To recap...

[Bud]

Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Just yours.

[bigdog]

Typical Bud. Concise, to the point, and spot on.

[BOZ]

That's it.

[David Von Pein]

"There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy as there is
evidence that Kennedy got shot." -- Bud; July 21, 2010

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

Naah. Denialists can't face the truth of having been suckered for all
those years.

Chris

[mainframetech]

A shame he can't get anything right. Of course, you're his mentor from
what I hear.

Chris

[Mark Florio]

Bud, you should have left out the qualifier. Good stuff. Mark

[Bud]

Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:57:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

You prove Bud's statement to be correct with every post you make.

[Anthony Marsh]

They still support the Vietnam War and think Saddam Hussein still has
nuclear bombs.

[Bud]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:06:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:35:55 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
> > > Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
> > > scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.
> >
> > Typical Bud. Concise, to the point, and spot on.
>
>
>
> A shame he can't get anything right.

<snicker> I can find the word "arcade" in Holland`s affidavit.

[bigdog]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:06:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

Neither of us needs to mentor the other. Common sense led us both to the
same conclusions. There is little chance you will do the same.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Very TRUE, Bud!

Leftists simply COULDN'T accept that one of their OWN had killed Kennedy.

It must be one of the most SIMPLE crimes to solve, EVER, if the actual
evidence is looked at.

But leftists DON'T want to do that...

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I supply reasons to disbelieve Bud's statements made with no
backup or proof of any kind. And to think you wee his mentor.

Chris

[mainframetech]

'That person' was seen by only one person, Howard Brennan, who has been
discredited. By his own words he saw Oswald on TV before going down to
the lineup, and also a cop asked him if he was going to choose number 2 in
the lineup, which was Oswald. The question came before Brennan had a
chance to view the lineup and make a choice. As well, Brennan had said
that the rifle had no scope, and only said he wasn't sure after the lawyer
hounded him into it.

So we have a trumped up case so far. True that the MC rifle probably
belonged to Oswald, and true that he brought it in that day, but he
brought it in for an innocuous reason, like selling it. After all, he got
what he wanted out of it, photos.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Actually there isn't such evidence. There may be a hope that saying it
enough will make it true, but that hasn't happened at this point. When
looked at in the harsh light of day, there is only circumstantial evidence
that Oswald fired the MC rifle into Dealey Plaza, and NO proof of any kind
that anyone was hit or hurt by any bullets from the MC rifle. WHO fired
the rifle is very much in doubt, since Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor
lunchroom about 12:15pm and also 90 seconds after the shooting, and about
the same time, 2 men were seen in the 6th floor window with a gun. Not a
chance they would let Oswald anywhere near that window they had
commandeered.

Chris

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:40:11 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Those are all great common sense points on that blog page, thanks for
providing them on your website, puts the whole case in perspective.

There is one that V.B. commented on, however, concerning how Ruby could
have recognized Pierce in the police car if he was not himself at the top
of the ramp witnessing the car leaving the basement, meaning that he
definitely came down the ramp, not entering by the basement door.

Gary Mack had an interesting take and answer on that. He said Ruby
could have been in the basement and saw Pierce in the car before it went
up the ramp, meaning he could have entered through the basement door and
used the ramp excuse to cover for the cops that let him come in through
the door.

I don't buy that scenario and discussed this with you and Gary Mack
through personal e-mails. For many reasons, I believe Ruby definitely
came down the ramp.

1- Why would Ruby lie about it and ruin his credibility concerning his
other actions?
2- Why lie and cover for the cops in the basement by giving up the cops
at the top of the ramp (he said he got in when the cop, Vaughn, had his back
turned)?, why not just say the cops in the basement had their backs turned?
3- How did Ruby know the car stopped at the curb to check for traffic if
he came in through the basement?, why would he take the time to look up the
ramp if he was already in the basement?

There are many more logical reasons to think Ruby was telling the truth
when he said he came down the ramp, does anyone else want to provide any
input into this?

[bigdog]

Bud needs no mentor and I wouldn't even presume to be one.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:17:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:55:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:57:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > > Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
> > > > Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
> > > > scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Naah. Denialists can't face the truth of having been suckered for all
> > > those years.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
> > be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else.
>
>
>
>
> 'That person' was seen by only one person, Howard Brennan, who has been
> discredited.

