Oswald did it!!!!
kch...@yahoo.com
I used to believe there was a huge conspiracy behind the jfk assasination.
But after personal research and after numurous books i have changed my mind.
Most of the conspiracy buff's books contradict each other. How many
conspiracy's are there. Most of the "people with their head on straight" who
write books suport each others ideas, now i know this is not true all the time
but it is nothing compared to organizing all the contradictions i get from the
buffs. I wasn't alive when JFK was assaninated but it interest me greatly.
The funniest thing about the so called "conspiracy" is that 36 people have
died mysteriously, well i read the charts about it and only a few could be
considered mysterious. Some didn't have anything to do with "mysterious",
it's time that we realize ONE CRAZY man did bring down the powers of camelot.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
tomnln
I would be very interested in knowing just how longyou have owned your own
Warren Report with the 26 supplemental volumes?
I would also appreciate your telling me how long you've owned the
HSCA Report with the 12 JFK volumes..
ps What was it EXACTLY that made you believe there was a conspiracy in the
first place?
Regards, tomnln
kch...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6d237v$u9n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Lisa Pease
kch...@yahoo.com wrote:
: I used to believe there was a huge conspiracy behind the jfk assasination.
: But after personal research and after numurous books i have changed my mind.
Joined the CIA, eh? :)
--
Lisa Pease
"It is as if the final price for winning the Cold War is our confinement
to a permanent childhood where reassuring fantasies and endless
diversions protect us from the hard truth of our own recent history."
--Robert Parry, THE CONSORTIUM, 2/17/97
Check out my Real History Archives @ http://www.webcom.com/lpease
Visit the site of Probe Magazine at http://www.webcom.com/ctka
Steve Keating
kch...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I used to believe there was a huge conspiracy behind the jfk assasination.
> But after personal research and after numurous books i have changed my mind.
> Most of the conspiracy buff's books contradict each other. How many
> conspiracy's are there. Most of the "people with their head on straight" who
> write books suport each others ideas, now i know this is not true all the time
> but it is nothing compared to organizing all the contradictions i get from the
> buffs. I wasn't alive when JFK was assaninated but it interest me greatly.
> The funniest thing about the so called "conspiracy" is that 36 people have
> died mysteriously, well i read the charts about it and only a few could be
> considered mysterious. Some didn't have anything to do with "mysterious",
> it's time that we realize ONE CRAZY man did bring down the powers of camelot.
Thanks for the post, kchiefs. I think you hit the nail right on the head, but be
prepared for some heavy duty flames from those who disagree with your inciteful
thinking. I think there could be a lot of young people like you who actually take
the time to research the assassination and will undoubtedly come to the same
rational, fact based, conclusion. It is the only one you can come to if you know
the facts and can look past the CT hype and misinformation from years of buff
books that offer no proof of conspiracy and movies like JFK that distort history.
Hope to hear more from you even if you might be a Chiefs fan <g>.
Steve K.
>
>
>
David Wimp
Lisa Pease wrote:
> kch...@yahoo.com wrote:
> : I used to believe there was a huge conspiracy behind the jfk
> assasination.
> : But after personal research and after numurous books i have changed
> my mind.
>
> Joined the CIA, eh? :)
>
I do find it interesting that this position is very often stated on
electronic billboards, but is seems to be quite rare elsewhere.
Dave
Lisa Pease
David Wimp (joli...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: Dave
Great observation, Dave. :) So true!
Pearl Gladstone
Yup, another one of those "land changes" that they herald at the agency,
along with those murmurous books that hiss and whisper, and,
Medusa-like, transform former conspiracy minded innocents into mindless
stone.
What will he do next? Buy a general Motors Car?
John McAdams
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:42:23 -0600, kch...@yahoo.com wrote:
>I used to believe there was a huge conspiracy behind the jfk assasination.
>But after personal research and after numurous books i have changed my mind.
>Most of the conspiracy buff's books contradict each other. How many
>conspiracy's are there. Most of the "people with their head on straight" who
>write books suport each others ideas, now i know this is not true all the time
>but it is nothing compared to organizing all the contradictions i get from the
>buffs. I wasn't alive when JFK was assaninated but it interest me greatly.
>The funniest thing about the so called "conspiracy" is that 36 people have
>died mysteriously, well i read the charts about it and only a few could be
>considered mysterious.
On the so-called "mysterious deaths," check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm
.John
John McAdams
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:19:02 GMT, lpe...@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
wrote:
>kch...@yahoo.com wrote:
>: I used to believe there was a huge conspiracy behind the jfk assasination.
>: But after personal research and after numurous books i have changed my mind.
>
>
>Joined the CIA, eh? :)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep. For Lisa, there are conspiracy believers, and there are spooks.
And there are even people who have proven to be spooks because they
snapped at their wives.
