LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MANNLICHER-CARCANO
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13471&view=findpost&p=154939
MARK KNIGHT (AT "THE EDUCATION FORUM") WROTE:
>>> "...It can certainly be proved that the Depository Carcano wasn't the rifle that can be proved to have been received by Oswald. Whether the recovered rifle was Oswald's or not cannot be determined by the evidence we have available...so I tend to believe it wasn't Oswalds, as THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO ever possessed the 91/38." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
It takes a person who is either an outright kook or totally blind or
completely unreasonable or DESPERATE to have Lee Oswald innocent of
murdering President Kennedy to utter the above ridiculous statement
that I just quoted from the e-lips of one Mark Knight of John Simkin's
Education Forum.
Why?
Because the trail of evidence that tells any REASONABLE human being
that Rifle #C2766 (aka "CE139") was owned and possessed by Lee Harvey
Oswald (aka Alek James Hidell) is so extensive and complete and
ironclad that it would take a person who has his head completely
buried in "conspiracy sand" to make a foolish statement like this
one---
"Whether the recovered rifle was Oswald's or not cannot be
determined by the evidence we have available. .... THERE IS NO
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO ever possessed the 91/38."
Let's perform a "Rifle Reality Check":
1.) Regardless of exactly what it said in the American Rifleman
magazine from which Lee Oswald ordered his rifle via mail-order (i.e.,
"36 inches" vs. "40 inches"; and "Carbine" vs. anything else), Klein's
shipped a rifle with serial number C2766 to "A. Hidell" on March 20,
1963.
The internal paperwork generated AT THE TIME in March of '63 (see
Waldman Exhibit No. 7 linked below) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was
shipped an Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it
("C2766"):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
2.) A palmprint belonging to that of Lee Harvey Oswald was discovered
on a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with the serial number C2766 on it after
the gun was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
Conspiracy theorists can gripe and moan all day long about how this
palmprint of Oswald's never really existed at all, or about how it was
not really found on the rifle. But we're still left with the official
record in this case, and that record shows us that a palmprint of
Oswald's was, in fact, lifted off of Rifle C2766 by DPD's Lieutenant
J.C. Day on 11/22/63, shortly before the weapon was turned over to the
FBI late that night. CE637 represents that palmprint. ....
CE637:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
3.) Vincent Scalice, many years later, via different methods of
fingerprint photo comparison, was able to find well over a dozen
"points of identity" linking the previously-unidentified fingerprints
on the trigger housing to Lee Harvey Oswald's comparison prints.
To any reasonable person who examines this evidence, this shows that
it's very likely that the LAST PERSON who touched Rifle C2766 prior to
its being found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was Lee
Harvey Oswald.
4.) We know, beyond all doubt, that Lee Oswald did, in fact, order a
rifle through the mail (via Klein's in Chicago). The handwriting on
all of the documents connected with this Klein's transaction is that
of Lee H. Oswald's, which proves beyond all doubt that it was Oswald
(and no other person on Earth) who ordered and paid for Rifle #C2766
that was shipped to Oswald/Hidell by Klein's Sporting Goods in March
1963.
5.) Just days after Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell, Lee
Oswald asked his wife, Marina, to take some pictures of him in the
backyard of their small Neely Street apartment in Dallas.
As near as can be determined, those backyard pictures were taken by
Marina on March 31, 1963. Klein's, remember, shipped the rifle to
Oswald/Hidell on March 20th. So the timing is just about perfect in
that regard. In other words, there was time for the rifle to reach
Oswald's Dallas P.O. box in that 11-day interim.
6.) Photographic experts for the HSCA determined that the rifle that
Oswald is holding in the backyard photos matches Rifle C2766 (CE139)
in various different respects. Several points of identity were found
on the rifle in the backyard pics, matching up to near-perfection to
Rifle C2766.
The HSCA determined, therefore, that the rifle being held by Lee
Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the very same rifle
that was determined to be the weapon used to assassinate John F.
Kennedy (CE139):
"A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged
assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with
corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in
various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the
rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. .... A comparison of
identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs
today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963
indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that
Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon,
found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination
photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
In addition, the House Select Committee's photographic panel also
concluded the following (with respect to the backyard photographs):
"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0076b.htm
Now, given all of the above evidence (plus adding in just a small
amount of common sense to go with it), can any reasonable person
really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and
possess Rifle #C2766 (CE139) in the year 1963?