Bullshit. He was corroborated by the physical evidence. He pointed to the
very window where they would later find spent shells. Those spent shells
were fired by a rifle owned by the guy Brennan IDed as the shooter. Was
that just a lucky guess on his part?

> By his own words he saw Oswald on TV before going down to
> the lineup, and also a cop asked him if he was going to choose number 2 in
> the lineup, which was Oswald. The question came before Brennan had a
> chance to view the lineup and make a choice. As well, Brennan had said
> that the rifle had no scope, and only said he wasn't sure after the lawyer
> hounded him into it.
>

HUH???

> So we have a trumped up case so far. True that the MC rifle probably
> belonged to Oswald, and true that he brought it in that day, but he
> brought it in for an innocuous reason, like selling it. After all, he got
> what he wanted out of it, photos.
>

So you can read Oswald's mind? You think you can know why he brought that
rifle in? There is not a scrap of evidence that he brought the rifle in to
sell or even shot to anybody. The evidence is that he used that rifle to
kill JFK. But you refuse to accept hard evidence and instead choose to
believe something for which there is zero evidence. Something as
ridiculous as he brought it in to sell. What a joke!!!

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:18:33 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

You are hopeless. Your silly ideas will NEVER gain any traction. They are
nothing but your fantasies which run head on into real evidence. Evidence
you refuse to accept because you would rather stick with your fantasies.
They will die with you and nobody will care about them. Not now. Not ever.
Deal with it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Same clique.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/15/2016 9:37 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:40:11 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> "There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy as there is
>> evidence that Kennedy got shot." -- Bud; July 21, 2010
>>
>> http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> Those are all great common sense points on that blog page, thanks for
> providing them on your website, puts the whole case in perspective.
>
> There is one that V.B. commented on, however, concerning how Ruby could
> have recognized Pierce in the police car if he was not himself at the top
> of the ramp witnessing the car leaving the basement, meaning that he
> definitely came down the ramp, not entering by the basement door.
>
> Gary Mack had an interesting take and answer on that. He said Ruby
> could have been in the basement and saw Pierce in the car before it went
> up the ramp, meaning he could have entered through the basement door and
> used the ramp excuse to cover for the cops that let him come in through
> the door.
>
> I don't buy that scenario and discussed this with you and Gary Mack
> through personal e-mails. For many reasons, I believe Ruby definitely
> came down the ramp.
>
> 1- Why would Ruby lie about it and ruin his credibility concerning his
> other actions?

Silly.

Why would Oswald lie and ruin his credibility concerning his
other actions?

Why would Dan Rather lie and ruin his credibility concerning his
other actions?

Why would President Bush lie and ruin his credibility concerning his

other actions?

> 2- Why lie and cover for the cops in the basement by giving up the cops
> at the top of the ramp (he said he got in when the cop, Vaughn, had his back
> turned)?, why not just say the cops in the basement had their backs turned?

Maybe because his lawyer told him to lie.
To make it look like a spur of the moment decision and not
premeditation. To save him from the electric chair.

> 3- How did Ruby know the car stopped at the curb to check for traffic if
> he came in through the basement?, why would he take the time to look up the
> ramp if he was already in the basement?
>

What car? What are you talking about? We can SEE for ourselves the
armored car parked at the top of the ramp, waiting to back up and pick
up Oswald.

> There are many more logical reasons to think Ruby was telling the truth
> when he said he came down the ramp, does anyone else want to provide any
> input into this?
>

There is never ANY reason to believe a murderer is telling the truth.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/15/2016 9:17 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:55:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:57:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
>>>> Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
>>>> scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Naah. Denialists can't face the truth of having been suckered for all
>>> those years.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
>> be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else.
>
>
>
>
> 'That person' was seen by only one person, Howard Brennan, who has been

What person? You mean a different person was seen by Euins? And a
different person was seen by Jackson. And so on and so on. There is a
different shooter for each witness?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/15/2016 9:12 PM, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 March 2016 02:35:05 UTC+11, Bud wrote:
>> Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
>> Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
>> scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.
>
> Very TRUE, Bud!
>
> Leftists simply COULDN'T accept that one of their OWN had killed Kennedy.
>

That's only one of the slanders used over the years by the conspirators.