.John
pl...@webtv.net
Regarding all of the "closet" non-conspiracy supporters:
I have been intrigued by the JFK assasination since I first heard about
it as a first-grader the day it happened. So I am not someone who only
became interested years after the fact, nor am I some "easily
impressionable youngster" now learning about a 35-year-old event. I have
talked about the asassination with many people over the years, my age
and older, and I would guess that no more than 1 in 10 seriously believe
in a conspiracy. Interestingly, the balance of the conspiracy-believers
I have encountered are rather young - to me evidence that the squeaky
wheel (in the form of a blizzard of conspiracy books in the past 10
years) gets the attention, whether it truly deserves it or not.
planr
Vern Pascal
Yes Planr, I too have been intrigued by the JFK assassination since it
occurred, but I already was in my 30's at the time. After the WCR was
issued and I studied the case thru critical essays & reading books by
Lane,Weisberg & others I soon arrived at a different conclusion from
yours. I felt that a high-level conspiracy had taken the life of our
president.The more I learn about the evidence the more unshaken
are my original convictions.I have experienced just the opposite from
you in that 9 out of 10 of my acquaintances believe in a conspiracy, and
most of these are not youngsters but fellow ovewr-the-hillers who have
given the case more than passing thought.
Also, the vast majority of conspiracy books were published, not during
the past 10 years as you say, but during the first 10 years after the
WCR came out.
Since the advent of Posnermania produced a paralysis of critical thought
in the media, it has been difficult to publish conspiracy oriented
books, but despite the lack of attention from reviewers, the newer books
still get deserving attention from a public, 80% 0f which believe ia
conspiracy in this case. Regards, Vern
tomnln
WOW! Mr. planr;
So you were about six when JFK was killed.
That would mean that you were about seven when the WCR & 26 volumes were
published.
Please tell me how old you were when you purchased your own set of the
WCR 26 volumes.
Because you sound so knowledgable, I'm sure your basing it all on the
written word of the case...
pl...@webtv.net wrote in message
<6dt74l$cil$1...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Ben Holmes
pl...@webtv.net wrote:
> Regarding all of the "closet" non-conspiracy supporters:
>
> I have been intrigued by the JFK assasination since I first heard about
> it as a first-grader the day it happened. So I am not someone who only
> became interested years after the fact, nor am I some "easily
> impressionable youngster" now learning about a 35-year-old event. I have
> talked about the asassination with many people over the years, my age
> and older, and I would guess that no more than 1 in 10 seriously believe
> in a conspiracy. Interestingly, the balance of the conspiracy-believers
> I have encountered are rather young - to me evidence that the squeaky
> wheel (in the form of a blizzard of conspiracy books in the past 10
> years) gets the attention, whether it truly deserves it or not.
>
> planr
I think you will find that polls done by various news organizations over
the years have consistently shown over 70% of the American people do *NOT*
believe the Warren Commission's report. As for the 'blizzard' of
conspiracy books... that 'blizzard' *started* in 1965...
pl...@webtv.net
Why do most of you conspiracy advocates and Posner- and WC-bashers
always seem to immediately, or after only a few rounds of posts, reply
with ad-hominem attacks to polite postings not in agreement with your
opinions? I didn't kill JFK! Why are you so angry with me? If you are
trying to stifle debate by attempting to intimidate people with angry
words, you are guilty in _fact_ of what you _claim_ others are guilty
of.
(Although now that I think about it, since my paternal grandmother
passed away 6 weeks ago, I do not believe I could now produce a single
witness that I was in my grandmother's home a thousand miles from Dallas
at the exact time of the shooting...hmmm...maybe I should have my
grandmother's body exhumed and autopsied to be sure she wasn't killed by
a flechette fired from an umbrella, instead of passing away due to
pneumonia at the age of 106.)
A polite :( to you impolite persons out there.
Lisa Pease
tomnln (tom...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: WOW! Mr. planr;
: So you were about six when JFK was killed.
: That would mean that you were about seven when the WCR & 26 volumes were
: published.
: Please tell me how old you were when you purchased your own set of the
: WCR 26 volumes.
And how much it cost. :)
pl...@webtv.net
Dear Fred,
Sticks and Stones Can Break My Bones, But Names Can Never Hurt Me.
;-)
planr
pl...@webtv.net
Re: Fred's questions about why I'm here, etc. -
Just expressing my First Amendment right of free speech, and what I hope
to accomplish in any public discussions is my business, no one else's,
in this country.
Brian D. Gregory
I'm 55 and vividly remember what I was doing when I first heard of the
assassination. Like most others I didn't know what had really happened but
questioned the official version (=story) as soon as the time frame came out
about the number of shots fired. The mechanics of firing the weapon were
impossible and, even at the tender age of 21 I saw that something was very
wrong. That position hasn't wavered during the years. Get a copy of Bloody
Treason or Assassination Science and read them with an open mind. You'll see
that the government's position is impossible and that the WC apologists and
the LN crowd are the ones that are hysterically chasing an absurd fantasy.
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>From: "Brian D. Gregory" <sky...@prodigy.net>
>Date: Sun, Mar 15, 1998 19:35 EST
>Message-id: <350C73E6...@prodigy.net>
>
>I'm 55 and vividly remember what I was doing when I first heard of the
>assassination. Like most others I didn't know what had really happened but
>questioned the official version (=story) as soon as the time frame came out
>about the number of shots fired. The mechanics of firing the weapon were
>impossible and, even at the tender age of 21 I saw that something was very
>wrong. That position hasn't wavered during the years. Get a copy of Bloody
>Treason or Assassination Science and read them with an open mind. You'll see
>that the government's position is impossible and that the WC apologists and
>the LN crowd are the ones that are hysterically chasing an absurd fantasy.