I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot.
Walt
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13471&view=find...
>
> 2.) A palmprint belonging to that of Lee Harvey Oswald was discovered
> on a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with the serial number C2766 on it after
> the gun was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
>
> Conspiracy theorists can gripe and moan all day long about how this
> palmprint of Oswald's never really existed at all, or about how it was
> not really found on the rifle. But we're still left with the official
> record in this case, and that record shows us that a palmprint of
> Oswald's was, in fact, lifted off of Rifle C2766 by DPD's Lieutenant
> J.C. Day on 11/22/63, shortly before the weapon was turned over to the
> FBI late that night. CE637 represents that palmprint. ....
>
>
> In addition, the House Select Committee's photographic panel also
> concluded the following (with respect to the backyard photographs):
>
> "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
> picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146
>
>
> Now, given all of the above evidence (plus adding in just a small
> amount of common sense to go with it), can any reasonable person
> really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and
> possess Rifle #C2766 (CE139) in the year 1963?
>
> I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot.
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Now, given all of the above evidence (plus adding in just a small
amount of common sense to go with it), can any reasonable person
really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and
possess Rifle #C2766 (CE139) in the year 1963?
I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot.
Gettin a little desperate are ya? Pea Brain...... When a person
starts talkin to himself, either he's a bit off center or he's
desperate to hear someone who agrees with him.
I don't want the "butterfly catchers" to come and haul you off to the
Rubber Walled hotel ( not yet) so I'll humor you and engage you.
Let me ask you.... If someone hands you two objects and tells you that
one is genuine and the other is a fake. Could you determine which
item was genuine without any other frame of reference?
aeffects
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13471&view=find...
>
>
> >>> "...It can certainly be proved that the Depository Carcano wasn't the rifle that can be proved to have been received by Oswald. Whether the recovered rifle was Oswald's or not cannot be determined by the evidence we have available...so I tend to believe it wasn't Oswalds, as THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO ever possessed the 91/38." <<<
wow.... didn't take you long to read my Ed-Forum comment concerning
the above subject matter, eh?
DVP er, Steve Keating, your a troll amongst the GIANT trolls, KUTGW
son, we need you.
David Von Pein
My thread-starting post speaks for itself -- and it speaks for the
totality of evidence in this case that shows (beyond all reasonable
doubt) that C2766/CE139 was owned and possessed by Lee Oswald in 1963,
despite the obfuscating put forth by conspiracy-happy individuals like
Walter Cakebread.
I'll ask Walt one question here, though (let's see if he's honest
enough to answer this in a forthright and truthful manner):
Given the above laundry list of stuff I mapped out in my thread-
starting article above (with associated weblinks that go right to the
sources for those conclusions, with the exception of the "LHO
handwriting" items, but everybody should know where to look within the
26 WC volumes to find out my sources for those facts re. the
handwriting)....do you really think, Walt, that a MORE REASONABLE
conclusion to reach regarding the ownership status of Rifle C2766
(CE139) is this one laid out below?:
Lee Oswald never owned or possessed the rifle labelled as CE139
in the calendar year 1963. Instead, a different MC rifle with the
exact same serial number on it was probably owned by Oswald in '63.
In other words, are ALL SIX POINTS OF FACT I lay out in my thread-
starter above to be tossed out the window entirely? All six of those
points of evidence are bogus in your mind? All of them?
Show us your true colors regarding this important "Rifle Ownership"
matter, Walter --- Are you "reasonable"? Or are you still a rabid
"Anybody But Oswald Did This" kook when it comes to the specific topic
of "Did Oswald Own CE139?"?
(Anybody want to place a wager on which way Walt will lean? Prob'ly
not, huh?)
Walt
> My thread-starting post speaks for itself -- and it speaks for the
> totality of evidence in this case that shows (beyond all reasonable
> doubt) that C2766/CE139 was owned and possessed by Lee Oswald in 1963,
> despite the obfuscating put forth by conspiracy-happy individuals like
> Walter Cakebread.