[Allan G. Johnson]

There are 2 ramps, one from Commerce street, the other from Main
street. The one Ruby came down was opposite from the ramp the armored car
was parked in. I thought that was common knowledge. The car Pierce was
driving went up the opposite ramp the armored car was parked in, Duh!

Ruby was being honest about why and how he shot at Oswald, I don't
think he would lie about what ramp he came down just to cover for the cops
in the basement. The explanation he used was that he came down the ramp
when Vaughn's back was turned. He could just as well used that same
explanation to cover for the cops in the basement IF he came in through
the basement door. Why make up a story about coming down the ramp,
something that could easily be disproven? There were many people in the
basement that could have seen him and would contradict his story for all
he knew. If he's caught lying about one thing then that would destroy his
explanations about everything, no credibility.

I think the people most likely to lie in this scenario are Vaughn and
the off duty cop across the street. Both would want to protect themselves
against negligence and the reputation of the Police Dept. It's easy to
say you didn't see something, you can't prove somebody DIDN'T see
something, you have to take their word for it, it's a 50-50 proposition.

It is also very possible they were telling the truth. Just because you
didn't see something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I was looking for the
solar eclipse that other day, I didn't see it, but it did happen, I was
just looking from the wrong place. Vaughn had his back turned so maybe he
really didn't see him. The cop across the street, who said he didn't see
anyone go down the ramp, could have been looking elsewhere at that time,
it did happen quite fast.

[Bud]

I learn from everybody here. From the conspiracy hobbyists it`s mostly
about the human capacity for self-deception and gullibility. It seems that
on at least a superficial level they believe the nonsense they spout.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:37:04 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 9:40:11 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > "There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy as there is
> > evidence that Kennedy got shot." -- Bud; July 21, 2010
> >
> > http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> Those are all great common sense points on that blog page,

<snicker> Especially mine! No, really, its flattering that DVP finds
value in some of the things I`ve written (I think I might be so
over-represented because I`ve perfected the art of the sound bite). In any
case, kudos to David Von Pein, workhorse for truth, thorn in the side of
morons and a great help to me with several issues over the years. Thanks
David!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:17:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:55:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:57:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > > Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
> > > > Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
> > > > scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Naah. Denialists can't face the truth of having been suckered for all
> > > those years.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
> > be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else.
>
>
>
>
> 'That person' was seen by only one person, Howard Brennan, who has been
> discredited.

Anybody who provides information that a conspiracy hobbyist doesn`t like
is considered discredited by them. Just a silly game.

And Howard Brennan was not the only person to say they saw Lee Harvey
Oswald kill someone that day.

> By his own words he saw Oswald on TV before going down to
> the lineup, and also a cop asked him if he was going to choose number 2 in
> the lineup, which was Oswald. The question came before Brennan had a
> chance to view the lineup and make a choice. As well, Brennan had said
> that the rifle had no scope, and only said he wasn't sure after the lawyer
> hounded him into it.

<snicker> Look at all that hobbyist figuring. Amounts to nothing, but
that is to be expected.

> So we have a trumped up case so far.

Is that what you figure? You`re a Truther for crying out loud, what do
you think your figuring is worth?

> True that the MC rifle probably
> belonged to Oswald, and true that he brought it in that day, but he
> brought it in for an innocuous reason, like selling it.

More useless, worthless hobbyist figuring.

> After all, he got
> what he wanted out of it, photos.

Still more useless worthless hobbyist figuring. Luckily in the real world
the finding of accomplished and intelligent people are given weight, not
the musings of internet cranks.

> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/16/2016 7:45 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:17:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:55:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:57:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
>>>>> Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
>>>>> scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Naah. Denialists can't face the truth of having been suckered for all
>>>> those years.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
>>> be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'That person' was seen by only one person, Howard Brennan, who has been
>> discredited.
>
> Bullshit. He was corroborated by the physical evidence. He pointed to the
> very window where they would later find spent shells. Those spent shells
> were fired by a rifle owned by the guy Brennan IDed as the shooter. Was
> that just a lucky guess on his part?
>

No need to guess. He saw OSwald on TV and the cops helped him pick
Oswald. He had trouble picking him out of the lineup at first.