What timeframe are you referring to, Brian? The 5.6 second stuff was invented
by the buff authors as being some kind of definitive timeframe of the WC. The
WC did not state that. They said that LHO had upwards of 7.5 seconds for the
shooting. But none of that mattered since they could not determine which shot
missed, or even when the first shot was fired. They mistakenly thought that the
first shot could not have been fired before frame Z210 because the oak tree
blocked LHO's sight of the target. The bottom line still remains. There is *no*
definitive timeframe for the shooting. But there is much evidence of an early
missed shot at around 155-165. The WC could/should have done better, but they
got the conclusion right. Your statement that the shots were "impossible"
should be rethought. Don't be mislead by buff authors that love to attack the
WR, but fail to provide any alternate theory that is based upon the evidence.
Its a zero sum game. If you look at this thing for what it was, you will see
that it is a simple case of a guy with a rifle shooting at the president and
killing him from a building six floors up. Stuff happens, unfortunately.
Steve K.
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Sun, Mar 15, 1998 23:16 EST
>Message-id: <19980316041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>
>What timeframe are you referring to, Brian? The 5.6 second stuff was invented
>by the buff authors as being some kind of definitive timeframe of the WC. The
>WC did not state that. They said that LHO had upwards of 7.5 seconds for the
>shooting.
Parrot, why do you attempt such transparent lies? You know damned well the 5.6
seconds came from the Warren Commission's time frame as calculated by the Z
film..... They said no gunman in the SN could have fired before Z210 and the
last shot was fired at Z 313....for a total of 103 frames...... with a camera
speed of 18.3 Frames /Sec... the total time was 5.6 seconds .........
Now get your lying ass outta here...........
Walt Cakebread
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Mon, Mar 16, 1998 10:16 EST
>Message-id: <19980316151...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
You are not comprehending what I said, Walt. Yes, they asserted that they did
not *believe* that anyone would fire before 210. That was a critical mistake on
their part. Had they gone further, they would have realized that they missed
some key evidence of an early missed shot which changes the possible timeframe
of the shooting and would have helped them determine which of the two shots
before the head shot missed. But they still determined that the timeframe was
between 5.6 and 7.5 seconds. It is the buff authors that have seized upon the
incorrect 5.6 second figure all these years. Let's be clear. There is *no*
definitive timeframe for the shooting, and it is likely that there will never
be one.
Steve K.
>
>Now get your lying ass outta here...........
Check your facts a little better before flaming.
>
>Walt Cakebread
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WCAKE
>Message-id: <199803191417...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>>From: wc...@aol.com (WCAKE)
>>Date: Mon, Mar 16, 1998 10:16 EST
>>Message-id: <19980316151...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>>
>>>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>>>From: ske...@aol.com (SKeat97)
>>>Date: Sun, Mar 15, 1998 23:16 EST
>>>Message-id: <19980316041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>What timeframe are you referring to, Brian? The 5.6 second stuff was
>>invented
>>>by the buff authors as being some kind of definitive timeframe of the WC.
>>The
>>>WC did not state that. They said that LHO had upwards of 7.5 seconds for the
shooting.
>>
>>Parrot, why do you attempt such transparent lies? You know damned well the
>>5.6
>>seconds came from the Warren Commission's time frame as calculated by the Z
>>film..... They said no gunman in the SN could have fired before Z210 and the
>>last shot was fired at Z 313....for a total of 103 frames...... with a
>>camera
>>speed of 18.3 Frames /Sec... the total time was 5.6 seconds .........
>
>You are not comprehending what I said, Walt.
Parrot are you saying that you didn't write .....Quote " They ( the W.C. ) said
that LHO had upwards of 7.5 seconds for the shooting."
Upwards of 7.5 seconds means that a sniper would have at LEAST 7.5 seconds,
.............. You did write that didn't you, Parrot ??
Yes, they asserted that they did
>not *believe* that anyone would fire before 210. That was a critical mistake
on their part.
THere was no mistake you moron...... They logically concluded that no gunman in
the SN would have fired while he couldn't see his target ( because JFK was
obscured by the tree ) so the FIRST shot would have taken place at Z210 and the
last shot occurred at Z313.....5..6 seconds total time.
Had they gone further, they would have realized that they missed
>some key evidence of an early missed shot
You've squawked and screeched about the earlier missed shot before but if there
was a shot earlier than Z 210 then it absolutely could not have come from the
TSBD Smokers Nook window.
And since the W.C. said Oswald fired from there.....if you stick to this
earlier shot scenario then you are exonerating Oswald.
which changes the possible time frame of the shooting and would have helped
them determine which of the two shots
>before the head shot missed. But they still determined that the timeframe was
between 5.6 and 7.5 seconds. It is the buff authors that have seized upon the
>incorrect 5.6 second figure all these years. Let's be clear. There is *no*
>definitive timeframe for the shooting, and it is likely that there will
>never
>be one.
