H 193 )
> And do you
> really want to open the Brennan can o' worms again??
Brennan has been discredited a looong time ago.
ROFLMAO.....some witnesses, huh ?
I guess that pretty much proves Oswald's guilt.........ROFLMAO
David Von Pein
Those "I saw a rifle" witnesses don't prove Oswald's guilt (except for
Brennan), but what they do prove is that a person with a rifle was
firing shots from the same window where all kinds of "Oswald Was Here"
evidence was later discovered.
Prob'ly just a coincidence though. Right, Gil?
David Von Pein
>>> "Euins said the shooter was a "colored man"." <<<
Not in his 11/22 affidavit, he didn't:
"This was a white man." -- Amos Lee Euins; 11/22/63 affidavit
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0494a.htm
Gil Jesus
> Those "I saw a rifle" witnesses don't prove Oswald's guilt
Well, there's something we can agree on.
Since YOU'RE the one who brought those names up, tell us what exactly
what those "I saw a rifle" witnesses have to do with "the TRUTH about
the Tippit Shooting".
Let's try to stay on topic.
David Von Pein
Well, Gil, it wasn't me who started talking about the JFK
witnesses...it was Donald C. Willis. I was merely responding to
Steve's response to Don W.:
Here's how it evolved:
DON "ARCE DID IT" WILLIS (AKA: "SEAN") SAID:
"Like Homicide Capn Fritz said, they needed witnesses to JFK's killer
'cause there were no real witnesses to the shooter in Dealey."
STEVE THEN SAID:
"Apparently you choose to ignore Howard Brennen, Bob Jackson, Arnold
Rowland, and Amos Euins."
Sean Smiley
> Well, Gil, it wasn't me who started talking about the JFK
> witnesses...it was Donald C. Willis. I was merely responding to
> Steve's response to Don W.:
To be precise, everyone was responding to Capn Fritz's reference to
Dealey witnesses.
dcw
Sean Smiley
And how many hours was this after two reporters heard Euins say "It
was a colored man"? Thank you for bringing up one of the more obvious
instances of a cover-up-in-progress, David!
dcw
lazu...@webtv.net
with a rifle that has a bald spot-sure isn't describing
Oswald=conspiracy-Rowland saw a man with a rifle in the south west
window on the opposite end of the 6th floor...geez! your lone nut
witnesses look pretty conspiratorial to me...laz
Ben Holmes
says...
Let's not forget the clothing descriptions... none of which matched Oswald.
Bud
> On Apr 30, 7:24 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 3:45 pm, Sean Smiley <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 30, 8:58 am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> > > > turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> > > > the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> > > > Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> > > > the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> > > > know) but I will try once again.
>
> > > > For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
>
> > > > 1. How many times was Tippit shot?
> > > > 2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
>
> > > Like Homicide Capn Fritz said, they needed witnesses to JFK's killer
> > > 'cause there were no real witnesses to the shooter in Dealey.
>
> > > > 3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
> > > > 4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
>
> > > Auto .38, just like Sgt Hill said.
>
> > Then why weren`t the shells found by the patrol car?
>
> We don't really know that they weren't.
Do you have anyone saying they were?
Bud
> In article <94689cf3-a6e1-42cc-a2b9-89793984f...@j15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >On Apr 30, 11:58=EF=BF=BDam, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> >> turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> >> the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> >> Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> >> the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> >> know) but I will try once again.
>
> >Save your breath.
>
> >It's not our job to prove Oswald innocent.
>
> Bingo! The investigation, such that it was, isn't *our* responsibility.
Then why not find a new hobby, retard? You all seem totally unsuited
for investigation anyway.
>If an
> investigation isn't done properly, and evidence is flatly manufactured, then of
> *course* any speculation into what REALLY happened is going to be different
> based on whoever gives it a try.
This is correct, if every retard gets to choose what is reliable
evidence and what isn`t, you will get retards meadering off in every
direction. They all have one thing in common, though, they all go
nowhere.
> But the explanation of the evidence SHOULD be reasonable and
> non-conspiratorial... and this is where the kooks foul up - they simply cannot
> provide reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations.
Then maybe more work needs to be done to discover them. And maybe
nobody in the LN camp is much interested in trying to solve every
difficulty kooks find. But what should always be the default answer is
the least extraordinary and mundane one, not what you see with the
retards, desperation to posit the most elaborate and complex one. for
one instance out of hundreds, the Oswald interrogations. The most
mundane, and therefore likely way to look at the Oswald interrogations
is that it was law enforcement trying to get information from a
suspect to answer questions about the crime they were investigating.
The idea that they were all in cahoots to railroad him is an
extraordinary idea the retards can support to their own satisfaction,
but any honest observer would see right away that it is not that they
have evidence they need to support that idea, but merely a retarded
desperation to pretend Oswald is innocent.
> It's up to Steve, and other kooks like him, to explain why Chaney wasn't
> questioned by the WC...
No, it really isn`t. If the WC didn`t say then it isn`t on record.
That retards are willing to speculate a nefarious reason is
meaningless. What it shows is that they are once again unable to show
what they think occurred actually did, because they aren`t producing
correspondence or testimony by or about WC members backing up their
contentions, they are just SAYING it is conspiratorial, and
challenging LNers to prove it isn`t.
> it's up to Steve, and other kooks like him to explain
> why the WC, run by lawyers who knew better, ran a prosecution rather than a fact
> finding investigation.
<snicker> How can an investigation into the actions of a guilty man
not appear as a prosecution? Should they have done as retards do,
throw out everything that indicates Oswald`s guilt, and go from there?
> It's up to Steve, and other kooks like him to explain why
> the WC & HSCA simply *lied* outright about their evidence in order to come to
> their "conclusions".
Why do CTers, who are the biggest liars ever to walk upright, insist
on calling everyone who honestly followed where the evidence led
"liars"?
> But the evidence to LNT'er kooks is like kryptonite to Superman... gotta stay
> away from it.
CTers just claim the evidence they don`t like is faked or planted,
and then ignore it. Or think of some contorted rational to ignore it.
All the best evidence, the ballistic evidence, the photos, the film,
the autopsy, the witnesses who actually saw the murderer committing
the murders, ect, all this goes into the "disregard" file. Can anyone
really think that these retards are in the least bit interested in
what really occurred?
> >It's YOUR job to prove him guilty.
>
> Indeed, simply to provide a coherent, REASONABLE and believable theory that
> accounts for the evidence.
On the table for decades.
> But it can't be done.
Not by retards, anyway.
> >Now, are you going to deal with these issues, or are you going to
> >continue to run from them:
>
> >Find the photograph of the paper "gunsack" on the 6th floor.
>
> >Show us where Pete Barnes marked the shells J.M. Poe gave him
> >and where he identified those markings as his under oath.
>
> >According to Sgt. Barnes, Capt. George Daughty retrieved a shell from
> >the Tippit murder scene. Where is it ?
>
> >When you can answer the questions and prove your case against Oswald ,
> >THEN you can start asking questions of your own.
>
> >Otherwise, you're just another stupid blowhard.
>
> Cowardly trolls.... is what they are.
>
> Most of 'em refuse to debate the evidence... the few that do, lie about the
> evidence.
>
> And if you really want clarity about what happened, Doug Horne has put together
> a very reasonable explanation that fits the known evidence.
<snicker>
> Unfortunately for kooks like Steve - it's not "non-conspiratorial" in nature.
It`s retarded in nature. Impossibly complex scenarios contrived by
retards for retards.
Bud
Decades after the fact you still haven`t moved an inch towards who
got him to change is mind. If a conspirator got him to change his
mind, this would be just the kind of lead you retards need to follow
to get something to firm up your fantasies. Why is it these things
never go anywhere, and why do conspiracy kooks think what should be a
journey is somehow a destination? They are content where these things
are, suspicious sounding, but they really aren`t anywhere in
particular, at best they are unknown.
> dcw
Bud
Thats because you are retarded. Can you explain how Worrel heard 4
shots, but people around him heard three? Euins told the WC he didn`t
see the man well enough to determine his race. Rowland probably saw
Oswald in the west window.
aggie
> On Apr 30, 11:58=EF=BF=BDam, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> > turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> > the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
> >
> > Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> > the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> > know) but I will try once again.
>
> Save your breath.
>
> It's not our job to prove Oswald innocent.
So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innocent as Hitler
in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow. Three
wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire. Why not add John
Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your list of
murdering heroes?
>
> It's YOUR job to prove him guilty.
It's been done already. Twice. The Warren Commission and the HSCA both
established that Oswald killed Kennedy. No other commission, panel,
commitee or any other group has ever found him anything but guilty of
shooting the president. There's a word for people who won't accept reality.
Do you know what that word is?
>
> Now, are you going to deal with these issues, or are you going to
> continue to run from them:
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Right?
Ben Holmes
>
>Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 11:58=EF=BF=BDam, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
>> > turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
>> > the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>> >
>> > Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
>> > the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
>> > know) but I will try once again.
>>
>> Save your breath.
>>
>> It's not our job to prove Oswald innocent.
>
>So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innocent as Hitler
>in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow. Three
>wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire. Why not add John
>Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your list of
>murdering heroes?
If this is the sort of silly argument that you must descend to, it really
doesn't look all that good for your theory, does it?
If the evidence really supported your side, why aren't you debating the
evidence, instead of silly and stupid arguments like this?
Don't you realize that you advertise exactly where the truth lies when you use
such rhetoric?
(A favorite of Bugliosi too, come to think of it!)
>> It's YOUR job to prove him guilty.
>
>It's been done already. Twice.
Nah... never happened.
You see, the U.S. justice system is built on the idea of prosecution *AND*
defense.
Both WC & HSCA worked in secret, refusing to have the sort of adversarial
process that is taken for granted in the U.S. Judicial system.
I suspect that they knew they couldn't afford that. It's certainly clear that
those who defend the WCR can't do what the WC couldn't do. Provide reasonable
and non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence.
>The Warren Commission and the HSCA both
>established that Oswald killed Kennedy. No other commission, panel,
>commitee or any other group has ever found him anything but guilty of
>shooting the president.
"Guilty" is a term best defined in the U.S. as a byproduct of an adversarial
process.
Used as *you* use it, it has far more in common with the Soviet Gulag system.
>There's a word for people who won't accept reality.
>Do you know what that word is?
Sure... LNT'er. I'm sure you must be happy to be in roughly the same percentage
of Americans who believe that the Moon Landing was a Hoax...
>> Now, are you going to deal with these issues, or are you going to
>> continue to run from them:
>
>If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Right?
If you can't explain the evidence in reasonable and non-conspiratorial terms,
you must be a kook, right?
The 45 Questions await you!
Gil Jesus
>
> So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innocent as Hitler
> in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow. Three
> wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire. Why not add John
> Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your list of
> murdering heroes?
Hey "aggie":
Feel free to provide any of the following evidence proving the guilt
of Oswald:
1. Find those copper slivers that were removed from General Walker's
arm.
2. Find the evidence that the Depository Carcano was in the Paine
garage on 11/21/63.
3. Find the evidence that Oswald had a 34+ inch package on the
morning of 11/22/63.
4. Find evidence that a probe was entered into the back wound and
came out the throat wound.
5. Find documentation or witness testimony indicating that Oswald
ever received a rifle and a handgun at Box 2915 in Dallas.
6. Find the photographs of the bullet fragments inside the
Presidential limo as they were found.
7. Find the photograph of the palmprint on the rifle.
8. Find the proof that bullet CE 399 contained the blood or clothing
fibers from either victim, or bone particles of Governor Connally.
9. Show us how a 36" rifle that was shipped from Klein's Sporting
Goods became a 40" rifle.
10. Show us the photograph of the paper "gunsack" on the 6th floor as
found.
Show us where Pete Barnes marked the shells J.M. Poe gave him and
where he identified those markings as his under oath.
11. Find the evidence that the bullets removed from the body of JD
Tippit were fired from the Oswald handgun to the exclusion of all
other weapons.
aeffects
I suspect "aggie" (from Texas no doubt) has run away.....
Gil Jesus
> I suspect "aggie" (from Texas no doubt) has run away
Too bad. I would have liked to hear her explain how this testimony was
"proof" of Oswald's guilt of the Tippit murder:
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets
have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were
not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this
bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been
fired from this weapon.
......Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks
for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination
and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had
been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one weapon,
or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.
( 3 H 475 )
CE 602 was too mutilated and CE 603,604 and 605 had inconsistent
individual characteristic marks caused by undersized bullets being
fired in an oversized barrel.