>> By his own words he saw Oswald on TV before going down to
>> the lineup, and also a cop asked him if he was going to choose number 2 in
>> the lineup, which was Oswald. The question came before Brennan had a
>> chance to view the lineup and make a choice. As well, Brennan had said
>> that the rifle had no scope, and only said he wasn't sure after the lawyer
>> hounded him into it.
>>
>
> HUH???
>
>> So we have a trumped up case so far. True that the MC rifle probably
>> belonged to Oswald, and true that he brought it in that day, but he
>> brought it in for an innocuous reason, like selling it. After all, he got
>> what he wanted out of it, photos.
>>
>
> So you can read Oswald's mind? You think you can know why he brought that

You have no proof that he brought in that rifle.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

Prove how else Oswald's rifle got from the garage where his belongings
were stored to the building where he worked. You can't do that. Common
sense prevails.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/17/2016 11:15 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:17:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:55:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:57:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
>>>>> Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
>>>>> scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Naah. Denialists can't face the truth of having been suckered for all
>>>> those years.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
>>> be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 'That person' was seen by only one person, Howard Brennan, who has been
>> discredited.
>
> Anybody who provides information that a conspiracy hobbyist doesn`t like
> is considered discredited by them. Just a silly game.
>
> And Howard Brennan was not the only person to say they saw Lee Harvey
> Oswald kill someone that day.
>

So what? You can't use one crime to prove the other. Find a bank robbery
that day and then claim the bank robbery must have assassinated the
President.

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

It's flattering that DVP finds value in some of the things I've written (I

think I might be so over-represented because I've perfected the art of the
sound bite). In any case, kudos to David Von Pein, workhorse for truth,
thorn in the side of morons and a great help to me with several issues
over the years.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bud, you have not only perfected the art of the (written) "sound bite",
you've done so with a rare ability to combine *all* of these things within
most of your posts: succinctness, common sense, facts, truth, humor, and
subtle sarcasm aimed at the people whom you say I have been a "thorn in
the side of" (CTers, that is).

A fine recent example of Bud's "sound bite" talents is available in this
very thread....

"Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else."

-- Bud; March 14, 2016

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/ejOvJC1gTns/gaIWjvPxAgAJ

A few more from the past:

"If there is a suspicious fire, the kooks would investigate the firemen
who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of
gasoline." -- Bud; November 22, 2007

"Is it really reasonable to believe that what is in evidence can exist and
Oswald be innocent?" -- Bud; June 22, 2013

"There is only pretend evidence of conspiracy. Any real conspiracy would
have to involve someone conspiring with the person who shot and killed
Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Wake me when you can find real evidence of
someone in cahoots with him." -- Bud; February 19, 2012

http://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:49:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/17/2016 11:15 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:17:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:55:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 10:57:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:35:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle to his workplace and killed John F
> >>>>> Kennedy from there and conspiracy hobbyists have spent decades
> >>>>> scrutinizing the utterances and actions of EVERYBODY ELSE.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Naah. Denialists can't face the truth of having been suckered for all
> >>>> those years.
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris
> >>>
> >>> Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
> >>> be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 'That person' was seen by only one person, Howard Brennan, who has been
> >> discredited.
> >
> > Anybody who provides information that a conspiracy hobbyist doesn`t like
> > is considered discredited by them. Just a silly game.
> >
> > And Howard Brennan was not the only person to say they saw Lee Harvey
> > Oswald kill someone that day.
> >
>
> So what? You can't use one crime to prove the other.

You mean you can`t. In fact its apparent that no amount of information
can help you figure out these crimes. How is it that the people with the
least aptitude for figuring things out appointed themselves the ones to
second guess those that could? You can`t figure out how Oswald`s prints on
the murder weapon might indicate his guilt. You can`t figure out how
Oswald being seen committing two murders might be indicative of guilt. I
hope you are better at bridge, you suck at deduction.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't have to prove anything to you when you never prove anything to
me. My theory is as good as yours. You can't prove that Oswald made
those shots.
I proved that 3 shots were fired from that window, you didn't.
I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic, you couldn't.
You can't even prove what your real name is.
Hubris is not common sense.