>
>Steve K.
>>
>>Now get your lying ass outta here...........
>
>Check your facts a little better before flaming.
I know a liar when I see one..........
Walt Cakebread
>>
>>Walt Cakebread
>>
>>
SKeat97
>Message-id: <199803192131...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
The oak tree did not totally obsure the target. LHO looks to have squeezed off
and early shot that missed or was deflected. He then had two realatively easy
shots to make and he did. Are you saying that you believe the WR?
Squawk...WR....Squawk They should/could have done a far better job with the
shooting sequence aspect. They copped out by saying that no shots could have
been fired b4 210 and saying that they could not determine which shots missed.
But that does not negate the solid evidence that leads to their conclusion that
LHO alone did all the shooting.
>
>Had they gone further, they would have realized that they missed
>>some key evidence of an early missed shot
>
>You've squawked and screeched about the earlier missed shot before but if
>there
>was a shot earlier than Z 210 then it absolutely could not have come from the
>TSBD Smokers Nook window.
>
>And since the W.C. said Oswald fired from there.....if you stick to this
>earlier shot scenario then you are exonerating Oswald.
Of course not. He fired the early shot. There were no other shooters in DP. Do
you have evidence of any? Please post it.
>
>which changes the possible time frame of the shooting and would have helped
>them determine which of the two shots
>>before the head shot missed. But they still determined that the timeframe
>was
>between 5.6 and 7.5 seconds. It is the buff authors that have seized upon the
>>incorrect 5.6 second figure all these years. Let's be clear. There is *no*
>>definitive timeframe for the shooting, and it is likely that there will
>>never
>>be one.
>>
>>Steve K.
>Walt Cakebread
WCAKE
>Message-id: <199803211515...@ladder03.news.aol.com
> There were no other shooters in DP. Do
>you have evidence of any? Please post it.
You damned right I've got evidence of weapons different than the 6.5 mm Carcano
that was found in the TSBD....... The evidence has been posted a thousand times
but you ignorant Lner's are afraid to admit that you've bought a nonsense lie.
Now you egos won't allow you to admit what fools you've been.
The evidence is in the way President Kennedy's head exploded
Conventional military full metal Jacket 6.5 mm bullets just don't cause that
kind of damage........ THAT'S A FACT. AND it's positive proof that JFK
was NOT killed with a conventional FMJ bullet.
Yes I know you egotistical idiots will argue against it, and trot out Dr
Peetester Latimer's theory as a rebuttal , but then you'd argue that that a
balloon make from lead, will float like a gossamer on a warm breeze..... so you
arguments have no credibility among rational thinkers.
Walt Cakebread
Vern Pascal
Steve;
If Oswald, after missing the first shot badly, then had "two relatively
easy shots", how come the
F.B.I., marksmen using superior firearms, sights, and tripods, were
unable to duplicate
Oswald's feat? Vern
Steve Keating
Vern Pascal wrote:
Hi, Vern. Please post the specifics of the FBI test you cite. I know most
of the specifics of the CBS test in which LHO's feat was duplicated in much
less time than he likely had, but not the one you cite. As a shooter of
high powered rifles at moving targets, and as a person that has been to the
6th floor, my position remains that a 58 and an 89 yard shot at a slow
moving, straight away target, is not that difficult.
Steve K.
Steve Keating
WCAKE wrote:
> > There were no other shooters in DP. Do
> >you have evidence of any? Please post it.
>
> You damned right I've got evidence of weapons different than the 6.5 mm Carcano
> that was found in the TSBD....... The evidence has been posted a thousand times
> but you ignorant Lner's are afraid to admit that you've bought a nonsense lie.
> Now you egos won't allow you to admit what fools you've been.
>
> The evidence is in the way President Kennedy's head exploded
>
> Conventional military full metal Jacket 6.5 mm bullets just don't cause that
> kind of damage........ THAT'S A FACT. AND it's positive proof that JFK
> was NOT killed with a conventional FMJ bullet.
>
> Yes I know you egotistical idiots will argue against it, and trot out Dr
> Peetester Latimer's theory as a rebuttal , but then you'd argue that that a
> balloon make from lead, will float like a gossamer on a warm breeze..... so you
> arguments have no credibility among rational thinkers.
I know that you are a legend in your own mind, Walt, and you think you have the
case solved to your staisfaction, but you fail to grasp the reality of the
situation. You have *nothing* unless you can convince the proper people. All you
and others have done is to assert your opinions to a NG. I get the feeling after
all these years that you are comfortable with that, and this is just a hobby with
you now. So be it, but reality and time keep marching on and you continue to be
ground under the wheels as each day goes by.
Steve K.
>
>
> Walt Cakebread
Vern Pascal
Steve, I believe the public record speaks for itself. None of the tests
were valid, because they did not attempt to duplicate all the conditions
constraining LHO. Remember, the burden of proof is always on the
prosecution. We don't have to prove LHO couldn't have performed the
feat. You on the other hand have to prove he did it, and I don't think
you have, nor do I think you can.