( ibid.)
That's not proof that the Tippit bullets came from the Oswald handgun.
aggie
> On May 1, 9:07=EF=BF=BDpm, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innocent as
> er
> > in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow. Three
> > wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire. Why not add
> n
> > Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your list of
> > murdering heroes?
>
> Hey "aggie":
>
> Feel free to provide any of the following evidence proving the guilt
> of Oswald:
Oooo! A quiz! Here's a true-false quiz for you. Below is a list of
statements made by Oswald in custody, in chronological order. Can you find
the ones that are true and the ones that are false? Just for this quiz,
don't worry about contradictions, tough as that may be for a CT:
I never owned a rifle myself.
I was never in Mexico City.
My landlady didn't understand my name correctly, so it was her idea to call
me 0. H. Lee
The only package I brought to work was my lunch.
That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Ruth Paine. Don't try to tie her into
this. She had nothing to do with it.
I was in Russia two years and liked it in Russia.
The way you are treating me, I might as well be in Russia.
I am 5 ft. 9 in., weigh 140 lb., have brown hair, blue-gray eyes, and have
no tattoos or permanent scars.
I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some
curtain rods.
I never owned a rifle.
I don't own a rifle.
I don't own a rifle at all.
I did have a small rifle some years in the past.
I did carry a package to the Texas School Book Depository. I carried my
lunch, a sandwich and fruit, which I made at Paine's house.
I do not own a rifle, never possessed a rifle.
I went to the Mexican Consulate in Mexico City.
I don't recall the shape, it may have been a small sack, or a large sack;
you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches.
The sack was in the car, beside me, on my lap, as it always is.
It was not on the back seat. Mr. Frazier must have been mistaken or else
thinking about the other time when he picked me up.
I didn't own any rifle. I have not practiced or shot with a rifle.
Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell were listed under the caption of persons
entitled to receive mail through my box in New Orleans.
I don't recall anything about the A. J. Hidell being on the post office
card.
never received a package sent to me through the mailbox in Dallas, Box No.
2915, under the name of Alek Hidell, absolutely not.
Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got this
mail, but it is possible she could have.
Bud
> In article <20100501204157.960...@newsreader.com>, aggie says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 30, 11:58=EF=BF=BDam, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> >> > turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> >> > the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> >> > Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> >> > the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> >> > know) but I will try once again.
>
> >> Save your breath.
>
> >> It's not our job to prove Oswald innocent.
>
> >So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innocent as Hitler
> >in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow. Three
> >wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire. Why not add John
> >Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your list of
> >murdering heroes?
>
> If this is the sort of silly argument that you must descend to, it really
> doesn't look all that good for your theory, does it?
<snicker> Your fellow retard Gil put it in a stupid context, so
aggie replied to it in that context. You guys need to stop looking at
information in a stupid manner if you want better responses.
> If the evidence really supported your side, why aren't you debating the
> evidence, instead of silly and stupid arguments like this?
What does a retard like Ben mean by "debating the evidence"? He
declares things true and other things untrue. He is the sole
arbitrator. And the kooks have worked hard to devise rote answers in
response to every bit of information indicating Oswald`s guilt. they
did this not because they were interested in the truth, but because
they didn`t like the truth.
> Don't you realize that you advertise exactly where the truth lies when you use
> such rhetoric?
<snicker> Just looking at the list of retards here that comprise
your side of the argument should tell any sensible person which side
the truth lie, and which side just lies.
> (A favorite of Bugliosi too, come to think of it!)
>
> >> It's YOUR job to prove him guilty.
>
> >It's been done already. Twice.
>
> Nah... never happened.
Simple denial won`t change the facts.
> You see, the U.S. justice system is built on the idea of prosecution *AND*
> defense.
See, a retard can think of any reason to dismiss a cold hard fact.
And the fact is these were investigations, and investigations don`t
have prosecution and defense. Retards just insist on looking at
information in irrelevant contexts.
> Both WC & HSCA worked in secret, refusing to have the sort of adversarial
> process that is taken for granted in the U.S. Judicial system.
Ben is too stupid to realize there was no trial.
> I suspect that they knew they couldn't afford that. It's certainly clear that
> those who defend the WCR can't do what the WC couldn't do. Provide reasonable
> and non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence.
The investigations came to the only conclusion possible. That Oswald
killed Kennedy.
> >The Warren Commission and the HSCA both
> >established that Oswald killed Kennedy. No other commission, panel,
> >commitee or any other group has ever found him anything but guilty of
> >shooting the president.
>
> "Guilty" is a term best defined in the U.S. as a byproduct of an adversarial
> process.
Then Ben must feel that feel that Charles Whitman was not guilty of
shooting those people on that campus in Texas. That the terrorists who
hijacked planes and drove them into the Twin Towers were not guilty.
And he must accept that OJ was innocent.
> Used as *you* use it, it has far more in common with the Soviet Gulag system.
What the retard neglects to consider is that once Oswald was killed,
a defense was impossible, as the defendant directs his defense (unless
ruled mentally incompetent). Can Ben show that Oswald would not have
plead guilty had he lived to reach trial?
> >There's a word for people who won't accept reality.
> >Do you know what that word is?
>
> Sure... LNT'er. I'm sure you must be happy to be in roughly the same percentage
> of Americans who believe that the Moon Landing was a Hoax...
Funny Ben should bring this up, because he would have a hard time
finding a person who believes we didn`t land on the moon who doesn`t
believe Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.
> >> Now, are you going to deal with these issues, or are you going to
> >> continue to run from them:
>
> >If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Right?
>
> If you can't explain the evidence in reasonable and non-conspiratorial terms,
> you must be a kook, right?
Since the conspiracy the kooks imagine is an impossibility, it can`t
be a reasonable alternative.
> The 45 Questions await you!
Even picking the best ground he can find to fight on Ben does
poorly, which is why he needs to resort to killfiling anyone who
points out the deficiencies in his thinking.
Bud
> On May 1, 9:07 pm, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innocent as Hitler
> > in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow. Three
> > wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire. Why not add John
> > Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your list of
> > murdering heroes?
>
> Hey "aggie":
>
> Feel free to provide any of the following evidence proving the guilt
> of Oswald:
>
> 1. Find those copper slivers that were removed from General Walker's
> arm.
Why does Gil say they were saved?
> 2. Find the evidence that the Depository Carcano was in the Paine
> garage on 11/21/63.
His wife said that is where he kept it.
> 3. Find the evidence that Oswald had a 34+ inch package on the
> morning of 11/22/63.
One was found near were he was seen shooting. The people who saw him
carrying it that morning said it could be the bag they say him with.
> 4. Find evidence that a probe was entered into the back wound and
> came out the throat wound.
Can Gil show that probing is aways possible?
> 5. Find documentation or witness testimony indicating that Oswald
> ever received a rifle and a handgun at Box 2915 in Dallas.
The documentation shows Klein`s sent a rifle with the C2766 serial
number to Oswald`s PO box.
> 6. Find the photographs of the bullet fragments inside the
> Presidential limo as they were found.
Why does Gil believe such photos exist?
> 7. Find the photograph of the palmprint on the rifle.
Why does Gil believe such a photo exists?
> 8. Find the proof that bullet CE 399 contained the blood or clothing
> fibers from either victim, or bone particles of Governor Connally.
Why does Gil believe such evidence was found and processed?
> 9. Show us how a 36" rifle that was shipped from Klein's Sporting
> Goods became a 40" rifle.
Klein`s sent Oswald a rifle with the serial number C2766. That is
the rifle they sent, and that is the rifle Oswald used.
> 10. Show us the photograph of the paper "gunsack" on the 6th floor as
> found.
Why does Gil think such a photo exists?
> Show us where Pete Barnes marked the shells J.M. Poe gave him and
> where he identified those markings as his under oath.
Show us what initials are on those shells, Gil.
> 11. Find the evidence that the bullets removed from the body of JD
> Tippit were fired from the Oswald handgun to the exclusion of all
> other weapons.
The shells recovered from the scene were fired by the handgun Oswald
was captured with.
If the retard Gil would look at what is in evidence instead of
making stupid demands for what is not, perhaps he could figure out who
was responsible for these crimes.
Gil Jesus
< lone nut nonsense snipped due to lack of interest >
STRIKE ONE -- THE FBI BALLISTICS EXPERT
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets
have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
( 3 H 473 )
Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body
of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that
they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been
fired from that gun.
( 3 H 482 )
Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do
you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that.
Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they COULD have,
on the basis of the rifling characteristics--they COULD have been.
However, NO CONCLUSION COULD BE REACHED FROM AN ACTUAL COMPARISON OF
THESE BULLETS WITH TEST
BULLETS OBTAINED FROM THAT GUN.
Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are NOT a lot of similar
markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same,
or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are NOT
a lot of similarities. THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT SIMILARITIES TO EFFECT
AN IDENTIFICATION.
Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne's question negatively, THESE
BULLETS COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED BY ANOTHER WEAPON ?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. THAT IS CORRECT. Either this weapon or ANOTHER WEAPON
THAT HAS THE SAME RIFLING CHARACTERISTICS.
( 3 H 483 )
STRIKE TWO --- THE HSCA BALLISTICS EXPERT
Mr. EDGAR. Regarding CE-143, Oswald's revolver, do your test-fired
bullets match, microscopically, with CE-602, 603, 604, and 605 ?
Mr. LUTZ. Are these the bullets that were recovered from Officer
Tippit?
Mr. EDGAR. These were the bullets that were recovered from the body of
Officer Tippit.
Mr. LUTZ. Our microscopic examination and comparison of these bullets
FAILED TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THIS REVOLVER AS THE ONE THAT FIRED
THOSE BULLETS.
( 1 HSCA 486 )
STRIKE THREE -- THE HSCA FINAL CONCLUSIONS
"As for the evidence in the Tippit shooting, THE BULLETS REMOVED FROM
THE OFFICER'S BODY COULD NOT BE LINKED TO OSWALD'S REVOLVER".
( 1 HSCA 443 )
" Regarding the evidence from the Tippit shooting, THE BULLETS REMOVED
FROM THE OFFICER'S BODY COULD NOT BE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED WITH
OSWALD'S REVOLVER." ( 7 HSCA 357 )
"....The panel was unable to conclude that the Tippit bullets were
fired from the CE 143 revolver." ( 7 HSCA 381 )
Walt
> Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> know) but I will try once again.
>
>
> 1. How many times was Tippit shot?
Five times, and ALL OF THE HITS WERE IN THE KILL ZONE .. EXCELLENT
shooting for even an EXPERT with a hand gun....And impossible for an
inexperienced shooter with a wornout old pistol with a sawed off
barrel. Four bullets enter VITAL areas of Tippit's body, and one
struck a button on his jacket. ( If he was wearing a jacket who owned
the jacket that was hanging in his car?? )
> 2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
Appears to be that the killer refused to be taken under arrest.
( contrary to Oswald who had ample opportunity to attempt to shhot his
way out of the theater, but didn't )
> 3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
There are numerous descriptions of the killers clothing... NONE of
them match the clothes that Oswald was wearing at the time of his
arrest. The cops had to produce a jacket which vaguely fit the
discription of the killers jacket and claim that it was Oswald's.
> 4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
Appears to have been a weapon that would fire a .38 caliber bullet.
> 5. Who killed Tippit? (Of course none of you idiots know a name but
> just IN GENERAL who does your evidence reveal killed Tippit?)
Someone who was a hell of a lot better with a handgun than Lee Oswald
was. Whoever shot Tippit was very experienced with a handgun and
could fire accurately from the hip. ( all of the bullets traveled
from about hip high in an upward trajectory)
> 6. What happened to the Tippit murder weapon?
Stupid question..... The killer kept it and discarded it later.
> 7. What happened to the Tippit murder bullets?
The DPD took pssession of them but didn't turn them over to the FBI
until much later.
> 8. Where did Tippit's killer flee to?
Another stupid question..... The police didn't arrest him so ....quien
sabe??
Walt
IMPOSSIBLE!!!!..... The rifle would have to have been over SIX FEET
LONG!!..to enable Worrel to see six inches of it protruding out PAST
the window ledge beneath the sixth floor window.
The THEORY IS:... Oswald sat on a box about 30 inch (2 1/2 feet) back
from the INSDE (interior) wall and rested his 40 INCH ( 3 1/4 feet)
rifle on a stack of boxes, and fired out through a window that was
placed in a wall that was over TWO FEET thick!!.