[Anthony Marsh]

Bridge involves deduction. Did I use deduction to prove that the Zapruder
film was authentic. I deduced the mechanism that produced the ghost
images, but then I found exemplars on other films.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/19/2016 9:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> BUD SAID:
>
> It's flattering that DVP finds value in some of the things I've written (I
> think I might be so over-represented because I've perfected the art of the
> sound bite). In any case, kudos to David Von Pein, workhorse for truth,
> thorn in the side of morons and a great help to me with several issues
> over the years.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Bud, you have not only perfected the art of the (written) "sound bite",
> you've done so with a rare ability to combine *all* of these things within
> most of your posts: succinctness, common sense, facts, truth, humor, and
> subtle sarcasm aimed at the people whom you say I have been a "thorn in
> the side of" (CTers, that is).
>
> A fine recent example of Bud's "sound bite" talents is available in this
> very thread....
>
> "Yah, who could think that the person seen killing people that day might
> be guilty? You guys are too clever for that, it had to be everybody else."
> -- Bud; March 14, 2016
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/ejOvJC1gTns/gaIWjvPxAgAJ
>
> A few more from the past:
>
> "If there is a suspicious fire, the kooks would investigate the firemen
> who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of
> gasoline." -- Bud; November 22, 2007
>

But in some cases it is the fireman who actually started the fire, and
cover-up artists would never suspect him.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

I don't have to prove anything to you when you never prove anything to
me.

So you finally admit that you have no proof of your kooky theories.

It has been proven beyond doubt that Oswald killed JFK. Your silly hobby
is useless. You'd better stick to Bridge with the old ladies.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

Bridge involves deduction. Did I use deduction to prove that the Zapruder
film was authentic.

Oh brother. Here we go with the ten thousandth replay of your imaginary
Z-film victory.

Oh, but the strawberries. That's where I had them.

[BOZ]

We are greatly indebted to you for this.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/21/2016 11:38 AM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - show quoted text -
> I don't have to prove anything to you when you never prove anything to
> me.
>
>
>
> So you finally admit that you have no proof of your kooky theories.
>

Shut your filthy mouth. I've shown you the proof. You've shown nothing.

> It has been proven beyond doubt that Oswald killed JFK. Your silly hobby
> is useless. You'd better stick to Bridge with the old ladies.
>

I don't play with old ladies. You need to work harder on your insults.
Slacker!

[David Von Pein]

Let's all celebrate the 10th anniversary of this classic LOL-inducing
quote from our able friend, Bud:

"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds?
Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by
ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/tluOzIv44s8/_w_osdpON3YJ

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

On 3/21/2016 11:38 AM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - show quoted text -
> I don't have to prove anything to you when you never prove anything to
> me.
>
>
>
> So you finally admit that you have no proof of your kooky theories.
>

Shut your filthy mouth. I've shown you the proof. You've shown nothing.

The only thing you show is that you have no idea what you're talking
about.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

An oldie but goodie. Ozzie was a 'Strange Fruit', indeed.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2016 11:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Let's all celebrate the 10th anniversary of this classic LOL-inducing
> quote from our able friend, Bud:
>
> "The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds?
> Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by
> ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006
>

So you think Sarah Jane Moore intentionally chose a gun which would miss?
Only to scare Ford, not to kill him? How do you explain the .22 bullet
missing Reagan's heart by only 1 inch? Specially designed bullets which
only wound?

You are being silly, on purpose. In the real world, weird stuff happens.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/tluOzIv44s8/_w_osdpON3YJ
>

[bigdog]

It's not hard to picture Tony rolling steel balls around in his hand.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

Because they won't let you.

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 2:49:55 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/1/2016 11:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Let's all celebrate the 10th anniversary of this classic LOL-inducing
> > quote from our able friend, Bud:
> >
> > "The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds?
> > Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by
> > ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006
> >
>
> So you think Sarah Jane Moore intentionally chose a gun which would miss?

Only liberals believe it`s the gun that does the killing. Never saw a
gun on trial for murder.

> Only to scare Ford, not to kill him? How do you explain the .22 bullet
> missing Reagan's heart by only 1 inch? Specially designed bullets which
> only wound?
>
> You are being silly, on purpose. In the real world, weird stuff happens.

Another reason the ideas of the conspiracy hobbyists would never be
contemplated.

> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/tluOzIv44s8/_w_osdpON3YJ
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/2/2016 9:38 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> https://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx3L652JEQ0YD93&cdMsgNo=3814&cdPage=153&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxWDSFVL4TBHM9#Mx3L652JEQ0YD93
>


How about warning people what it is about before the click on the link?