As for my citing the specifics of the FBI tests,
you can check for yourself in the WR to verify that the tests were by no
means conclusive.
I'll put the shoe on the other foot. If you can
show documentation that any test (including
CBS') was ever conducted utilizing MCs of the
same model as LHO's, using defective sights like on LHO's rifle,
shooting without benefit of a tripod, and having the window of the SN
open no more than 18 inches, plus getting all 3 rounds off in 6 seconds,
the last 2 on target, and only being allowed one chance with 3 shots, if
you can do that I'll concede the argument.
You and Dan Rather have stated that it was an easy shot from the SN, but
when all the obstacles LHO allegedly faced are considered,
it becomes an infinitely more difficult feat.
I have seen no evidence demonstrating that any of the tests can be
termed valid.
I don't see how you can justify this feat as "easy", by any stretch of
the imagintion.
What's your fall-back position, Oswald was the greatest marksman in the
world, or just one lucky S.O.B. ? Regards, Vern
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Mon, Mar 23, 1998 20:14 EST
>Message-id: <6f71d4$i3e$1...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Hi, Vern. I don't really have or need a fallback position. I am a realist,
first and foremost. The bottom line is this. There is no definitive timeframe
for the shooting, which means that the best we can to is to simulate two or
three scenarios. The CBS tests showed that at 5.6 seconds, two or three hits
were difficult, but not impossible. Unfortunately, I know of no tests done at
7.5 or 8.5 seconds under similar conditions. Exact conditions that you cite
could likely only be done at the TSBD with a trimmed oak tree and a rifle
certified to be in the same condition as LHO's rifle. That is not going to
happen at this juncture since the shots were shown possible at a very
conservative timeframe. Donahue actually hit three for three on one attempt in
less than 5.6 seconds. But he was a confirmed good/expert shot. I base my
assertion that the shots were relatively easy on my own experience in shooting
high powered rifles at moving targets, and my visit to the SN in the TSBD. The
plaza is small and the shots at 58 and 89 yards were just not that difficult
given reasonable time to make them. The issue boils down to could LHO have made
the shots, not whether I can prove he did, or that you can prove he could not.
That's not gonna happen. The fact is that an average to good shot *could* have
made those short range shots. And yes, the head shot might have been somewhat
lucky for LHO to have made. It happens. The fact must be faced that we will
*never* know. That bothers folks, but its reality. The people that say that the
shots were impossible probably do not know which end of a rifle to shoot from.
And many haven't even stood next to the SN to assess how easy the shots really
would have been, especially with a rifle propped up on boxes. I am not likely
to change your mind on this, but what bothers me is when someone insults my
intelligence and tries to assert that these shots were that difficult for a
marine trained individual such as LHO. I have been there and I am telling you
that thousands of people in this country could have made the shots, and it is
extremely likely that LHO did.
Steve K.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WCAKE
>Unfortunately, I know of no tests done at
>7.5 or 8.5 seconds under similar conditions.
Why do you suppose that is Parrot ?? Could it be that 7.5 or 8.5 seconds
weren't used because they are figments of your imagination??
> "the shots really would have been ( easy ), especially with a rifle propped
up on boxes."
You think a sniper used boxes as a bench rest for the rifle eh Parrot ??
Where can I see the photographs that substantiate your claim ??
Walt Cakebread
Vern Pascal
Steve;
So you admit that no rifle tests were ever conducted, utilizing the
known constraints on LHO which duplicated his marksmanship. I appreciate
the fact that you made this concession. Do you now admit that there is
no rational or scientific basis for LHO being the shooter, other than
sheer luck? Would this be enough to take to court?
You have retreated from your original statement that LHO had "two
relatively easy shots", based solely on the claim that you are a
rifleman yourself (I'm sure of the highest caliber), and that you have
been to the 6th floor. You now state that the last and fatal shot was
"difficult",
probably "lucky". I'm surprised by your inconsistency, Steve.
So your premise is based on a remote possibility that LHO was the
shooter, ( I guess that's close enough for government work), and
your visit to the 6th floor. Did you consider the contortions a shooter
would have to go thru if
he used a box as a support for the rifle, and to kneel low enough to
fire thru a window only 18 inches high?
Despite the well-known fact that LHO couldn't hit his own hind end with
a handful of buckshot, he sure was some lucky shooter in the one
instance when it counted. I know that does not trouble you or the other
official myth buffs, but
to me it stretches logic and science to the breaking point. Have a nice
self-deluded day.
Regards, Vern
e-p...@usa.net
In article <6f71d4$i3e$1...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Hi Vern,
Why are you taking the FBIs word for the fact that the scope was misaligned
but don't take their word that the shots could have been made with that rifle
by LHO?
Elliot
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Vern Pascal
Hi Vern,
Why are you taking the FBI's word for the fact that the scope
was misaligned but don't take their word that the shots could have been
made with that rifle by LHO?
Elliot
Hi Elliot;
Why are you asking a question that begs so obvious an answer?
The misaligned scope was demonstrable evidence, whereas we only have the
FBI's "word", as you say that LHO "could" have fired the shots with that
rifle.