How the hell could Worrel have seen six inches of a 40 inch rifle at
the shoulder of a man that was back SIX FEET from the EXTERIOR edge of
the cement ledge beneath the winow???
Walt
> Those "I saw a rifle" witnesses don't prove Oswald's guilt (except for
> Brennan),
Brennan said that the man he saw with the rifle was in his early
thirties ( Oswald was in his early twenties)
Brennan said the man weighed as much as 175 pounds ( Oswald weighed
140 pounds)
Brennan said the man was dressed in a dingy white shirt and trousers
that were a shade lighter than the shirt ( Oswald was dressed in a
DARK reddish brown coloored shirt and DARK gray trousers)
aggie
> On May 2, 8:19=EF=BF=BDam, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> < lone nut nonsense snipped due to lack of interest >
Lack of knowledge, more likely. Can't even answer a simple True-False quiz
about his hero's own statements.
Gil Jesus
> IMPOSSIBLE!!!!..... The rifle would have to have been over SIX FEET
> LONG!!..to enable Worrel to see six inches of it protruding out PAST
> the window ledge beneath the sixth floor window.
The post wasn't made to state as fact what Worrell saw. It was made to
show that Worrell, and all of the other names Von Pein mentioned,
never saw the gunman.
He suggested that the testimony of those witnesses indicated Oswald's
guilt.
It did no such thing.
Ben Holmes
>
>Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 1, 9:07=EF=BF=BDpm, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innocent as
>> > Hitl=
>> er
>> > in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow. Three
>> > wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire. Why not add
>> > Joh=
>> n
>> > Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your list of
>> > murdering heroes?
>>
>> Hey "aggie":
>>
>> Feel free to provide any of the following evidence proving the guilt
>> of Oswald:
Snipped and ran away!!!
It's always amusing to see how LNT'er kooks can't deal with the actual evidence
in this case.
Ben Holmes
ROTFLMAO!!!
A LNT'er, accusing a CT'er of a lack of knowledge concerning the evidence in
this case!!!
Anytime you'd like to step up to the plate, and take a swing at the real
evidence in this case, the 45 Questions await you...
aggie
> In article <20100502075318.747$D...@newsreader.com>, aggie says...
> >
> >Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On May 1, 9:07=EF=BF=BDpm, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innocent as
> >> > Hitl=
> >> er
> >> > in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow.
> >> > Three wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire. Why
> >> > not add Joh=
> >> n
> >> > Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your list
> >> > of murdering heroes?
> >>
> >> Hey "aggie":
> >>
> >> Feel free to provide any of the following evidence proving the guilt
> >> of Oswald:
>
> Snipped and ran away!!!
>
> It's always amusing to see how LNT'er kooks can't deal with the actual
> evidence in this case.
That's one of the most ironic statements a CN as ever made. If you don't
know what irony is, I'd be happy to provide you with definitions. And, no,
Alanis Morrisette didn't get it right. But here's a hint: "Almost all irony
involves commentary that heightens tension naturally involved in the state
and fate of a person (in the present, or the past) who badly needs to know
a given fact they could easily know but does not." Fits CNs to a tee.
Gil Jesus
Looks like we got an old troll with a new screenname:
One post in the last 3 years and now all of a sudden
a LN expert......ROFLMAO
Ben Holmes
And yet, it's *STILL* a fact, that you will refuse to give reasonable and non-
conspiratorial explanations for the known evidence.
Here's a simple one: Explain why the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder,
who happened to be less than a dozen feet away, and ALSO happened to be a police
officer, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR.
There's a perfectly reasonable explanation, unfortunately for you, it's not non-
conspiratorial. His testimony would have sunk the SBT. But by all means, give it
a try... perhaps you can do what *NO-ONE* else has been able to do... provide a
*reasonable* and non-conspiratorial explanation for this incredible historical
fact.
Or perhaps you like physical evidence... why not explain why *NO-ONE*,
prosectors or radiologists, saw the 6.5mm virtually round object seen today in
the AP X-ray. There is, of course, a perfectly reasonable explanation, but
unfortunately for you, it's not non-conspiratorial.
Or, perhaps you enjoy philosophy better... tell us why the WC and the HSCA
provably *LIED* about their own evidence in order to come up with their
"conclusions". When does the truth need lies to support it?
You clearly know what irony is, why not explain the irony in the fact that
Bugliosi clearly knew about the "16 Smoking Guns," yet refused to provide *any*
explanation or refutation...
Naturally, I don't expect any freebies... make a serious effort to answer any or
all of these, and I'll do the same for the questions of your choice that are
evidence related.
But I suspect that you'll do what every LNT'er eventually does, sooner or
later... dance and run away.
Only time will tell...
Ben Holmes
Gil
Jesus says...
>
>On May 2, 12:58=EF=BF=BDam, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect "aggie" (from Texas no doubt) has run away.....
>
>Looks like we got an old troll with a new screenname:
>
>One post in the last 3 years and now all of a sudden
>a LN expert......ROFLMAO
>
>NMMhJCtSXXHOsSu1WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww
I'd say we just have someone changing names again. It's an endearing trait that
LNT'ers have, of constantly posting under different names...
aeffects
Dudster the BUDster.... your below response is one of the dumbest lone
nut I've seen here. Ya panti-waist twerp, ya need to grow some
intellectual nads.... is it ANY wonder why WCR morons have defended
utter nonsense for 40+ years.... lordy, they're stupid.....
Bud
> Top Post
>
> Dudster the BUDster.... your below response is one of the dumbest lone
> nut I've seen here.
Jeez, did you see what the dunce was offering to work with? Can`t
always turn horse apples into diamonds.
> Ya panti-waist twerp, ya need to grow some
> intellectual nads.... is it ANY wonder why WCR morons have defended
> utter nonsense for 40+ years.... lordy, they're stupid.....
Gil was offering some pretty poor ideas in the form of questions.
What you retards don`t seem to realize is that you can never show a
conspiracy without at some point uncovering some conspiring. Since
there wasn`t any, you kooks just have nowhere to go. Certainly making
demands of LNers to explain things to you isn`t taking you any closer
to the promised land of conspiracy.
aggie
> On May 2, 12:58=EF=BF=BDam, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect "aggie" (from Texas no doubt) has run away.....
>
> Looks like we got an old troll with a new screenname:
>
> One post in the last 3 years and now all of a sudden
> a LN expert......ROFLMAO
More suppositions based on no evidence from the CNs. What a surprise. Don't
any of you ever tire of making wild guesses? Or do you think if you just
keep swinging in the dark that eventually you'll hit the pi�ata? After
nearly fifty years, the other kids have long since gone home from the
party, raised families, led productive lives, retired and started
collecting Social Security. Not you fruitcakes; you still keep swinging
away in the dark while everyone else chuckles at you, because there was no
pi�ata to begin with! Now, answer this since you brought it up: how many
posts in how many years does it take to be an expert? Be real specific.
After setting a trap for yourself by opening your big mouth, it's going to
be mighty tough to get your foot back out without gnawing it off.
Ben Holmes
>
>Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 2, 12:58=EF=BF=BDam, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I suspect "aggie" (from Texas no doubt) has run away.....
>>
>> Looks like we got an old troll with a new screenname:
>>
>> One post in the last 3 years and now all of a sudden
>> a LN expert......ROFLMAO
>
>
>
>More suppositions based on no evidence from the CNs.
How untrue! Experience & history on this forum... shows us exactly this.
>What a surprise. Don't
>any of you ever tire of making wild guesses? Or do you think if you just
>keep swinging in the dark that eventually you'll hit the pi�ata? After
>nearly fifty years, the other kids have long since gone home from the
>party, raised families, led productive lives, retired and started
>collecting Social Security. Not you fruitcakes; you still keep swinging
>away in the dark while everyone else chuckles at you, because there was no
>pi�ata to begin with! Now, answer this since you brought it up: how many
>posts in how many years does it take to be an expert? Be real specific.
>After setting a trap for yourself by opening your big mouth, it's going to
>be mighty tough to get your foot back out without gnawing it off.
The 45 Questions await... demonstrate your expertise in the only convincing way
possible - provide reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations for the
evidence in this case.
aggie
<sigh>
CNs don't want "reasonable and non- conspiratorial (sic) explanations for
the known evidence." That's been done and CNs won't accept it. They want to
be tucked in bed with their thumbs in their mouths and some sort of
reassurance that Everything's Going To Be Alright. They want a perfect
world without contradictions where everything goes the way they want, never
realizing that until they ALL agree on what the conspiracy was, there will
always be contradictions. CNs need a Unified Conspiracy Theory in order to
be credible. They don't have it and never will. And you can take that to
the bank. Just yelling, "There was a conspiracy!" doesn't solve a thing. If
there was one, there was ONLY one. Why can't the CNs understand that? Why
can't they agree? Because not one of them can prove their own pet theory
and every one refuses to accept anyone else's. That's lunacy, plain and
simple.
If you don't want to know what the definition of irony is, just say so.
And, yes, I'm snipping all the nonsense the CNs regard as pertinent. None
of it is until they all get together and agree with each other, and I have
a perfect right to trash it. As a matter of fact, usenet etiquette requires
it.
CNs can dress up a pig in the nicest gown you've ever seen, but it's still
a pig, and you still can't take it to the prom.
Walt
>
> > >Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> > >> In article <20100502075318.747...@newsreader.com>, aggie says...
Hey, I know what we should do....since we can't be in 100% agreement
about the DETAILS of the conspiracy, let's just join the LNer's and
PRETEND that Lyin Bastard Johnson was as pure as the new fallen snow
and wouldn't lie, his hand picked "Blue Ribbon Committee" performed an
honest investigation and gave us the gospel in The Warren Report.
In other words let's just tuck our heads in our asses like all
LNer's........
> If you don't want to know what the definition of irony is, just say so.
> And, yes, I'm snipping all the nonsense the CNs regard as pertinent. None
> of it is until they all get together and agree with each other, and I have
> a perfect right to trash it. As a matter of fact, usenet etiquette requires
> it.
>
> CNs can dress up a pig in the nicest gown you've ever seen, but it's still
> a pig, and you still can't take it to the prom.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
"aggie" <agne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20100502195511.247$0...@newsreader.com...
aggie
>
> Hey, I know what we should do....since we can't be in 100% agreement
> about the DETAILS of the conspiracy, let's just join the LNer's and
> PRETEND that Lyin Bastard Johnson was as pure as the new fallen snow
> and wouldn't lie, his hand picked "Blue Ribbon Committee" performed an
> honest investigation and gave us the gospel in The Warren Report.
>
> In other words let's just tuck our heads in our asses like all
> LNer's........
You still don't get it, do you? It's not the LNers you need to convince.
Every one of them believes the same thing: Oswald, alone, in the TSBD, with
the Carcano. You Conspiracy Nuts think it's LN vs CN. It isn't. It's CN vs
CN. How can you possibly convince an LN if you can't even convince
yourselves? You're a stampeding herd, scattering in every direction and
trying to convince the drovers to go over the cliffs with you. Total
lunacy. Do you honestly believe that ALL the conspiracy theories are
correct, even when they contradict each other?
The first thing you fruitcakes need to do is agree on Oswald: was he a
shooter or not? Until you do that, you'll never get anywhere--even if every
single living person on the planet should miraculously agree that there was
a conspiracy. Get agreement among all CNs on Oswald, whatever that
agreement is. Until you do that, you'll just keep spinning your wheels like
you have been for the last 46 years. So far, all you nutcases have been
doing is running around the hallways yelling, "Fire!" It would be very
helpful if you all could agree just where in the asylum that fire is.
LNs: Oswald, alone, in the TSBD, with the Carcano.
CNs: Everyone, everywhere, with everything and everyone else.
Walt
> Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey, I know what we should do....since we can't be in 100% agreement
> > about the DETAILS of the conspiracy, let's just join the LNer's and
> > PRETEND that Lyin Bastard Johnson was as pure as the new fallen snow
> > and wouldn't lie, his hand picked "Blue Ribbon Committee" performed an
> > honest investigation and gave us the gospel in The Warren Report.
>
> > In other words let's just tuck our heads in our asses like all
> > LNer's........
>
> You still don't get it, do you? It's not the LNers you need to convince.
> Every one of them believes the same thing: Oswald, alone, in the TSBD, with
> the Carcano.
Yes, I'm well aware that LNer's believe in fairy tales..........
Ben Holmes
You can argue what we want or don't want - the FACT is that you cannot provide
reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations for the known evidence.