[Anthony Marsh]

<obscure film reference from the past century>
The kids nowadays don't get it.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -

Actually, Anthony, they have these things now called NetFlix, Amazon,
Hulu, TMC, and so on, that allow people to watch movies old and new. I
know it's hard for you to drag yourself out of 1978, when the bumbling
clowns on your precious HSCA were spouting their pseudo-scientific
garbage, but this century does have a lot to offer.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2016 11:06 AM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - hide quoted text -
> On 4/3/2016 2:54 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:29:51 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh
>>> - show quoted text -
>>> Bridge involves deduction. Did I use deduction to prove that the Zapruder
>>> film was authentic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh brother. Here we go with the ten thousandth replay of your imaginary
>>> Z-film victory.
>>>
>>> Oh, but the strawberries. That's where I had them.
>>
>> It's not hard to picture Tony rolling steel balls around in his hand.
>>
>
> <obscure film reference from the past century>
> The kids nowadays don't get it.
>
>
>
> Actually, Anthony, they have these things now called NetFlix, Amazon,
> Hulu, TMC, and so on, that allow people to watch movies old and new. I

But they kids nowadays don't want to watch the old fogy movies.

> know it's hard for you to drag yourself out of 1978, when the bumbling
> clowns on your precious HSCA were spouting their pseudo-scientific
> garbage, but this century does have a lot to offer.
>

You mean the same scientists who analyzed the Kent State Massacre tape
and the Nixon tape?
SLANDER.

[BOZ]

THE CAINE FORTUNE MUTINY?

[OHLeeRedux]

8:37 AMAnthony Marsh

And so that means they can never be wrong? Isaac Newton believed in
alchemy.

The dictaphone recording was not made from the motorcade at the time of
the assassination. That has been proven beyond doubt. And no, Anthony, you
never "debunked the debunkers." That is just another one of your wild,
made-up claims.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you conclude that gravity does not exist because Newton believed in it?

> The dictaphone recording was not made from the motorcade at the time of
> the assassination. That has been proven beyond doubt. And no, Anthony, you
> never "debunked the debunkers." That is just another one of your wild,
> made-up claims.
>

You could not challenge my rebuttal.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

So you conclude that gravity does not exist because Newton believed in it?

> The dictaphone recording was not made from the motorcade at the time of
> the assassination. That has been proven beyond doubt. And no, Anthony, you
> never "debunked the debunkers." That is just another one of your wild,
> made-up claims.
>


You could not challenge my rebuttal.

You don't have a rebuttal, so there's nothing to challenge.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don Thomas also wrote a rebuttal.
It's a fact that you know nothing about the acoustical evidence.

[BOZ]

There is no acoustical evidence.

[OHLeeRedux]

5:20 AMAnthony Marsh

- hide quoted text -

I know that the recording the "acoustical evidence" (snicker) is based on
was not made in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, so it is
therefore worthless. That is a fact. The motorcycle from which the
recording was supposedly made was nowhere near the position the HSCA said
it had to be to record the impulses they said were gunshots. Proven on
film. Officer McLain was not allowed to hear the recording prior to his
testimony. Once he heard it, he said the recording could not have been
made from his motorcycle because the sounds did not match.

And don't bother typing any of your silly one-liners like "Not true,"
because that does nothing at all to negate what I said.

Case closed. AGAIN.

[bigdog]

But of course Tony is going to tell us he did a better job of analyzing
the impulses than the experts he cites. He at once props them up and then
throws them under the bus. Funniest of all he expects to be taken
seriously.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2016 9:15 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> 5:20 AMAnthony Marsh
> - hide quoted text -
> On 4/9/2016 12:14 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Anthony Marsh
>> - show quoted text -
>> So you conclude that gravity does not exist because Newton believed in it?
>>
>>> The dictaphone recording was not made from the motorcade at the time of
>>> the assassination. That has been proven beyond doubt. And no, Anthony, you
>>> never "debunked the debunkers." That is just another one of your wild,
>>> made-up claims.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You could not challenge my rebuttal.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't have a rebuttal, so there's nothing to challenge.
>>
>>
>
>
> Don Thomas also wrote a rebuttal.
> It's a fact that you know nothing about the acoustical evidence.
>
>
> I know that the recording the "acoustical evidence" (snicker) is based on
> was not made in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, so it is

No, you don't. And you can't PROVE where you think it was recorded.
You just heard some disinformation agents say it wasn't recorded in
Dealey Plaza and you accept that without proof because they share your bias.