I'd rather deal in facts rather than suppositions, wouldn't you?
Vern
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Wed, Mar 25, 1998 11:47 EST
>Message-id: <199803251647...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>>Unfortunately, I know of no tests done at
>>7.5 or 8.5 seconds under similar conditions.
>
>Why do you suppose that is Parrot ?? Could it be that 7.5 or 8.5 seconds
>weren't used because they are figments of your imagination??
No, it is just a realistic number that has always scared the buffs to death.
>
>> "the shots really would have been ( easy ), especially with a rifle propped
>up on boxes."
>
>You think a sniper used boxes as a bench rest for the rifle eh Parrot ??
>Where can I see the photographs that substantiate your claim ??
>
You can't, Walt, because you don't accept them. You are out in the buff land of
denial. You have questioned every peice of evidence in the SN. At least you are
consistent in your denial. But that won't change the facts of the case.
Steve K.
>Walt Cakebread
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Wed, Mar 25, 1998 12:01 EST
>Message-id: <6fbd8n$oee$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>From: lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal)
>Date: Wed, Mar 25, 1998 12:01 EST
>Message-id: <6fbd8n$oee$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>Steve;
>So you admit that no rifle tests were ever conducted, utilizing the
>known constraints on LHO which duplicated his marksmanship.
Sure, Vern, I would agree to that, because it is impossible to duplicate the
shooting scenario to a perfect degree of acuracy. I think the CBS tests were as
close as one could get to duplicating the height, distance, equipment, and
moving target at the approx speed as one gets. And Donahue bested LHO by
hitting three for three in less than 5.6 seconds. You could shut down DP and do
it from the SN, but that ain't gonna happen. CBS proved what it set out to do,
and what most any shooter knew.
I appreciate
>the fact that you made this concession. Do you now admit that there is
>no rational or scientific basis for LHO being the shooter, other than
>sheer luck?
You are wasting your time, Vern. I am on record as saying the shots were
relatively easy, and I stick by it. Are you experienced in shots from high
powered rifles at moving targets? If not, ask some folks that are if they think
that a 58 or 89 yard shot with a 4x scope or open sights at a slow moving,
straight away target, from a rifle propped up on a box is that difficult. I am
here to tell you that it is not.
Would this be enough to take to court?
Of course. LHO would have gotten the hot seat in short deliberation. He was
found guilty in a mock trial with real jurors and a real judge from Texas. The
evidence is too overwhelming against him. Mr. Gerry Spence (who had not lost a
criminal case in 19 years before this one) had no chance in defending LHO.
>You have retreated from your original statement that LHO had "two
>relatively easy shots", based solely on the claim that you are a
>rifleman yourself (I'm sure of the highest caliber), and that you have
>been to the 6th floor. You now state that the last and fatal shot was
>"difficult",
>probably "lucky". I'm surprised by your inconsistency, Steve.
I am surprised that you are not paying attention. I said that it would have
been difficult only if LHO was constrained to 5.6 seconds for three shots.
Otherwise, an 89 yard shot to a target that was motionless was not difficult.
But I won't discount the possibility that "luck" played a role. It sometimes
does even with the best or worst shots. This is just reality, Vern. The issue
remains. Could LHO have done it with his marine training. The answer remains,
yes.
>So your premise is based on a remote possibility that LHO was the
>shooter, ( I guess that's close enough for government work), and
>your visit to the 6th floor. Did you consider the contortions a shooter
>would have to go thru if
>he used a box as a support for the rifle, and to kneel low enough to
>fire thru a window only 18 inches high?
Of course. Whoever designed the TSBD and windows is probably still laughing
about it today. Poor physical design. LHO had to crouch or kneel for the shots,
but that is not difficult. And a half open window presented no problem for the
sight picture. Try as you might, you aren't gonna find any credible reason why
LHO could not have fired the shots. Your time might be better spent trying to
place him somewhere else other than the SN. Good luck on that one. We all know
that with LHO's political nature there was only gonna be two places for him to
be on 11/22 with the president, VP, govenor, and others passing in front of his
building. Either on the street viewing/yelling or in the SN firing shots.
Certainly not in a lunch room by himself.
>Despite the well-known fact that LHO couldn't hit his own hind end with
>a handful of buckshot, he sure was some lucky shooter in the one
>instance when it counted. I know that does not trouble you or the other
>official myth buffs, but
>to me it stretches logic and science to the breaking point. Have a nice
>self-deluded day.
Sour grapes. LHO was a marine trained shooter with marksman and sharpshooter
qualifications. What does this really mean in layperson terms? He was an
average to good shot. That is all that was necessary, buff books and disinfo
not withstanding.
Steve K.
>Regards, Vern
SKeat97
>Message-id: <6fbo1v$osm$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
> Hi Vern,
> Why are you taking the FBI's word for the fact that the scope
>was misaligned but don't take their word that the shots could have been
>made with that rifle by LHO?
>Elliot
>
>Hi Elliot;
>Why are you asking a question that begs so obvious an answer?