>That's been done and CNs won't accept it.
Then instead of snipping the challenges, simply provide the link to where this
"reasonable and non-conspiratorial" explanation is at.
But you can't do that - it doesn't exist.
So instead, you snip and run away...
>They want to
>be tucked in bed with their thumbs in their mouths and some sort of
>reassurance that Everything's Going To Be Alright. They want a perfect
>world without contradictions where everything goes the way they want, never
>realizing that until they ALL agree on what the conspiracy was, there will
>always be contradictions. CNs need a Unified Conspiracy Theory in order to
>be credible.
Nope. We already have one. *ALL* CT'ers accept that there were multiple gunmen
in Dealey Plaza. That is, after all, what the evidence shows.
>They don't have it and never will. And you can take that to
>the bank. Just yelling, "There was a conspiracy!" doesn't solve a thing.
And this is why we don't do that. What we do is point to the evidence... it's
the EVIDENCE in this case that leads to the solution.
But you can't face the evidence, because it *DOESN'T* support the fiction that
the WC tried to pass off. The fact that you can't defend the provable lies of
the WC (and HSCA) demonstrates this.
>If there was one, there was ONLY one. Why can't the CNs understand that? Why
>can't they agree?
Quite simple, the *evidence* doesn't agree. And since no real investigation was
really conducted, no adversarial process in place, you can choose your theory
merely by selecting the evidence you choose to accept as more credible.
It's amusing that a troll such as yourself can't understand that.
>Because not one of them can prove their own pet theory
>and every one refuses to accept anyone else's.
Oh? Can you point to the CT'er who refuses to accept that there were multiple
gunmen in Dealey Plaza that day?
>That's lunacy, plain and simple.
What's "lunacy" is your cowardice when faced with the evidence.
Or perhaps you're like one of our more notable trolls, "JGL", who didn't even
know how to spell "prosector."
But by all means, step up to the plate and show us that you understand the
evidence in this case.
*MAKE YOUR CASE*... instead of this ad hominem nonsense.
>If you don't want to know what the definition of irony is, just say so.
>And, yes, I'm snipping all the nonsense the CNs regard as pertinent.
Of course you are. The evidence can't be handled by trolls or LNT'ers... it
frightens them. They know that the WC and HSCA simply lied about that evidence
in order to make things 'fit together', and you surely suspect that you can't do
any better.
>None of it is until they all get together and agree with each other, and I have
>a perfect right to trash it.
You have a perfect right to cowardice, no-one will deny it.
But if you actually want to *convince* anyone - you'll have to lay out the
evidence, logical argument, and citations.
Ad hominem simply won't do the job. All *that* will do is quickly get you
killfiled or ignored.
>As a matter of fact, usenet etiquette requires it.
How silly!
>CNs can dress up a pig in the nicest gown you've ever seen, but it's still
>a pig, and you still can't take it to the prom.
Well folks, here it is... a new LNT'er troll who simply snipped and ran...
Here's the snipped material:
Here's a simple one: Explain why the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder,
who happened to be less than a dozen feet away, and ALSO happened to be a police
officer, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR.
There's a perfectly reasonable explanation, unfortunately for you, it's not non-
conspiratorial. His testimony would have sunk the SBT. But by all means, give it
a try... perhaps you can do what *NO-ONE* else has been able to do... provide a
*reasonable* and non-conspiratorial explanation for this incredible historical
fact.
Or perhaps you like physical evidence... why not explain why *NO-ONE*,
prosectors or radiologists, saw the 6.5mm virtually round object seen today in
the AP X-ray. There is, of course, a perfectly reasonable explanation, but
unfortunately for you, it's not non-conspiratorial.
Or, perhaps you enjoy philosophy better... tell us why the WC and the HSCA
provably *LIED* about their own evidence in order to come up with their
"conclusions". When does the truth need lies to support it?
You clearly know what irony is, why not explain the irony in the fact that
Bugliosi clearly knew about the "16 Smoking Guns," yet refused to provide *any*
explanation or refutation...
Naturally, I don't expect any freebies... make a serious effort to answer any or
all of these, and I'll do the same for the questions of your choice that are
evidence related.
But I suspect that you'll do what every LNT'er eventually does, sooner or
later... dance and run away.
Only time will tell...
(And, it looks like it didn't take any time at all to reveal our newest troll to
be a coward...)
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 2, 7:48=A0pm, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > In article <20100502123310.597...@newsreader.com>, aggie says...
>>
>> > >Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > >> In article <20100502075318.747...@newsreader.com>, aggie says...
>>
>> > >> >Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>e:
>>
>> > >> >> > So true, and a lucky break for you since he was about as innoce=
>nt
>> > >> >> > as Hitl=3D
>> > >> >> er
>> > >> >> > in the murder of the jews. Or as innocent as O.J. Simpson. Wow.
>> > >> >> > Three wonderful, innocent people you can look up to and admire.
>> > >> >> n
>> > >> >> > Wilkes Booth, Pontius Pilate, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot to your
>> > >> >> > list of murdering heroes?
>>
>> > >> >> Hey "aggie":
>>
>> > >> >> Feel free to provide any of the following evidence proving the
>> > >> >> guilt of Oswald:
>>
>> > >> Snipped and ran away!!!
>>
>al
>> > >> evidence in this case.
>>
>'t
>> > >know what irony is, I'd be happy to provide you with definitions. And,
>> > >no, Alanis Morrisette didn't get it right. But here's a hint: "Almost
>d
>> > >in the state and fate of a person (in the present, or the past) who
>> > >badly needs to know a given fact they could easily know but does not."
>> > >Fits CNs to a tee.
>>
>nd
>> > non- conspiratorial explanations for the known evidence.
>>
>> <sigh>
>> CNs don't want "reasonable and non- conspiratorial (sic) explanations for
>to
>> be tucked in bed with their thumbs in their mouths and some sort of
>> reassurance that Everything's Going To Be Alright. They want a perfect
>er
>> realizing that until they ALL agree on what the conspiracy was, there wil=
>l
>> always be contradictions. CNs need a Unified Conspiracy Theory in order t=
>o
>> be credible. They don't have it and never will. And you can take that to
>If
>> there was one, there was ONLY one. Why can't the CNs understand that? Why
>> can't they agree? Because not one of them can prove their own pet theory
>> and every one refuses to accept anyone else's. That's lunacy, plain and
>> simple.
>
>Hey, I know what we should do....since we can't be in 100% agreement
>about the DETAILS of the conspiracy, let's just join the LNer's and
>PRETEND that Lyin Bastard Johnson was as pure as the new fallen snow
>and wouldn't lie, his hand picked "Blue Ribbon Committee" performed an
>honest investigation and gave us the gospel in The Warren Report.
>
>In other words let's just tuck our heads in our asses like all
>LNer's........
Actually, since the LNT'ers don't have a unified theory, this kook is
hypocritical from the start.
For example, where did the bullet enter JFK's head? The answer depends on which
"investigation" the LNT'er chooses to accept.
>> If you don't want to know what the definition of irony is, just say so.
>> And, yes, I'm snipping all the nonsense the CNs regard as pertinent. None
>> of it is until they all get together and agree with each other, and I hav=
>e
>> a perfect right to trash it. As a matter of fact, usenet etiquette requir=
>es
>> it.
>>
>> CNs can dress up a pig in the nicest gown you've ever seen, but it's stil=
>l
>> a pig, and you still can't take it to the prom.
Ben Holmes
>
>Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey, I know what we should do....since we can't be in 100% agreement
>> about the DETAILS of the conspiracy, let's just join the LNer's and
>> PRETEND that Lyin Bastard Johnson was as pure as the new fallen snow
>> and wouldn't lie, his hand picked "Blue Ribbon Committee" performed an
>> honest investigation and gave us the gospel in The Warren Report.
>>
>> In other words let's just tuck our heads in our asses like all
>> LNer's........
>
>You still don't get it, do you? It's not the LNers you need to convince.
Can't be done. Ever try to convince a kook that Elvis really *did* die? Same
with the LNT'er crowd. Evidence doesn't faze 'em, they simply spin, dance, snip,
and run away.
>Every one of them believes the same thing: Oswald, alone, in the TSBD, with
>the Carcano.
Just as CT'ers all believe the same thing: Multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza.
Why not explain your hypocrisy?
>You Conspiracy Nuts think it's LN vs CN. It isn't. It's CN vs
>CN. How can you possibly convince an LN if you can't even convince
>yourselves?
We have little need to convince anyone... according to polls, up to 90% of
Americans reject your theory. How does it feel to be in the overwhelming
minority?
Indeed, starting back in 1963, there *NEVER* has been a poll that put belief in
your theory to be even a simple majority. You've *ALWAYS* been a minority.
>You're a stampeding herd, scattering in every direction and
>trying to convince the drovers to go over the cliffs with you. Total
>lunacy. Do you honestly believe that ALL the conspiracy theories are
>correct, even when they contradict each other?
Do you honestly believe that ALL the LNT'er theories are correct, even when they
contradict each other?
(My crystal ball predicts utter silence or denial...)
Do you honestly believe that your demonstrated cowardice when it comes to the
evidence in this case will convince anyone at all?
Even John will give you an 'F' if you can't support your ad hominem attacks with
*some* reference to evidence.
>The first thing you fruitcakes need to do is agree on Oswald: was he a
>shooter or not? Until you do that, you'll never get anywhere--even if every
>single living person on the planet should miraculously agree that there was
>a conspiracy.
Polls already put that number in the "miraculous"... you'll always have those
who believe the moon landing was an Arizona desert... or that Elvis is still
alive. How does it feel to be in that same crowd, percentage-wise?
>Get agreement among all CNs on Oswald, whatever that
>agreement is. Until you do that, you'll just keep spinning your wheels like
>you have been for the last 46 years. So far, all you nutcases have been
>doing is running around the hallways yelling, "Fire!" It would be very
>helpful if you all could agree just where in the asylum that fire is.
>
>LNs: Oswald, alone, in the TSBD, with the Carcano.
>CNs: Everyone, everywhere, with everything and everyone else.
If this were true, why do you have such a fear of the evidence in this case?
You *have* at least browsed through the WCR, haven't you?
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c70e69ebebb7b213
Aggie, of course, is 100% correct.
LNers agree on Lee Harvey Oswald murdering JFK from the 6th Floor of
the TSBD, by firing exactly 3 shots from LHO's own rifle (Mannlicher-
Carcano #C2766, which is a serial number that was UNIQUE TO OSWALD'S
RIFLE; and that last statement about the serial number has never been
proven to be false, even though many kooks have tried to prove it
false).
CT-Kooks, on the other hand, can't agree on whether Oswald fired ANY
shots at JFK (with nearly all of the conspiracy-loving lunatics who
post at any of the various "JFK Forums" on the Internet being part of
the minority of humans who believe that Oswald was totally innocent of
shooting Kennedy). It seems at times that that entire minority is
posting on Internet forums.
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
CT-Kooks also don't agree on the number of shots that were fired. It
varies from 4 to 12, and maybe more, depending on which kook you're
talking about at any particular time.
Bob Groden, for instance, likes the idea of up to ten shots being
fired in Dealey Plaza--with ZERO of those ten likely coming from the
"Oswald window" at all! [See pages 20 through 40 of Groden's "The
Killing Of A President" for Bob's complete shooting timeline of
hilarity. http://The-Killing-Of-A-President.blogspot.com]
Instead, according to Groden, the goofball plotters who were framing
poor patsy Oswald apparently decided it was a good idea to fire from
gobs of locations WHERE THEIR PATSY WAS NOT LOCATED, and then the
retard plotters just did a "Hail Mary!", throwing up their collective
arms, hoping and praying that all of the many bullets penetrating the
victims from the many non-Oswald guns wouldn't be noticed by anyone
afterwards.
Or: Better still! The goofball conspirators hoped and prayed that the
U.S. Government AND the Dallas Police Department would be wanting to
FRAME THE EXACT SAME PATSY NAMED OSWALD after the assassination took
place! Therefore, all of the "real" evidence in the case would be
swept under the carpet and replaced by FAKE and PLANTED evidence to
incriminate everyone's favorite patsy for all 11/22/63 murders in
Dallas, Texas!
Great plan there, huh?
Those retarded plotters sure got lucky, didn't they, when LBJ and the
Warren boys AND the Dallas Police Department AND the Dallas Sheriff's
Department all decided to get together and frame the same guy named
Oswald that the PRE-assassination plotters (Shaw? Ferrie? Banister?