>
> I'll ask Walt one question here, though (let's see if he's honest
> enough to answer this in a forthright and truthful manner):
>
> Given the above laundry list of stuff I mapped out in my thread-
> starting article above (with associated weblinks that go right to the
> sources for those conclusions, with the exception of the "LHO
> handwriting" items, but everybody should know where to look within the
> 26 WC volumes to find out my sources for those facts re. the
> handwriting)....do you really think, Walt, that a MORE REASONABLE
> conclusion to reach regarding the ownership status of Rifle C2766
> (CE139) is this one laid out below?:
>
> Lee Oswald never owned or possessed the rifle labelled as CE139
> in the calendar year 1963. Instead, a different MC rifle with the
> exact same serial number on it was probably owned by Oswald in '63.
Lee Oswald never owned or possessed the rifle labelled as CE139 in
the calendar year 1963. Instead, a different MC rifle with the exact
same serial number on it was probably owned by Oswald in '63
Huh ??? Where did you get this nonsense?? Can't you try to set up a
better strawman than that??
Frankly, I can't believe that you'd even give such nonsense a second
thought.
I asked you a real question and in your attempt to evade you propose
this nonsense.... Pathetic.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a8b4cad8bc97645a
So, Walt, I guess from your last response (linked above), I can
conclude that you really do believe that CE139 was, indeed, owned and
possessed by Lee Oswald in the calendar year of 1963. Correct?
Okay, very good. That's good to know that you think that any other
line of thought regarding the ownership of C2766/CE139 is "nonsense".
So, let's go to a secondary, related question then......
Given the above list of HSCA-related evidence regarding the fact that
CE139 was very, very likely the exact same rifle seen in the backyard
photographs, is it MORE REASONABLE to believe the following conclusion
(which is a conclusion straight from the lips of Walt himself, spoken
by him yesterday)?:
"Where did the rifle in CE 133A come from? It's definitely NOT
C2766, but it is a Mannlicher Carcano Model 91/38." -- Walt;
09/20/2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0d1a7ac90330556f
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a8b4cad8bc97645a
>
> So, Walt, I guess from your last response (linked above), I can
> conclude that you really do believe that CE139 was, indeed, owned and
> possessed by Lee Oswald in the calendar year of 1963. Correct?
>
> Okay, very good. That's good to know that you think that any other
> line of thought regarding the ownership of C2766/CE139 is "nonsense".
>
> So, let's go to a secondary, related question then......
No no asshole.....It's your turn to answer my question.
aeffects
> My thread-starting post speaks for itself -- and it speaks for the
> totality of evidence in this case that shows (beyond all reasonable
> doubt) that C2766/CE139 was owned and possessed by Lee Oswald in 1963,
> despite the obfuscating put forth by conspiracy-happy individuals like
> Walter Cakebread.
read that as daBugliosi speak, you troll are incapable of original
thought, much let alone common sense... Carry on, hon!
<snip the utter Lone Nut nonsense)
Sam McClung
news:a830fcf3-dc80-406c...@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
<snippage>
>daBugliosi speak
<snippage>
that's a great term for apologists who support what was the official story
in this case, which has been destroyed in the minds of the masses by the
ever emerging truth
we could shorten bugliosi speak to b s and make it
da b s
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
works for me....
Walt
> On 21 Sep, 17:50, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a8b4cad8bc97645a
>
> > So, Walt, I guess from your last response (linked above), I can
> > conclude that you really do believe that CE139 was, indeed, owned and
> > possessed by Lee Oswald in the calendar year of 1963. Correct?
>
> > Okay, very good. That's good to know that you think that any other
> > line of thought regarding the ownership of C2766/CE139 is "nonsense".
>
> > So, let's go to a secondary, related question then......
>
> No no asshole.....It's your turn to answer my question.
What??..... I can't hear you Pea Brain. Are you talkin softly like
a woman ...because you have no balls?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Given the above list of HSCA-related evidence regarding the fact that
> > CE139 was very, very likely the exact same rifle seen in the backyard
> > photographs, is it MORE REASONABLE to believe the following conclusion
> > (which is a conclusion straight from the lips of Walt himself, spoken
> > by him yesterday)?:
>
> > "Where did the rifle in CE 133A come from? It's definitely NOT
> > C2766, but it is a Mannlicher Carcano Model 91/38." -- Walt;
> > 09/20/2008
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0d1a7ac90330556f- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
REPLAY (FOR WALT THE MEGA-KOOK):
===========================================
"A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged
assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with
corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in
various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the
rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. .... A comparison of
identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs
today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963
indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that
Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon,
found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination
photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
==============================================
Now, to anyone except an Anybody-But-Oswald nutjob (like Walt), the
above paragraph written by the HSCA would (or should) be enough to put
the issue regarding the rifle in the backyard pictures to rest.