>The misaligned scope was demonstrable evidence
Evidence of what, Vern? A scope can get easily misaligned if dropped or jammed
into a hiding place among boxes. And LHO could have used/preferred open sights.
Some people shoot better with them.
, whereas we only have the
>FBI's "word", as you say that LHO "could" have fired the shots with that
>rifle.
>I'd rather deal in facts rather than suppositions, wouldn't you?
And just where are you going to get these "facts" if you mistrust the FBI? From
buff books? Don't you see that you have no way out here. You have chosen to
indict the FBI and the govt officials as liars which leaves you nothing to go
on but CTs. Well, there are a hundred CT scenarios out there. Which one do you
believe in?
Where will your evidence come from. Are you going to fall into the fallacy trap
that says that since the FBI has made mistakes in the past (as all humans do)
that they *had* to have been wrong in this case?
Steve k.
>Vern
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
e-p...@usa.net
In article <6fbo1v$osm$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal) wrote:
>
> Hi Vern,
> Why are you taking the FBI's word for the fact that the scope
> was misaligned but don't take their word that the shots could have been
> made with that rifle by LHO?
> Elliot
>
> Hi Elliot;
> Why are you asking a question that begs so obvious an answer?
> FBI's "word", as you say that LHO "could" have fired the shots with that
> rifle.
> I'd rather deal in facts rather than suppositions, wouldn't you?
>
But who but the FBI saw the rifle to verify the scope was misaligned? Couldn't
the FBI have misaligned it themselves? If you believe the FBI told the truth
about the scope why not other issues, like prints, ballistic matches, etc?
Do you only believe the FBI when they report something you want to hear?
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Wed, Mar 25, 1998 22:21 EST
>Message-id: <199803260321...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>
>>You think a sniper used boxes as a bench rest for the rifle eh Parrot ??
>>Where can I see the photographs that substantiate your claim ??
>>
>
>You can't, Walt, because you don't accept them. You are out in the buff land
>of
>denial. You have questioned every peice of evidence in the SN. At least you
>are
>consistent in your denial. But that won't change the facts of the case.
>
>Steve K.
>>Walt Cakebread
Well humor me Parrot........who knows maybe you'll show some lurker that
you're theory is valid........ so tell me which photo supports your claim that
a gunman in the "sniper's nest" used boxes as a rest for aiming his rifle ??
Walt Cakebread
Vern Pascal
Hi LN Buff, Steve;
You say," A scope can get easily misaligned if dropped or jammed into a
hiding place among boxes".
your scenario are likewise unlikely.
But I won't give you a pass on your next sentence: "And LHO could have
used/preferred
open sights. Some people shoot better with them."
Firing a rifle with open sights is not tricky, but aiming by this method
with a mounted scope
to contend with is very tricky.
And if LHO preferred open sights, why didn't he just remove the scope?
Supposedly he had the rifle in his possession for several months, when
he must have practiced with it,.
"And just where are you going to get those'facts' if you mistrust the
FBI? From Buff books?"
I get my facts from any source I can. A FACT IS A FACT, regardless of
its source. There are facts in the WR, and there are facts in "Buff"
books, as you so endearingly call them.
That doesn't mean that I blindly accept every
word, unlike your unquestioning allegiance to the official mythology.
Your last statement reveals an uncanny gift for fuzzy thinking.
"Where will your evidence come from. Are you going to fall into the
fallacy trap that says that since the FBI has made mistakes in the past
(as all humans do) that they "had" to have been wrong in this case?"
So at least you admit the FBI has made mistakes in the past. You may not
be a hopeless case after all, Steve!
I'll turn your question around. Since they're capable of mistakes, why
do you accept everything they say in this cae about the basic evidence?
And this follow-up question. If you do accept the FBI'S "facts", I'm
sure you're aware of the major contradiction between the FBI's
conclusions and those of the WR concerning the SBT. ALthough they agree
on a single assassin, the FBI never subscribed to the SBT, which is of
course critical to the WCR. Interesting dilemma, eh what?
So which version do you believe? The FBI's, or the WC's? I know you'd
like to have both, but you can't. If you believe the FBI on this one you
have to give up the lifeblood of your LN theory. If you stick with the
WR, then you'll have to make a major concession, that the FBI was
mistaken in this instance. And then maybe you'll take another look at
many other instances.
Vern
.
donald_willis
In article <199803261544...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com
says...
used the "SN" boxes as a gunrest? Not Brennan, who said the shooter shot from
the window ledge. Not Euins either.
dw
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Thu, Mar 26, 1998 10:44 EST
>Message-id: <199803261544...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>>From: ske...@aol.com (SKeat97)
>>Date: Wed, Mar 25, 1998 22:21 EST
>>Message-id: <199803260321...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>>
>>
>
>>>You think a sniper used boxes as a bench rest for the rifle eh Parrot ??
>>>Where can I see the photographs that substantiate your claim ??
>>>
>>
>>You can't, Walt, because you don't accept them. You are out in the buff land
>>of
>>denial. You have questioned every peice of evidence in the SN. At least you
>>are
>>consistent in your denial. But that won't change the facts of the case.
>>
>>Steve K.