Marcello? Trafficante? Wallace? Others?) were attempting to set up as
their lone patsy for Kennedy's death?!
Whew! You don't get lucky like that every day (if you're a goofball
plotter, that is, who decides to frame a man for murder and then
doesn't even bother, per Groden, to fire a single shot from the place
where your patsy is supposed to be shooting from).
Those plotters must be great in Vegas. They can beat ANY odds!
Many CT-Kooks on the Internet also believe Oswald was innocent of
killing TIPPIT TOO! Now this boner is one for the books, especially
since the kooks' favorite patsy for all November 22 murders just
happened to have the Tippit murder weapon IN HIS HANDS when he was
arrested just 35 minutes after Tippit was shot.
But, the conspiracy faithful can always jump into the sack with mega-
kook John Judge, who thinks that the Dallas Police took Oswald's
revolver into the theater themselves (apparently the cops then shoved
the gun into Oswald's hands, and then Oswald, being the obedient patsy
that he was, decided to use the planted gun to try and kill some more
cops in the theater before being subdued).
In short, the conspiracy-happy kooks who occupy space on the World
Wide Web are fond of their unique little club, known as the "Anybody
But Oswald" fraternity.
It doesn't cost anything to join that club. The only requirement is
that you be totally retarded when it comes to the actual evidence
associated with the murders of President John F. Kennedy and Dallas
policeman J.D. Tippit.
And, sadly, we are walking among retards on a daily basis at this
forum/asylum.
Sam Brown
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:hrlcc...@drn.newsguy.com...
Since when is it a popularity contest Benny? Centuries ago the majority
believed that the earth was flat. Does that mean we are to throw away all
that we know because an idea is popular? How simplistic and silly.
>
> Indeed, starting back in 1963, there *NEVER* has been a poll that put
> belief in
> your theory to be even a simple majority. You've *ALWAYS* been a minority.
Silly, indefensible lack of reasoning is not an argument you intellectual
lightweight
>
>
>
>>You're a stampeding herd, scattering in every direction and
>>trying to convince the drovers to go over the cliffs with you. Total
>>lunacy. Do you honestly believe that ALL the conspiracy theories are
>>correct, even when they contradict each other?
>
>
> Do you honestly believe that ALL the LNT'er theories are correct, even
> when they
> contradict each other?
>
> (My crystal ball predicts utter silence or denial...)
Where does Aggie make this staement? My crystal ball predicts utter silence.
>
> Do you honestly believe that your demonstrated cowardice when it comes to
> the
> evidence in this case will convince anyone at all?
Did they teach you to be a bully in the marine corp Benny, or was it
something you picked up all on your lonesome?
>
> Even John will give you an 'F' if you can't support your ad hominem
> attacks with
> *some* reference to evidence.
It's rather embarrassing that you attempt to berate others for your own
demonstrated short(ahem)comings. Oh dear.
>
>
>>The first thing you fruitcakes need to do is agree on Oswald: was he a
>>shooter or not? Until you do that, you'll never get anywhere--even if
>>every
>>single living person on the planet should miraculously agree that there
>>was
>>a conspiracy.
>
>
> Polls already put that number in the "miraculous"... you'll always have
> those
> who believe the moon landing was an Arizona desert... or that Elvis is
> still
> alive. How does it feel to be in that same crowd, percentage-wise?
Why is it so important that you be considered "one of the crowd" Benny. I
thought they were supposed to teach you to be a man in the marine corp.
Perhaps you fell through the cracks?
>
>
>>Get agreement among all CNs on Oswald, whatever that
>>agreement is. Until you do that, you'll just keep spinning your wheels
>>like
>>you have been for the last 46 years. So far, all you nutcases have been
>>doing is running around the hallways yelling, "Fire!" It would be very
>>helpful if you all could agree just where in the asylum that fire is.
>>
>>LNs: Oswald, alone, in the TSBD, with the Carcano.
>>CNs: Everyone, everywhere, with everything and everyone else.
>
>
> If this were true, why do you have such a fear of the evidence in this
> case?
It's you that's afraid Benny. You're a follower not a leader.
Bud
> In article <d6af08af-e2e6-4049-a583-ed3200dab...@k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
The theory stays the same no matter which location people feel the
bullet entered, retard.
What we have is like two LN looking at the same car, and one says it
looks more green than blue, and the other feels it`s more blue than
green, but both agree it`s a car. And then one CTer comes up and says
it`s a submarine, and another comes up and says it`s a hot air
balloon.
mucher1
Yep, that's what Ben and his big, happy CT family call a *unified
theory*.
aggie
<Sniparoo!>
> You can argue what we want or don't want - the FACT is that you cannot
> provide reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations for the known
> evidence.
If God Himself explained it to you, you wouldn't believe it.
>
> >That's been done and CNs won't accept it.
>
> Then instead of snipping the challenges, simply provide the link to where
> this "reasonable and non-conspiratorial" explanation is at.
>
> But you can't do that - it doesn't exist.
Not in your mind it doesn't.
>
> So instead, you snip and run away...
Snip, yes. Run away? Then how come I'm still here trying to reason with a
lugnut?
>
> >They want to
> >be tucked in bed with their thumbs in their mouths and some sort of
> >reassurance that Everything's Going To Be Alright. They want a perfect
> >world without contradictions where everything goes the way they want,
> >never realizing that until they ALL agree on what the conspiracy was,
> >there will always be contradictions. CNs need a Unified Conspiracy
> >Theory in order to be credible.
>
> Nope. We already have one. *ALL* CT'ers accept that there were multiple
> gunmen in Dealey Plaza. That is, after all, what the evidence shows.
Absolutely untrue. Some CNs believe that Oswald was the only shooter but
that he conspired with others who betrayed him. Some CNs believe that the
only one gunman did the shooting but not from the TSBD. The GK, the sewer
drains, the overpass, and the Dal-Tex building have all been proposed by
CNs for a single shooter. And they all have what you call evidence to
support their views. Nope, you knuckleheads still can't agree on anything
except that there was a conspiracy.
>
> >They don't have it and never will. And you can take that to
> >the bank. Just yelling, "There was a conspiracy!" doesn't solve a thing.
>
> And this is why we don't do that. What we do is point to the evidence...
> it's the EVIDENCE in this case that leads to the solution.
Yes, it does.
>
> But you can't face the evidence, because it *DOESN'T* support the fiction
> that the WC tried to pass off. The fact that you can't defend the
> provable lies of the WC (and HSCA) demonstrates this.
So you keep insisting. Meanwhile, you CNs run around accepting everything
but the truth.
>
> >If there was one, there was ONLY one. Why can't the CNs understand that?
> >Why can't they agree?
>
> Quite simple, the *evidence* doesn't agree. And since no real
> investigation was really conducted, no adversarial process in place, you
> can choose your theory merely by selecting the evidence you choose to
> accept as more credible.
Hoo-hah! So there WAS more than one conspiracy? Dealey Plaza must have
resembled a war zone with all those competing groups blazing away from
every possible angle! It's a wonder anyone that was there that day got out
alive.
You dimbulbs are absolutely amazing.
>
> It's amusing that a troll such as yourself can't understand that.
Small things amuse small minds, I suppose.
>
> >Because not one of them can prove their own pet theory
> >and every one refuses to accept anyone else's.
>
> Oh? Can you point to the CT'er who refuses to accept that there were
> multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza that day?
Yes.
>
> >That's lunacy, plain and simple.
>
> What's "lunacy" is your cowardice when faced with the evidence.
Do you even know what cowardice is? You've already demonstrated that
understand neither irony nor lunacy.
>
> Or perhaps you're like one of our more notable trolls, "JGL", who didn't
> even know how to spell "prosector."
You don't suppose that there's at least a teeny-weeny probability that
omitting the "u" could have been a typo? No, that would be absolutely
impossible, wouldn't it?
Sorry, Ben Holmes, but I couldn't help myself and went and snipped the rest
of your nonsense. It's just a habit I can't seem to shake no matter how
hard I try. I'm so bad!
Bud
> In article <20100502202236.530...@newsreader.com>, aggie says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <20100502123310.597...@newsreader.com>, aggie says...
>
> >> >Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <20100502075318.747...@newsreader.com>, aggie says...
The FACT is that you can`t provide reasonable explainations, only
contrive, impossible retarded ones.
The FACT is that your whole approach is retarded, the most
reasonable approach when looking at a piece of evidence is to take it
at face value. Yet you retards rarely, if ever take this approach.
And by "face value", I mean accept information as it appears without
contriving invisible hands to explain it. I don`t believe some of the
information supplied by some witnesses is totally accurate, but I
don`t contrive invisible sources putting them up to making these
errors, thats just crazy. Which is why retards select this approach so
often when looking at evidence.
> >That's been done and CNs won't accept it.
>
> Then instead of snipping the challenges, simply provide the link to where this
> "reasonable and non-conspiratorial" explanation is at.
He pointed you towards the official investigations.
> But you can't do that - it doesn't exist.
>
> So instead, you snip and run away...
>
> >They want to
> >be tucked in bed with their thumbs in their mouths and some sort of
> >reassurance that Everything's Going To Be Alright. They want a perfect
> >world without contradictions where everything goes the way they want, never
> >realizing that until they ALL agree on what the conspiracy was, there will
> >always be contradictions. CNs need a Unified Conspiracy Theory in order to
> >be credible.
>
> Nope. We already have one. *ALL* CT'ers accept that there were multiple gunmen
> in Dealey Plaza. That is, after all, what the evidence shows.
But multiple shooters doesn`t establish a conspiracy, retard. If I
didn`t have the luxury of access to a building along the motorcade
route, and I drove along the route looking for a vantage to shoot
from, I think it`s likely I would have chosen Dealey Plaza. That would
not put me in cahoots with Oswald.
> >They don't have it and never will. And you can take that to
> >the bank. Just yelling, "There was a conspiracy!" doesn't solve a thing.
>
> And this is why we don't do that. What we do is point to the evidence... it's
> the EVIDENCE in this case that leads to the solution.
No, you retards carefully select some evidence, focus on that
exclusively, misinterpret it, and ignore anything that contradicts
what you want to believe. You disregard the clearest evidence to focus
muddle you can shape into any form you wish. You don`t investigate,
you play silly games with the evidence.
> But you can't face the evidence, because it *DOESN'T* support the fiction that
> the WC tried to pass off. The fact that you can't defend the provable lies of
> the WC (and HSCA) demonstrates this.
This in a nutshell is the retard approach. You can also see it
employed with the 9-11 kooks, if they can find or create problems with
the investigation, if there is any muddle, discrepancy or wording you
can exploit, any criticism you can level, then that means you are
proven correct. Problem is that you can do this with any
investigation, you can do it with every investigation ever conducted
against any serial killer for instance (the difference being there
isn`t thousands of kooks sifting through the evidence in these cases
looking to make issues out of everything), you can second guess,
criticize and exploit difficulties, ect. Since you can always do this,
so the ability to be able to do this is meaningless.
> >If there was one, there was ONLY one. Why can't the CNs understand that? Why
> >can't they agree?
>
> Quite simple, the *evidence* doesn't agree. And since no real investigation was
> really conducted,
You shouldn`t need an investigation to tell you what happened. All
you need to do is look at the evidence the DPD developed in the first
24 hours and it is clear who was responsible. Yet you kooks can`t even
determine that.
> no adversarial process in place, you can choose your theory
> merely by selecting the evidence you choose to accept as more credible.
>
> It's amusing that a troll such as yourself can't understand that.
It`s easy to understand. Even if you give different children the
same building blocks they will create different structures.
> >Because not one of them can prove their own pet theory
> >and every one refuses to accept anyone else's.
>
> Oh? Can you point to the CT'er who refuses to accept that there were multiple
> gunmen in Dealey Plaza that day?
Where do they say these gunman were? How many? Which ones were
responsible for what wounds?
> >That's lunacy, plain and simple.
>
> What's "lunacy" is your cowardice when faced with the evidence.
<snicker> Ben has no interest in an honest discussion of the
evidence.
> Or perhaps you're like one of our more notable trolls, "JGL", who didn't even
> know how to spell "prosector."
>
> But by all means, step up to the plate and show us that you understand the
> evidence in this case.
>
> *MAKE YOUR CASE*... instead of this ad hominem nonsense.
His observations seem to focus mainly on the kooks, not the case.
It makes sense to focus on the cause of the problems and not the
results.