But "Walt The Super Photo Analyst" thinks that HE knows better than
the panel of photographic experts put together by the House Select
Committee on Assassinations.
Right, Mr. Kookbread?
Walt
> REPLAY (FOR WALT THE MEGA-KOOK):
>
> ===========================================
>
> "A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged
> assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with
> corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in
> various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the
> rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. .... A comparison of
> identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs
> today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963
> indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that
> Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon,
> found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination
> photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66
>
>
> ==============================================
>
> Now, to anyone except an Anybody-But-Oswald nutjob (like Walt), the
> above paragraph written by the HSCA would (or should) be enough to put
> the issue regarding the rifle in the backyard pictures to rest.
>
> But "Walt The Super Photo Analyst" thinks that HE knows better than
> the panel of photographic experts put together by the House Select
> Committee on Assassinations.
>
> Right, Mr. Kookbread?
Hell no I don't think I know more than the photographic experts on the
HSCA.....They knew all I know.... and more.
Where the rub comes is....They were lying to protect our "national
security" and I'm not.
David Von Pein
Ah, yes....the "THEY ALL LIED" excuse. You can always fall back on
that idiocy when all else fails (and it always does). Good one, Walt.
What was the number of people in the photographic panel? 19? 20? 21?
Something like that I think.
And there were 9 pathologists on the FPP?
So now we're up to about 30 "liars", per a kook named Walt.*
* = The FPP "lied" about OTHER things, of course, not about the
backyard pictures. But this only goes to show the BROAD spectrum of
lying shills and cover-uppers involved here.
The "cover-up" runs the gamut, per the kooks -- from the HSCA photo
experts to the FPP to the autopsy doctors and back to the WC, of
course, and then on to the Clark panel of 4, then the Rockefeller
Commission's people (including several more trained pathologists
there), and then it goes to the national mainstream media -- ABC, CBS,
NBC, etc.
About the only television network the kooks can trust is A&E/The
History Channel. They don't lie too much, what with the glorious "Men
Who Killed Kennedy" out there for the kooks to admire so greatly.
And then there's the major LN authors, like Posner and Bugliosi and
Myers and Moore and Davison and Mailer (partly) and Sturdivan and
Lattimer. They're all liars too, right Walt?
As Bud so aptly put it a while back --- It was "THE WORLD AGAINST THE
PATSY". Everybody under the moon wanted poor Oswald to look guilty,
even though (per many of the kooks) these people KNEW beyond all doubt
that LHO never fired a shot at ANYBODY on November 22nd (not even at
J.D. Tippit).
Right, Walt?
Right.
(And the Cubs will win 5 straight World Series in my lifetime.)
aeffects
> Ah, yes....the "THEY ALL LIED" excuse. You can always fall back on
> that idiocy when all else fails (and it always does). Good one, Walt.
>
> What was the number of people in the photographic panel? 19? 20? 21?
> Something like that I think.
>
> And there were 9 pathologists on the FPP?
>
> So now we're up to about 30 "liars", per a kook named Walt.*
>
> * = The FPP "lied" about OTHER things, of course, not about the
> backyard pictures. But this only goes to show the BROAD spectrum of
> lying shills and cover-uppers involved here.
>
> The "cover-up" runs the gamut, per the kooks -- from the HSCA photo
> experts to the FPP to the autopsy doctors and back to the WC, of
> course, and then on to the Clark panel of 4, then the Rockefeller
> Commission's people (including several more trained pathologists
> there), and then it goes to the national mainstream media -- ABC, CBS,
> NBC, etc.
>
> About the only television network the kooks can trust is A&E/The
> History Channel. They don't lie too much, what with the glorious "Men
> Who Killed Kennedy" out there for the kooks to admire so greatly.
now you sounding like a man possessed in getting a piece of that
Reclaiming History/HBO/Tom Hanks action, need a agent son? LMFAO!
> And then there's the major LN authors, like Posner and Bugliosi and
> Myers and Moore and Davison and Mailer (partly) and Sturdivan and
> Lattimer. They're all liars too, right Walt?