> therefore worthless. That is a fact. The motorcycle from which the
> recording was supposedly made was nowhere near the position the HSCA said
> it had to be to record the impulses they said were gunshots. Proven on

Nowhere? Well, actually it was close to, but not in the exact position
they said. They made some errors and their map was off.

> film. Officer McLain was not allowed to hear the recording prior to his
> testimony. Once he heard it, he said the recording could not have been
> made from his motorcycle because the sounds did not match.
>

Meaningless. Just listening to the tape will not do the math.
You can't actually HEAR the shots on the tape, silly.

> And don't bother typing any of your silly one-liners like "Not true,"
> because that does nothing at all to negate what I said.
>

My rebuttal negates your existence.

> Case closed. AGAIN.
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So you deny that the Dictabelt exists?

[OHLeeRedux]

bigdog

- show quoted text -

But of course Tony is going to tell us he did a better job of analyzing
the impulses than the experts he cites. He at once props them up and then
throws them under the bus. Funniest of all he expects to be taken
seriously.

He throws him under his bus, then drives over them.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh

You can't hear the shots because there are no shots on the tape. If the
recording had been made in Dealey Plaza, then the shots would have been
audible. McClain knew the recording was not made from his bike because the
sounds he heard during the motorcade -- crowd sounds and motorcycle
engines -- were not there.

You can't prove that the recording was made in Dealey Plaza during the
assassination, and the burden of proof is yours. Your silly theory is
deader than disco.

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't say better. They could not finish their studies. I did, using
their method.

> throws them under the bus. Funniest of all he expects to be taken
> seriously.
>

I can agree with them 99.99% and still point out their errors.
It's called intellectual honesty. Something you know nothing about.

>

[bigdog]

Disco is dead? Damn, and I just got my white polyester leisure suit
cleaned.

[Bud]

<snicker> Tony Marsh lecturing on intellectual honesty. Does it get any
more absurd than that? No, I don`t think it does.

> >

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't driver over people with a bus. I don't drive a bus now.
I'm retired.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Read the BBN report.
The background noise was too loud.

> sounds he heard during the motorcade -- crowd sounds and motorcycle
> engines -- were not there.
>

He lied. We can hear the motorcycle noise on the tape. There are no
crowd sounds, nor should there be.

> You can't prove that the recording was made in Dealey Plaza during the
> assassination, and the burden of proof is yours. Your silly theory is
> deader than disco.
>

We already did. Where you in a coma?

[bigdog]

Hitler speaking out against anti-Semitism might be more absurd, but that's
the only think I can think of.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

No. Read the BBN report.
The background noise was too loud.

> sounds he heard during the motorcade -- crowd sounds and motorcycle
> engines -- were not there.
>

He lied. We can hear the motorcycle noise on the tape.

Oh, really. We can hear motorcycle sounds, but we CAN'T hear gunshots?
Nonsense.

We hear the motorcycle at the Trademart, where the stuck mic was.

[Bud]

I almost offered Isis speaking out in favor of the sanctity of human
life.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/15/2016 12:44 AM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> - show quoted text -
> No. Read the BBN report.
> The background noise was too loud.
>
>> sounds he heard during the motorcade -- crowd sounds and motorcycle
>> engines -- were not there.
>>
>
> He lied. We can hear the motorcycle noise on the tape.
>
>
>
> Oh, really. We can hear motorcycle sounds, but we CAN'T hear gunshots?
> Nonsense.
>

We hear the motocycle sounds because the microphone was installed ON
the microphone and we hear the loud sirens from the other motorcycles
near the one with the open mike.

> We hear the motorcycle at the Trademart, where the stuck mic was.
>

I've argued this thousands of time. You make a claim. Show me where YOUR
mike was and tell me who the drive was. Was it parked in the basement?
Was it running. Was it shifting gears?

[BOZ]

SHOW ME VIDEO OF YOU FINISHING THEIR STUDIES

[BOZ]

THAT'S LIKE TITS ON A BULL.

[bigdog]

OK, that's two things.

[Anthony Marsh]

I uploaded my computer program. But you can't understand it. It's too
BASIC for you.