> >If you don't want to know what the definition of irony is, just say so.
> >And, yes, I'm snipping all the nonsense the CNs regard as pertinent.
>
> Of course you are. The evidence can't be handled by trolls or LNT'ers... it
> frightens them. They know that the WC and HSCA simply lied about that evidence
> in order to make things 'fit together', and you surely suspect that you can't do
> any better.
Don`t need either investigation to determine who killed Kennedy. The
indications mounted immediately until only a retard would doubt their
validity.
> >None of it is until they all get together and agree with each other, and I have
> >a perfect right to trash it.
>
> You have a perfect right to cowardice, no-one will deny it.
Ben is such an intellectual pussy he hides behind his killfilter
from most of the opposition.
> But if you actually want to *convince* anyone - you'll have to lay out the
> evidence, logical argument, and citations.
DVP does that just about every day, and Ben has him killfiltered.
> Ad hominem simply won't do the job. All *that* will do is quickly get you
> killfiled or ignored.
>
> >As a matter of fact, usenet etiquette requires it.
>
> How silly!
>
> >CNs can dress up a pig in the nicest gown you've ever seen, but it's still
> >a pig, and you still can't take it to the prom.
>
> Well folks, here it is... a new LNT'er troll who simply snipped and ran...
>
> Here's the snipped material:
>
> Here's a simple one: Explain why the closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder,
> who happened to be less than a dozen feet away, and ALSO happened to be a police
> officer, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR.
Why did the WC say he wasn`t called, Ben?
> There's a perfectly reasonable explanation, unfortunately for you, it's not non-
> conspiratorial. His testimony would have sunk the SBT.
What a stupid idea this is. Does Ben really believe that had Chaney
testified, there would be no SBT?
>But by all means, give it
> a try... perhaps you can do what *NO-ONE* else has been able to do... provide a
> *reasonable* and non-conspiratorial explanation for this incredible historical
> fact.
Lets go with simplest, that he fell through the cracks.
> Or perhaps you like physical evidence... why not explain why *NO-ONE*,
> prosectors or radiologists, saw the 6.5mm virtually round object seen today in
> the AP X-ray.
This can only be described as a lie. I quoted Jerrol Custer, the
radiologist, saying he saw it in a post not a month ago. Ben replied
to it, so he must have seen it.
> There is, of course, a perfectly reasonable explanation, but
> unfortunately for you, it's not non-conspiratorial.
Ask Ben to give a reasonable explaination what purpose putting that
object in the x-ray serves. He won`t. He can`t.
> Or, perhaps you enjoy philosophy better... tell us why the WC and the HSCA
> provably *LIED* about their own evidence in order to come up with their
> "conclusions". When does the truth need lies to support it?
Why does the truth need narrowly selected issues to address?
> You clearly know what irony is, why not explain the irony in the fact that
> Bugliosi clearly knew about the "16 Smoking Guns," yet refused to provide *any*
> explanation or refutation...
As if he has to specifically address every squawk a kook anywhere
utters.
> Naturally, I don't expect any freebies... make a serious effort to answer any or
> all of these, and I'll do the same for the questions of your choice that are
> evidence related.
Ben doesn`t even think the Tippit slaying is connected to the
assassination.
> But I suspect that you'll do what every LNT'er eventually does, sooner or
> later... dance and run away.
One need only look at the long list of people you have killfiltered
to figure out who is the one who runs away.
> Only time will tell...
>
> (And, it looks like it didn't take any time at all to reveal our newest troll to
> be a coward...)
Perhaps you should hide behind your killfilter from him, thats manly
behavior to you.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
><Sniparoo!>
>
>> You can argue what we want or don't want - the FACT is that you cannot
>> provide reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations for the known
>> evidence.
>
>If God Himself explained it to you, you wouldn't believe it.
More ad hominem... still running away from the actual evidence in this case.
Why does the actual evidence scare you so much?
Why can't you debate the evidence in this case?
>> >That's been done and CNs won't accept it.
>>
>> Then instead of snipping the challenges, simply provide the link to where
>> this "reasonable and non-conspiratorial" explanation is at.
>>
>> But you can't do that - it doesn't exist.
>
>Not in your mind it doesn't.
Not in *anybody's* mind ... the fact that you refuse to provide a link to it is
all the proof any reasonable person needs.
You're arguing that answers have already been provided, despite your inability
to point them out. People simply aren't that stupid.
>> So instead, you snip and run away...
>
>Snip, yes. Run away? Then how come I'm still here trying to reason with a
>lugnut?
Yep... more ad hominem in place of debate on the evidence. Coward.
>> >They want to
>> >be tucked in bed with their thumbs in their mouths and some sort of
>> >reassurance that Everything's Going To Be Alright. They want a perfect
>> >world without contradictions where everything goes the way they want,
>> >never realizing that until they ALL agree on what the conspiracy was,
>> >there will always be contradictions. CNs need a Unified Conspiracy
>> >Theory in order to be credible.
>>
>> Nope. We already have one. *ALL* CT'ers accept that there were multiple
>> gunmen in Dealey Plaza. That is, after all, what the evidence shows.
>
>Absolutely untrue.
Then simply name the person. Let's have a chat with him/her.
>Some CNs believe that Oswald was the only shooter but
>that he conspired with others who betrayed him. Some CNs believe that the
>only one gunman did the shooting but not from the TSBD. The GK, the sewer
>drains, the overpass, and the Dal-Tex building have all been proposed by
>CNs for a single shooter. And they all have what you call evidence to
>support their views. Nope, you knuckleheads still can't agree on anything
>except that there was a conspiracy.
Where are these mythical people you're speaking of? They sound like LNT'ers to
me.
>> >They don't have it and never will. And you can take that to
>> >the bank. Just yelling, "There was a conspiracy!" doesn't solve a thing.
>>
>> And this is why we don't do that. What we do is point to the evidence...
>> it's the EVIDENCE in this case that leads to the solution.
>
>Yes, it does.
Then why are you so frightened of it?
>> But you can't face the evidence, because it *DOESN'T* support the fiction
>> that the WC tried to pass off. The fact that you can't defend the
>> provable lies of the WC (and HSCA) demonstrates this.
>
>So you keep insisting.
And your cowardice supports.
Feel free at any time to actually jump in with something more tangible than ad
hominem attacks. (But my crystal ball is telling me you never will)
>Meanwhile, you CNs run around accepting everything
>but the truth.
More trash talk. Why are you so afraid to debate the evidence?
>> >If there was one, there was ONLY one. Why can't the CNs understand that?
>> >Why can't they agree?
>>
>> Quite simple, the *evidence* doesn't agree. And since no real
>> investigation was really conducted, no adversarial process in place, you
>> can choose your theory merely by selecting the evidence you choose to
>> accept as more credible.
>
>Hoo-hah! So there WAS more than one conspiracy?
Only an idiot would try to make that argument.
>Dealey Plaza must have
>resembled a war zone with all those competing groups blazing away from
>every possible angle! It's a wonder anyone that was there that day got out
>alive.
>
>You dimbulbs are absolutely amazing.
You'll have to play with your own strawman.
>> It's amusing that a troll such as yourself can't understand that.
>
>Small things amuse small minds, I suppose.
It's just amazing that you don't realize that you support the LNT'er side with
such "arguments".
>> >Because not one of them can prove their own pet theory
>> >and every one refuses to accept anyone else's.
>>
>> Oh? Can you point to the CT'er who refuses to accept that there were
>> multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza that day?
>
>Yes.
This appears to be your tactic. Argue, but never never never say anything that
can be disputed by citation.
>> >That's lunacy, plain and simple.
>>
>> What's "lunacy" is your cowardice when faced with the evidence.
>
>Do you even know what cowardice is? You've already demonstrated that
>understand neither irony nor lunacy.
Still a coward. The 45 Questions are still waiting for you!
>> Or perhaps you're like one of our more notable trolls, "JGL", who didn't
>> even know how to spell "prosector."
>
>You don't suppose that there's at least a teeny-weeny probability that
>omitting the "u" could have been a typo? No, that would be absolutely
>impossible, wouldn't it?
Yes, it would. It IS AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY that a 'u' was missing from the
word, given that we were discussing PROSECTORS, and not prosecutors...
Looks like we have another troll who has zero knowledge of the evidence and
facts in this case.
>Sorry, Ben Holmes, but I couldn't help myself and went and snipped the rest
>of your nonsense. It's just a habit I can't seem to shake no matter how
>hard I try. I'm so bad!
Nah, you're just a coward. Into my killfile you go...
aggie
<Snip-a-dee-doo-dah!>
> >>
> >> Nope. We already have one. *ALL* CT'ers accept that there were
> >> multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza. That is, after all, what the evidence
> >> shows.
> >
> >Absolutely untrue.
>
> Then simply name the person. Let's have a chat with him/her.
You can start with Professor Revilo Oliver. You'll have to do your own
research, of course, and it's readily available with a simple Google
search. Not that you will. But it proves your assertion that "*ALL* CT'ers
accept that there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza" wrong.
Gee, that was easy.
>
> >Some CNs believe that Oswald was the only shooter but
> >that he conspired with others who betrayed him. Some CNs believe that
> >the only one gunman did the shooting but not from the TSBD. The GK, the
> >sewer drains, the overpass, and the Dal-Tex building have all been
> >proposed by CNs for a single shooter. And they all have what you call
> >evidence to support their views. Nope, you knuckleheads still can't
> >agree on anything except that there was a conspiracy.
>
> Where are these mythical people you're speaking of? They sound like
> LNT'ers to me.
Not Lone Nut Theorists, but Lone Gunman Conspiracy Theorists. Try to pay
attention. And, again, you can do your own research. It's all readily
available on the WWW. I'm not going to waste my time giving information to
a fruitcake which he'll just ignore. Get off your lazy butt and do your own
damn work.
>
> Nah, you're just a coward. Into my killfile you go...
Be still, my beating heart!
aggie
> On May 2, 9:29=A0pm, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey, I know what we should do....since we can't be in 100% agreement
> > > about the DETAILS of the conspiracy, let's just join the LNer's and
> > > PRETEND that Lyin Bastard Johnson was as pure as the new fallen snow
> > > and wouldn't lie, his hand picked "Blue Ribbon Committee" performed
> > > an honest investigation and gave us the gospel in The Warren Report.
> >
> > > In other words let's just tuck our heads in our asses like all
> > > LNer's........
> >
> > You still don't get it, do you? It's not the LNers you need to
> > convince. Every one of them believes the same thing: Oswald, alone, in
> th
> > the Carcano.
>
> Yes, I'm well aware that LNer's believe in fairy tales..........
Holy Conspiracy, Batman! we're up against...
...WaltNut! Strange visitor from another planet, who came to Earth with
powers and abilities far below those of mortal men! WaltNut ... flatter
than a single bullet theory, more pitiful than a loco motive, who can't
change the course of mighty history, bends facts in his bare hands, and
who, disguised as Papa Kochenbrot, mad-mannered poster to a great
netropolitan newsgroup, fights a never-ending battle against truth,
justice, and the American way!
aeffects
the lone nut loon needs a KFC fix! Von Penis on your mark, get
set......
aggie
> On May 3, 3:55=A0pm, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Hey, I know what we should do....since we can't be in 100%
> t
> > > > > about the DETAILS of the conspiracy, let's just join the LNer's
> > > > > and PRETEND that Lyin Bastard Johnson was as pure as the new
> w
> > > > > and wouldn't lie, his hand picked "Blue Ribbon Committee"
> > > > > performed an honest investigation and gave us the gospel in The
> .
> >
> > > > > In other words let's just tuck our heads in our asses like all
> > > > > LNer's........
> >
> > > > You still don't get it, do you? It's not the LNers you need to
> > > > convince. Every one of them believes the same thing: Oswald, alone,
> n
> > > > the TSBD, wi=3D
> > > th
> > > > the Carcano.
> >
> > > Yes, I'm well aware that LNer's believe in fairy tales..........
> >
> > Holy Conspiracy, Batman! we're up against...
> >
> > ...WaltNut! Strange visitor from another planet, who came to Earth with
> > powers and abilities far below those of mortal men! WaltNut ... flatter
> > than a single bullet theory, more pitiful than a loco motive, who can't
> > change the course of mighty history, bends facts in his bare hands, and
> > who, disguised as Papa Kochenbrot, mad-mannered poster to a great
> > netropolitan newsgroup, fights a never-ending battle against truth,
> > justice, and the American way!