Posner, Myers and Bugliosi, of course. Called big buckeroos son.....
remember those? The bucks that Myers got ghost writing Reclaiming
History (the book Vin said he wrote all by his lonesome) and you
didn't?
Walt
Ya know Pea Brain You are more right than you know in
saying......."Everybody under the moon wanted poor Oswald to look
guilty"
The whole world was quivering with fear that the US and USSR might
start WW III because of the murder of JFK. (Remember WWI ) The Cuban
missle confrontation was still very fresh in peoples minds, and a war
between the US and the USSR would've been a nuclear nightmare.
"Everybody" was willing to throw Oswald under the bus if it it avoid a
nuclear holocaust.
Unfortunately there are still some gutless idiots who actually believe
Oswald was guilty.
David Von Pein
Oswald practically confessed, idiot-Walt.
Does an innocent person need to lie this much? If so, why?:
===================================
===================================
EXAMINING OSWALD'S MANY LIES:
JFK assassination researcher Mae Brussell compiled a
fairly-comprehensive list of the oral statements made between November
22nd and November 24th, 1963, by President Kennedy's assassin, Lee
Harvey Oswald.
Here's a link to those statements:
"THE LAST WORDS OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD":
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
===============================
A couple of very interesting things stood out to this writer while
reading through Brussell's compilation of Oswald's utterances.....
One of those interesting things being the fact that Lee Oswald,
himself, admitted to authorities (on November 24, 1963, shortly before
he was murdered by Jack Ruby) that he had, indeed, made a trip to
Mexico City, in an attempt to return to Russia by way of Cuba.
The Mexico City admission by Oswald is also intriguing because of the
fact that just two days earlier LHO had flatly denied he had ever been
to Mexico City. .....
"I was never in Mexico City." -- LHO; 11/22/63
"I went to the Mexican Consulate in Mexico City. I went to the Russian
Embassy to go to Russia by way of Cuba. They told me to come back in
thirty days." -- LHO; 11/24/63
Now, regardless of exactly what MONTH or YEAR the latter statement
refers to -- Oswald has obviously been caught in a lie of some
sort....because BOTH of the above statements regarding Mexico City
certainly cannot be truthful.
Another thing that struck me as interesting via Mae Brussell's
compilation is the number of POSITIVELY VERIFIED Oswald quotes that do
not show up on Brussell's list....including Lee Harvey's most famous
verbal comment of them all....which was this remark made by Oswald in
front of a live television audience while LHO was being moved through
the DPD hallways:
"They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet
Union. I'm just a patsy!"
The above quote doesn't appear anywhere within Brussell's "Last Words"
article. Very odd. And another of Oswald's many Live-TV DPD hallway
declarations that is also conspicuous by its absence in Brussell's
work
is this one:
"I don't know what kind of facts you people have been given -- but I
emphatically deny these charges!"
It's very strange that such verifiable "Live On TV" quotes by Lee
Oswald would be omitted from what otherwise appears to be a very
complete record of all the verbal statements made by Oswald from
November 22 to 24.
Brussell also misquotes Oswald at one point during the "Midnight Press
Conference". Oswald didn't say "A cop hit me", as claimed in the
above-linked article. LHO's words were "A policeman hit me".
Other alleged statements attributed to Oswald by members of the Dallas
Police Department are also missing from Brussell's chronicle,
including
LHO telling the DPD he had eaten lunch with "Junior" (Jarman) on
November 22nd at the Book Depository, and Oswald saying he had talked
with Bill Shelley after the shooting had occurred, with Shelley
telling
Oswald he could go home (per what LHO told the police).
So, given these omissions and other errors, I would say it would be
wise to examine Brussell's article with a grain of salt by your side.
(Yes, I have a grain of salt by my own side too -- regarding the
"Mexico City" quotes mentioned earlier.)
Now, with that salt firmly by our sides, let's just have a look at the
falsehoods that were uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald from November 22 to
November 24, 1963, via Brussell's article as written (and the number
of
lies spoken by Mr. Oswald is a good-sized number, to be sure). Also,
according to Mae Brussell, not every quote is a "verbatim" LHO
utterance:
~~~~~~~~
A LIST OF OSWALD'S LIES:
1.) "The only thing I have done is carry a pistol into a movie."
2.) "I didn't kill anybody."