>
> the lone nut loon needs a KFC fix! Von Penis on your mark, get
> set......
Kneel, knave. Arise, Sir Wingnut.
You've been knighted and that's your new name.
All in attendance will address him as such from now on.
Gil Jesus
Don't you find it comical that "newcomers" like our friend "aggie"
here
go immediately into insulting posters ?
It's so obvious that it's an old troll with a new screenname.
ROFLMAO
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On May 3, 7:00=EF=BF=BDpm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep... that's what I figured. Based simply on past experience. My killfile has a
new entry.
You'll note that they rarely use real and complete names, as well...
mucher1
> In article <d00605cc-c000-401a-8d2f-27ad0c8a6...@h9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
> >On May 3, 7:00=EF=BF=BDpm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 3, 3:55=EF=BF=BDpm, aggie <agnesd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Holy Conspiracy, Batman! we're up against...
>
> >> > ...WaltNut! Strange visitor from another planet, who came to Earth with
> >> > powers and abilities far below those of mortal men! WaltNut ... flatter
> >> > than a single bullet theory, more pitiful than a loco motive, who can't
> >> > change the course of mighty history, bends facts in his bare hands, and
> >> > who, disguised as Papa Kochenbrot, mad-mannered poster to a great
> >> > netropolitan newsgroup, fights a never-ending battle against truth,
> >> > justice, and the American way!
>
> >> the lone nut loon needs a KFC fix! Von Penis on your mark, get
> >> set
>
> >Don't you find it comical that "newcomers" like our friend "aggie"
> >here go immediately into insulting posters ?
>
> >It's so obvious that it's an old troll with a new screenname.
>
> >ROFLMAO
>
> Yep... that's what I figured. Based simply on past experience. My killfile has a
> new entry.
>
> You'll note that they rarely use real and complete names, as well...
Pot ... Kettle. How can we be sure that your real name is Ben Holmes?
According to the research of one of your fellow CTs, Rob Caprio,
you're using a whole bunch of aliases: Walt Cakebread, DVP, Johm
McAdams...
tomnln
"mucher1" <muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ae5f75-9797-4e5f...@q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Jeff
> Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> know) but I will try once again.
>
> For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
>
> 1. How many times was Tippit shot?
> 2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
> 3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
> 4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
> 5. Who killed Tippit? (Of course none of you idiots know a name but
> just IN GENERAL who does your evidence reveal killed Tippit?)
> 6. What happened to the Tippit murder weapon?
> 7. What happened to the Tippit murder bullets?
> 8. Where did Tippit's killer flee to?
>
> Whew. This should be pretty easy with all of the evidence you group
> of nuts have amassed over the years. Let's see how YOUR explanation
> agrees with the evidence.
The motive for Tippit's death was to cause the police to kill Oswald
on sight. That was all part of the plan.
Tippit was killed by an Oswald look alike.
But something went wrong and Oswald was taken into custody alive. So
they had to get Ruby to shoot Oswald at the police station. This was
the only sloppy part of an otherwise perfectly executed plan. It was
fate that caused this to happen to raise suspicion in peoples' minds.
Ruby's testimony was very interesting. You can tell there was a lot
he wanted to say but never could.
Your other questions are irrelevant since the conspirators had
complete control of the police and everything else in Dallas. That
was Johnson's territory. That's why they got Kennedy down there.
Even if there were some honest police officers an iron curtain of
secrecy was placed over this entire situation. Whatever evidence they
couldn't destroy they covered up as a matter of 'national security'.
Or they just started killing people. That works well also.
Once they got Kennedy out of the way they proceeded to turn Viet Nam,
a natural jungle paradise, into a barren, agent orange infected waste
land.
The people who did this weren't stupid by any means. They almost
pulled off the perfect crime. Almost. They fooled many gullible
people such as yourself who believe anything they are fed on the
evening news.
Jeff Marzano
Bud
> On Apr 30, 11:58 am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> > turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> > the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> > Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> > the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> > know) but I will try once again.
>
> > For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
>
> > 1. How many times was Tippit shot?
> > 2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
> > 3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
> > 4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
> > 5. Who killed Tippit? (Of course none of you idiots know a name but
> > just IN GENERAL who does your evidence reveal killed Tippit?)
> > 6. What happened to the Tippit murder weapon?
> > 7. What happened to the Tippit murder bullets?
> > 8. Where did Tippit's killer flee to?
>
> > Whew. This should be pretty easy with all of the evidence you group
> > of nuts have amassed over the years. Let's see how YOUR explanation
> > agrees with the evidence.
>
> The motive for Tippit's death was to cause the police to kill Oswald
> on sight. That was all part of the plan.
<snicker> The police could have easily and justifiably killed him in
the Texas theater when he attacked them.
> Tippit was killed by an Oswald look alike.
Oh, yah, what was his name? You see, when you offer an extraordinary
idea like this, you need extraordinary support, or else it becomes
obvious that you are just willing to belive anything as long as it
lets you pretend Oswald was innocent.
> But something went wrong and Oswald was taken into custody alive.
Went wrong? The police had a perfect opportunity to kill Oswald had
they wanted to.
> So
> they had to get Ruby to shoot Oswald at the police station. This was
> the only sloppy part of an otherwise perfectly executed plan. It was
> fate that caused this to happen to raise suspicion in peoples' minds.
No, what really happened was Oswald killed Kennedy for reasons of
his own, and this pissed Ruby off enough to kill Oswald.
> Ruby's testimony was very interesting. You can tell there was a lot
> he wanted to say but never could.
He said that nobody put him up to killing Oswald. You can`t trump
what he did say with what he didn`t.
> Your other questions are irrelevant since the conspirators had
> complete control of the police and everything else in Dallas.
And they need control of the witnesses also. For life. All
impossible, so we can disregard this line of conjecture.
> That
> was Johnson's territory. That's why they got Kennedy down there.
>
> Even if there were some honest police officers an iron curtain of
> secrecy was placed over this entire situation. Whatever evidence they
> couldn't destroy they covered up as a matter of 'national security'.
> Or they just started killing people. That works well also.
All these extraordinary, complex and impossible things you can`t
show occurred, or Oswald was guilty. Tough call.
You just can`t say that whatever your ideas require must have
happened, at some point you have to be able to show these things.
> Once they got Kennedy out of the way they proceeded to turn Viet Nam,
> a natural jungle paradise, into a barren, agent orange infected waste
> land.
Kennedy understood the need to oppose communsim in Viet Nam, even if
you don`t.
> The people who did this weren't stupid by any means. They almost
> pulled off the perfect crime. Almost.
If there was a conspiracy, it was perfect, because you can`t show
it.
> They fooled many gullible
> people such as yourself who believe anything they are fed on the
> evening news.
But not Jeff Marzan, he is too clever and astute, he knows
leprechauns and ninja were behind it, even if he has never seen one.
> Jeff Marzano
Ben Holmes
Jeff says...
>
>On Apr 30, 11:58=A0am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
>> turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
>> the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>>
>> Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
>> the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
>> know) but I will try once again.
>>
>> For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
>>
>> 2. =A0What was the motive for Tippit's death?
>> 3. =A0What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
>> 4. =A0What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
>> 5. =A0Who killed Tippit? =A0(Of course none of you idiots know a name but
>> just IN GENERAL who does your evidence reveal killed Tippit?)
>> 7. =A0What happened to the Tippit murder bullets?
>> 8. =A0Where did Tippit's killer flee to?
>>
>> Whew. =A0This should be pretty easy with all of the evidence you group
>> of nuts have amassed over the years. =A0Let's see how YOUR explanation
You'll find that "Steve" is one of the more slippery of the trolls. He acts like
he wants the evidence, but runs at the sight of any evidence.
The days when the LNT'ers were relatively honest, and would debate the evidence
with you, are long gone.
Mostly due to the fact that so much of the evidence is now known. Trolls like
Steve can't hide behind unknown evidence any more... nor can they provide
reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations for the known evidence... so
ridicule and ad hominem are their favored tactics nowadays.
mucher1
> In article <3c04338e-4220-4a2d-9bbd-a6803a7b0...@q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
On the surface, your "45 questions" series has the appearance of an
invitation to debate the evidence, but it really isn't. When people
point out the flaws in your thinking, the misrepresentations, the self-
righteous rhetoric, etc., you simply run away.
> Mostly due to the fact that so much of the evidence is now known. Trolls like
> Steve can't hide behind unknown evidence any more... nor can they provide
> reasonable and non-conspiratorial explanations for the known evidence... so
> ridicule and ad hominem are their favored tactics nowadays.
Don't kid yourself. You're a Zapruder film alterationist, which is
bottom of the barrel as far as JFK conspiracy research is concerned.
Ridicule (and awkward silence) is all that you deserve.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since the conspiracy goofs take issue with the official version let's
> > turn the tables and give Giltard, Rosstard, Walt the Dummy and others
> > the chance to clear things up for all of us misguided LNs.
>
> > Generally none of the conspiracy nuts ever take the bait when offered
> > the chance to clarify what really happened (because they clearly don't
> > know) but I will try once again.
>
> > For the conspiracy lovers and the Oswald defenders:
>
> > 1. How many times was Tippit shot?
> > 2. What was the motive for Tippit's death?
> > 3. What was Tippit's killer wearing at the time of the murder?
> > 4. What kind of weapon was used in the Tippit murder?
> > 5. Who killed Tippit? (Of course none of you idiots know a name but
> > just IN GENERAL who does your evidence reveal killed Tippit?)
> > 6. What happened to the Tippit murder weapon?
> > 7. What happened to the Tippit murder bullets?
> > 8. Where did Tippit's killer flee to?
>
> > Whew. This should be pretty easy with all of the evidence you group
> > of nuts have amassed over the years. Let's see how YOUR explanation
> > agrees with the evidence.
>
> The motive for Tippit's death was to cause the police to kill Oswald
> on sight. That was all part of the plan.
>
> Tippit was killed by an Oswald look alike.
I have heard this many times before, but it makes NO sense to me. IF
no-one could be found to ID LHO, how could a "look-alike" have been
used?? Wouldn't that have led to many saying LHO was the shooter?
My money is on White or another cop. NO-one else could have gottent
that close to Tippit without him even removing his pistol from the
holster when approached.
> But something went wrong and Oswald was taken into custody alive. So
> they had to get Ruby to shoot Oswald at the police station. This was
> the only sloppy part of an otherwise perfectly executed plan. It was
> fate that caused this to happen to raise suspicion in peoples' minds.
There is some evidence that suggests Ruby was suppposed to have shot
LHO in front of the TSBD. Several witnesses, and a possible photo
(according to Don Willis who took it) show Ruby with LHO in front of
the TSBD. I have even thought Ruby gave LHO the gun then as the
pistol was a mess (rusty firing pin) so why would LHO race back to his
boarding house to retreive a pistol that wouldn't even fire (remember
in the theater the claim was made that he pulled the trigger and it
woudn't go off)??? Also, if the pistol wouldn't work in TT, how did he
supposedly kill JDT with it?
The Willis photo is intriguing because the WC cropped it so the face
of the man Willis claimed was Ruby (and Willis knew Ruby too) cannot
be seen anymore. Why all the subterfuge if it was not Ruby?
My guess, and that is what it is due to no formal investigation, is
that Ruby was supposed to hand LHO the faulty pistol and then shoot
him as he "fled" the TSBD (in all actuality he would be just leaving
but it would changed to "fled" to sound more plausible)!!! IF this
happened then his alleged motive of grief and anger for Mrs. Kennedy
would have made more sense to me!
There are some tantalizing things to look into, but unfortunately due
to no real investigation it is a lot of guess work at this point in
time.
I agree that he was NOT supposed to have been apprehended alive.
Sean Smiley
wrote:
Maybe you mean Phil Willis? I was in Sacramento on 11/22/63....
dcw
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:hrqcp...@drn.newsguy.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
Yes, thanks. I thought of the wrong Willis!
> show Ruby with LHO in front of
> > the TSBD. I have even thought Ruby gave LHO the gun then as the
> > pistol was a mess (rusty firing pin) so why would LHO race back to his
> > boarding house to retreive a pistol that wouldn't even fire (remember
> > in the theater the claim was made that he pulled the trigger and it
> > woudn't go off)??? Also, if the pistol wouldn't work in TT, how did he
> > supposedly kill JDT with it?
>
> > The Willis photo is intriguing because the WC cropped it so the face
> > of the man Willis claimed was Ruby (and Willis knew Ruby too) cannot
> > be seen anymore. Why all the subterfuge if it was not Ruby?