3.) "I haven't shot anybody."
4.) "A police officer has been killed?"
5.) "All I did was carry a gun."
6.) "I was never in Mexico City."
7.) "I never owned a rifle."
8.) "Because of all the confusion, I figured there would be no work
performed that afternoon so I decided to go home."
9.) "I carried a pistol with me to the movie because I felt like it,
for no other reason."
10.) "I didn't shoot President John F. Kennedy or Officer J.D.
Tippit."
11.) "My landlady didn't understand my name correctly, so it was her
idea to call me O.H. Lee."
12.) "The only package I brought to work was my lunch."
13.) "I bought a pistol in Fort Worth several months ago."
14.) "I never ordered any guns."
15.) "I didn't shoot anyone; I never killed anybody."
16.) "I didn't tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back
some curtain rods."
17.) "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."
18.) "It's a mistake; I'm not guilty."
19.) "I don't know what is going on. I just don't know what they are
talking about. Don't believe all the so-called evidence."
20.) "That picture is not mine, but the face is mine. The picture has
been made by superimposing my face. The other part of the picture is
not me at all, and I have never seen this picture before. ... The
small
picture was reduced from the larger one, made by some persons unknown
to me."
21.) "I never kept a rifle at Mrs. Paine's garage."
22.) "I have never ordered any guns."
23.) "I do not own a rifle, never possessed a rifle."
24.) "After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and
started to see what it was all about."
25.) "If you ask me about the shooting of Tippit, I don't know what
you
are talking about."
26.) "The only thing I am here for is because I popped a policeman in
the nose in the theater, which I readily admit I did, because I was
protecting myself."
27.) "I visited my wife Thursday night, November 21, whereas I
normally
visited her over the weekend, because Mrs. Paine was giving a party
for
the children on the weekend."
28.) "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."
29.) "The sack was in the car, beside me, on my lap, as it always is."
30.) "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."
31.) "I never ordered a rifle under the name of Hidell, Oswald, or any
other name."
32.) "I never ordered any rifle by mail order or bought any money
order
for the purpose of paying for such a rifle."
33.) "I didn't own any rifle."
34.) "I have not practiced or shot with a rifle."
35.) "I told you I haven't shot a rifle since the Marines, possibly a
small bore, maybe a .22, but not anything larger since I have left the
Marine Corps."
36.) "I never received a package sent to me through the mailbox in
Dallas, Box No. 2915, under the name of Alek Hidell, absolutely not."
37.) "American people will soon forget the President was shot, but I
didn't shoot him."
38.) "I never lived on Neely Street. These people are mistaken about
visiting there, because I never lived there."
39.) "I did not kill President Kennedy or Officer Tippit."
~~~~~~~~
Does an innocent "patsy" really need to lie this much?
Think about it.
====================================================
RELATED ARTICLE RE. OSWALD'S MANY LIES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
====================================================
Walt
> Oswald practically confessed, idiot-Walt.
Practically confessed??? Where did you learn to comprehend plain
english???
Oswald.... " No Sir, I never shot anybody"......... "I'm just a
patsy"
Does that sound like a confession to you?.... Pea Brain.
David Von Pein
The "confession" is in the "lies" he told (which are lies that no
innocent person would have had any reason to tell).
Idiot.
Walt
Hey DUMD SHIT...... Simply because you believe what Oswald said
( reported by the authorities) was a lie does NOT mean it was a lie.
Yer really a simple minded twerp aren't you?
David Von Pein
But at least I can spell "dumb".
Walt
> But at least I can spell "dumb".
Bravo...... At least you've have "something" you can do..... simple
minded twerp
David Von Pein
"You've have".
Idiot.
Walt
Yup, I made a typo..... But that's not nearly as serious as being a
complete imbecile who believes the SBT.
Walt
> >>> "Yup, I made a typo..... But that's not nearly as serious as being a complete imbecile who believes the SBT." <<<
>
>
> And why did they back up the WC re. the SBT? Because it's so obviously
> true.
>
> Walt doesn't seem to realize that without the "SBT", he needs multiple
> bullets performing in an amazing "SBT"-like fashion. And probably
> THREE bullets, per most CT-Kooks.
>
> And all three bullets go AWOL. (How convenient.)
>
> And it just so happens that JBC is hit in the upper back. (How
> convenient.)
>
> And it just so happens that JBC is sitting in front of JFK. (More
> convenient stuff for the plotters who somehow were able to mimic the
> SBT using multiple guns and THREE different bullets.)
>
> And it just so happens that Kennedy has no injuries in his neck & back
> that could be deemed "bullet-stopping" damage. I.E., it looks like one
> bullet zipped clean through the man. (How utterly convenient--again.)
>
> When all the "SBT"-like things are considered here, is it truly
> possible for anyone to be so that they not only say the SBT is not the
> likely scenario for the way JFK & JBC were wounded, but to also go a
> step further into CT-ville by stating their belief that the SBT is
> completely "impossible"?
>
(And yet *I'm* the "imbecile" here. Right, Walt?)
Damn, I hate to be compelled to agree with you.....But yes, yer right.
> <rollin' 'em>
David Von Pein
The HSCA believes it too.
And why did they back up the WC re. the SBT?
I'll tell you why very easily and simply:
Because the Single-Bullet Theory is so obviously true.
Walt doesn't seem to realize that without the "SBT", he needs multiple
bullets performing in an amazing "SBT"-like fashion. And probably
THREE bullets, per most CT-Kooks.
And all three bullets go AWOL. (How convenient.)
And it just so happens that JBC is hit in the upper back. (How
convenient.)
And it just so happens that JBC is sitting in front of JFK. (More
convenient stuff for the plotters who somehow were able to mimic the
SBT using multiple guns and THREE different bullets.)
And it just so happens that Kennedy has no injuries in his neck & back
that could be deemed "bullet-stopping" damage. I.E., it looks like one
bullet zipped clean through the man. (How utterly convenient--again.)
When all the "SBT"-like things are considered here, it continues to
amaze me how anyone can be so stubbornly against it that they not only
say the SBT is not the likely scenario for the way JFK & JBC were
wounded, but they also want to go one step further into the CT abyss
by stating their belief that the SBT is completely "impossible" and
could never have happened in a million lifetimes.
And yet *I'm* the "imbecile" here. Right, Walt?
<rollin' 'em>
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6279dab3-6430-441a...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The "confession" is in the "lies" he told (which are lies that no
> innocent person would have had any reason to tell).
>
> Idiot.
Like these David?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
aeffects
> On 22 Sep, 18:45, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Oswald practically confessed, idiot-Walt.
>
> Practically confessed??? Where did you learn to comprehend plain
> english???
>
> Oswald.... " No Sir, I never shot anybody"......... "I'm just a
> patsy"
>
> Does that sound like a confession to you?.... Pea Brain.
life is proving difficult for lone nutters, especially of the David
Von Pein, aka Steve Keating. Rumor has it writing assignments are
being passed out for daBugliosi's big debut under the tutelage of Tom
Hanks and HBO.... rumor has it DVP was left holding da proverbial
writing empty bag. Which means: no paycheck....
David Von Pein
>>> "There is a legal difference between a carbine and a rifle." <<<
<chuckle>
Tony thinks that Klein's was concerned about the "legal difference"
between a "carbine" and a mere "rifle" when they substituted a
slightly-different type of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for the one that
Oswald technically ordered through the American Rifleman magazine in
early 1963.
<a second chuckle>
My guess is this:
After receiving his gun in the mail in late March 1963, Lee Oswald
couldn't have cared less about the "91/38" substitution....and, in
fact, he probably never even noticed the (four-inch) difference at
all.
>>> "Don't try to play semantics." <<<
That's funny....that's exactly what I thought CTers are doing each
time they dredge up this silly and wholly-irrelevant "Carbine Vs.
Rifle" topic.
<chuckle hat trick>
aeffects
> Oswald practically confessed, idiot-Walt.
>
> Does an innocent person need to lie this much? If so, why?:
>
> ===================================
> ===================================
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/0d7d6...
>
> >>> "There is a legal difference between a carbine and a rifle." <<<
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Tony thinks that Klein's was concerned about the "legal difference"
> between a "carbine" and a mere "rifle" when they substituted a
> slightly-different type of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for the one that
> Oswald technically ordered through the American Rifleman magazine in
> early 1963.
>
> <a second chuckle>
you don't dance well, when outted, Admit it troll, you haven't a clue!
ROTFLMFAO
> My guess is this:
idiot... now you're living up to Lone Nut mental deficiencies