>
> > My guess, and that is what it is due to no formal investigation, is
> > that Ruby was supposed to hand LHO the faulty pistol and then shoot
> > him as he "fled" the TSBD (in all actuality he would be just leaving
> > but it would changed to "fled" to sound more plausible)!!! IF this
> > happened then his alleged motive of grief and anger for Mrs. Kennedy
> > would have made more sense to me!
>
> > There are some tantalizing things to look into, but unfortunately due
> > to no real investigation it is a lot of guess work at this point in
> > time.
>
> > I agree that he was NOT supposed to have been apprehended alive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jeff
> In article <3c04338e-4220-4a2d-9bbd-a6803a7b0...@q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Thanks Ben Holmes for explaining to me about Steve. That clears up a
lot of things.
This past week was the 40th anniversary of the Kent State massacre
where Johnson's cronies killed 4 college kids who didn't want to go
over to that hell hole Viet Nam to line Johnson's pockets.
Jeff
Jeff
wrote:
>
> There is some evidence that suggests Ruby was suppposed to have shot
> LHO in front of the TSBD.
>
I hadn't heard this before. But then I don't claim to be an expert on
the assassination. Most of what I've heard is based on ''The Men Who
Killed Kennedy' DVD set, including the Final Chapter episodes which
got pulled off the market by the hypocrites.
If Ruby had shot Oswald in front of the TSBD that would have made it
appear that Ruby somehow knew that Oswald had shot Kennedy just a few
seconds after the assassination. It would almost have implied that
Ruby had seen Oswald do it. That might have looked too suspicious.
Having the police shoot Oswald was the perfect plan. But to pull that
off it makes me wonder if some of the police officers were in on it.
Otherwise how could they have guaranteed that Oswald would be shot ?
As it is they didn't guarantee it. But by having the look alike
murder officer Tippit the odds went way up that they would kill
Oswald.
It would be very interesting to know exactly what they told Oswald to
cause him to get himself killed as he almost did.
According to the 'Love Affair' episode they told Oswald that there was
a team of assassins who wanted to kill JFK but Oswald and his handlers
were the good guys. Oswald was following orders.
Once Ruby shot Oswald at police headquarters many people started to
realize something was wrong. That event makes no sense whatsoever.
But what could anyone do ? What they should have done is try to start
a revolution like the kids at Kent State did.
I think Ruby had called the police anonymously the night before
warning them not to bring Oswald through the police station because
"we're going to kill him". Ruby was double crossing the conspirators
by doing this to save his own life since there was no way Ruby was
going to get away with doing this. If the conspirators didn't know
that Ruby made that call and the police had believed Ruby he wouldn't
have had to shoot Oswald on TV and throw his miserable life away.
Ruby was a nervous wreck in jail until they told him Oswald had died
at which point he relaxed and asked for a cigarette. It appears that
Ruby's life depended on killing Oswald. Or perhaps the life of his
family depended on it.
Ruby's testimony after the assassination was very interesting. He
talks about those who 'had so much to gain'.
Ruby sort of reminds me of Pontius Pilate in the bible. A tragic
figure who saw what the right thing to do was but he had gotten pulled
too deep into something that could not be stopped.
Did Ruby last long in prison ? I was wondering if maybe they gave him
some of the cancer virus Oswald's mistress was working on for
Castro.
Ruby was definitely someone who needed to be silenced.
This is all a very strange and amazing story. It would be
unbelievable really if it wasn't true. If someone wrote a book about
this as a work of fiction nobody would ever believe it could be done.
There was a lot of people and agencies involved like the CIA, FBI,
Secret Service, Johnson, etc.. People in the mafia knew.
It couldn't be done as easily today. That was a different, simpler
time and there wasn't as much intense media scrutiny as there is now.
Or as many cameras.
Greed is a very powerful force and one of the seven deadly sins.
I heard on TV today that it took on average 50,000 bullets fired from
M16s to kill one Vietnamese soldier. Just the money they spent on
bullets alone must have gone into the billions of dollars.
They were comparing this to just a few bullets on average for snipers
to kill people.
It's amazing there's any lead or brass left on planet earth after all
of these wars.
Well my dream is still to make a movie about this assassination so I
need some material about what they told Oswald to do when he went into
the movie theater.
Jeff Marzano
aggie
> On May 5, 10:26=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
> It's amazing there's any lead or brass left on planet earth after all
> of these wars.
Except for the miniscule amount that we've launched into space, all of it
is still right here on planet Earth. Where else would it be?
Ben Holmes
Jeff says...
>
>On May 5, 10:26=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>Jeff Marzano
Movie theaters are one of the classic places to meet your handler. It's dark,
you can sit next to a "stranger" with no notice by anyone, and you can easily
whisper instructions or get debriefed...
robcap...@netscape.com
> On May 5, 10:26 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is some evidence that suggests Ruby was suppposed to have shot
> > LHO in front of the TSBD.
>
> > I agree that he was NOT supposed to have been apprehended alive.
>
> I hadn't heard this before. But then I don't claim to be an expert on
> the assassination. Most of what I've heard is based on ''The Men Who
> Killed Kennedy' DVD set, including the Final Chapter episodes which
> got pulled off the market by the hypocrites.
>
> If Ruby had shot Oswald in front of the TSBD that would have made it
> appear that Ruby somehow knew that Oswald had shot Kennedy just a few
> seconds after the assassination. It would almost have implied that
> Ruby had seen Oswald do it. That might have looked too suspicious.
I think what it would have done is put the matter to rest IMMEDIATELY
and we would not know what we know today! They certainly could have
found a few folks to claim they saw LHO did it IF he had been killed
instantlly! Why do you think the DPD did such fast work on the
evidence pointing to LHO?? It was a designed for LHO to be killed
before he was apprehended IMO.
That is how a Patsy setup is supposed to work. LHO blew the whole
plan by making it into custody!
> Having the police shoot Oswald was the perfect plan. But to pull that
> off it makes me wonder if some of the police officers were in on it.
There are quite a few who make me suspicious, and I think the TT was
the backup plan if he made it away from the TSBD alive. I think the
cops picked for the job blew it again. LHO's quick thinking of saying
"I am not resisting arrest" helped too.
> Otherwise how could they have guaranteed that Oswald would be shot ?
> As it is they didn't guarantee it. But by having the look alike
> murder officer Tippit the odds went way up that they would kill
> Oswald.
Yet NO-one really ID'd LHO as the shooter! How could this happen if a
look-alike did the shooting?
> It would be very interesting to know exactly what they told Oswald to
> cause him to get himself killed as he almost did.
LHO figured out what was happening to him.
> According to the 'Love Affair' episode they told Oswald that there was
> a team of assassins who wanted to kill JFK but Oswald and his handlers
> were the good guys. Oswald was following orders.
He was, but I would be cautious in following every idea in the "Love
Affair" episode as that whole angle really needs some more evidence in
my mind.
> Once Ruby shot Oswald at police headquarters many people started to
> realize something was wrong. That event makes no sense whatsoever.
> But what could anyone do ? What they should have done is try to start
> a revolution like the kids at Kent State did.
America in 1963 still blindly followed whatever the media and
government told them was the truth, oh wait, we still do that in
2010! LOL!!
> I think Ruby had called the police anonymously the night before
> warning them not to bring Oswald through the police station because
> "we're going to kill him".
He called them several times warning them. Those in the know already
knew this that is why LHO was delayed for an hour and a half until
Ruby was in place!
> Ruby was double crossing the conspirators
> by doing this to save his own life since there was no way Ruby was
> going to get away with doing this.
He thought he would get some minor jail time for killing the man who
killed JFK. He was told he would be a hero and he would get a mininum
jail sentence. Besides, Ruby was in heavy debt, a debt that was taken
care of after he killed LHO!
Who did he owe money to?? NOT the mob, but the IRS! Hmmm. I wonder
why his debt was wiped out for killing LHO?
> If the conspirators didn't know
> that Ruby made that call and the police had believed Ruby he wouldn't
> have had to shoot Oswald on TV and throw his miserable life away.
He was told he would be a hero, and you really can't disbelieve this
as the media, the government and the local authorities all blamed LHO
with NO trial during the weekend.
> Ruby was a nervous wreck in jail until they told him Oswald had died
> at which point he relaxed and asked for a cigarette. It appears that
> Ruby's life depended on killing Oswald. Or perhaps the life of his
> family depended on it.
Of course, he didn't do it by choice in all liklihood.
> Ruby's testimony after the assassination was very interesting. He
> talks about those who 'had so much to gain'.
>
> Ruby sort of reminds me of Pontius Pilate in the bible. A tragic
> figure who saw what the right thing to do was but he had gotten pulled
> too deep into something that could not be stopped.
Don't feel too bad for Ruby as he was a career criminal who had
supposedly killed several people himself before LHO!
He worked for the Campisi's in Dallas who reported to Marcello.
> Did Ruby last long in prison ? I was wondering if maybe they gave him
> some of the cancer virus Oswald's mistress was working on for
> Castro.
That has been posited, as has the notion Ruby was taken to the
hospital frequently and exposed to dangerous levels of radiation!
> Ruby was definitely someone who needed to be silenced.
OF course as he had a big mouth.
> This is all a very strange and amazing story. It would be
> unbelievable really if it wasn't true. If someone wrote a book about
> this as a work of fiction nobody would ever believe it could be done.
> There was a lot of people and agencies involved like the CIA, FBI,
> Secret Service, Johnson, etc.. People in the mafia knew.
The vast majority of key agencies, government, groups and individuals
were either directly involved or made to look to be involved to keep
their mouths and files shut. That is why it has been kept under
control for 46 years DESPITE 90% of knowing the official bull they
gave us is a lie.
> It couldn't be done as easily today. That was a different, simpler
> time and there wasn't as much intense media scrutiny as there is now.
> Or as many cameras.
YOU are not opening your ideas to the real world you live in. NO
disrespect meant, but it is ACTUALLY EASIER today to snow you as there
are LESS COMPANIES who own the media and other outlets. Take some
time and research how few companies ACTUALLY OWN THE VAST MAJORITY OF
MAJOR MEDIA and eductional textbooks!
IF you control the major media, and thereby controlling or isolating
small media outlets, and the educational system, you control the minds
of the vast majority of people in this country!
> Greed is a very powerful force and one of the seven deadly sins.
Excessive greed for anything is always a bad thing because it becomes
an addiction.
> I heard on TV today that it took on average 50,000 bullets fired from
> M16s to kill one Vietnamese soldier. Just the money they spent on
> bullets alone must have gone into the billions of dollars.
True. And what about the stuff that was NOT even used that we had to
pay for?? The general who was a hero (U.S. Marine General Smedly
Butler) for saving the U.S. from a Fascist dictatorship in 1934 wrote
a book called "War Is A Racket" and made some of these comments about
WWI.
Quote on
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most
vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one
in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what
it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group
knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very
few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make
huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the
conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made
in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their
huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of
them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in
a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened
nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many
of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are
victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly
is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of
blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones.
Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic
instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking
taxation for generations and generations.
Quote off
He talks about how the very few made a fortune for things that were
never used, or used in a small amount while getting paid in FULL for
the whole lot!
Quote on
Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal
profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies.
Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they
also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from
Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For
instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service
shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a
soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier.
Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good
shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000
pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.
There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your
Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry.
But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get
rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so
we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.
Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam
20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I
suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to
sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs
and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these
mosquito nets ever got to France!
Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no
soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional
yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.
There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even
if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had
lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting
manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments
of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would
be in order.
Quote off
What did Gen. Butler get for his trouble in stopping a coup in the
U.S.? Ridicule by Congress and attempts to slander his name!
He knew about the plot because he had been recruited to lead it by
those interested in getting rid of Roosevelt!
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm
There are many more pages of info on the web about the coup.
> They were comparing this to just a few bullets on average for snipers
> to kill people.
>
> It's amazing there's any lead or brass left on planet earth after all
> of these wars.
There will always be things available for the rich to make enormous
profit from.
> Well my dream is still to make a movie about this assassination so I
> need some material about what they told Oswald to do when he went into
> the movie theater.
>
> Jeff Marzano
Reasearch has shown that the movie theater was owned by Howard Hughes,
and it is known in the intelligence world that Hughes worked with the
CIA and others. The TT was a CIA safehouse according to this
research, and that is why LHO was told to go there if anything bad
happened in the plan. Don't take my word for it though, do your own
research.