>>>Walt Cakebread
>
>Well humor me Parrot........who knows maybe you'll show some lurker that
>you're theory is valid........ so tell me which photo supports your claim
>that
>a gunman in the "sniper's nest" used boxes as a rest for aiming his rifle ??
OK, Walt, let's play. I'll go with the photos in CoO. Jim Moore did a good job
in helping to recreate the SN, even though he got screwed up on the shooting
scenario.
Steve K.
>
>Walt Cakebread
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Thu, Mar 26, 1998 12:22 EST
>Message-id: <6fe2th$rvi$1...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>Hi LN Buff, Steve;
>You say," A scope can get easily misaligned if dropped or jammed into a
>hiding place among boxes".
>Highly unlikely but I'll give you that one since so many other things in
>your scenario are likewise unlikely.
>
>But I won't give you a pass on your next sentence: "And LHO could have
>used/preferred
>open sights. Some people shoot better with them."
>
>Firing a rifle with open sights is not tricky, but aiming by this method
>with a mounted scope
>to contend with is very tricky.
>And if LHO preferred open sights, why didn't he just remove the scope?
>Supposedly he had the rifle in his possession for several months, when
>he must have practiced with it,.
Vern, I did not say that he did prefer the open sights, but he may have used
them if he suspected that the scope was not aligned to his liking. We just
can't preclude the use of them. I hope you are starting to understand the way
this case and the speculation of it must take place. There are things that we
will never know. So we must concentrate on the evidence, and what can be
inferred by the evidence. We have a scope and open sights. Could either have
been used? Yes. Do we know which was used? Of course not. Do we need to know?
No. Asking why LHO did something is useless. Speculating on why he did or did
not do something like remove a scope is fruitless. The issue is, could he have
fired three shots from his rifle, and does the evidence indicate that he did?
The answer garnered from the evidence is yes.
>
>"And just where are you going to get those'facts' if you mistrust the
>FBI? From Buff books?"
>
>I get my facts from any source I can. A FACT IS A FACT, regardless of
>its source. There are facts in the WR, and there are facts in "Buff"
>books, as you so endearingly call them.
>That doesn't mean that I blindly accept every
>word, unlike your unquestioning allegiance to the official mythology.
I question it, Vern, but I will accept the WC final conclusion even knowing
that they could have done better. People can always do better in any case. I
accept it because I know that LHO is a confirmed liar, and that the shots were
not that difficult for an average to good shooter. Many people have the skill
to do it, but most of us could not kill the president of the U.S. in cold blood
like that. But LHO proved with the Tippit shooting that he was cold blooded. He
pulled it off, and I will accept that until another scenario is proved via
physical evidence.
>
>Your last statement reveals an uncanny gift for fuzzy thinking.
>"Where will your evidence come from. Are you going to fall into the
>fallacy trap that says that since the FBI has made mistakes in the past
>(as all humans do) that they "had" to have been wrong in this case?"
>
>So at least you admit the FBI has made mistakes in the past. You may not
>be a hopeless case after all, Steve!
Thank you. Of course they make mistakes. They are human. You and I make them
too. People think that doctors, pilots, and the FBI are not allowed to make
mistakes because their profession is sometimes critical. Well, let me tell you,
they make plenty, and obviously at some critical times. But that is reality.
For the most part, they do a good, honorable job. If you look at this case in
that light, and in the light of the fear and political atmosphere that existed
in 63, you will understand what happened.
>I'll turn your question around. Since they're capable of mistakes, why
>do you accept everything they say in this cae about the basic evidence?
I don't. I judge it all and see if it fits the conclusion. The WC/FBI/SS all
made mistakes in this case. Admitted. But did they get it right in the end? I
think yes. And time is basically proving that correct. No conspiracy of any
magnitude could have been kept a secret for all these years. People talk in a
high profile case like this.
>
>And this follow-up question. If you do accept the FBI'S "facts", I'm
>sure you're aware of the major contradiction between the FBI's
>conclusions and those of the WR concerning the SBT. ALthough they agree
>on a single assassin, the FBI never subscribed to the SBT, which is of
>course critical to the WCR. Interesting dilemma, eh what?
Many people did not subscribe to the SBT in the early going, including some WC
members.
>So which version do you believe? The FBI's, or the WC's? I know you'd
>like to have both, but you can't. If you believe the FBI on this one you
>have to give up the lifeblood of your LN theory.
The WC was correct in postulating the SBT based on the evidence. You have to.
Nothing else could have happened. The issue is, when did it happen. I think the
WC could have done a better job in determining when it happened. But at the
time, they thought it was sufficient to suggest that it did based upon the
evidence. They also should have done better in determining which shot missed,
but they did not.
If you stick with the
>WR, then you'll have to make a major concession, that the FBI was
>mistaken in this instance. And then maybe you'll take another look at
>many other instances.
Sure, the FBI made some mistakes, as did the WC. I understand that. But I also
understand and accept why they did. But I will not indict or disparage the
entire bunch or the entire effort because of it. I discern that the WC/FBI got
the conclusion right, natural human mistakes notwithstanding.
Steve K.
>Vern
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 09:47 EST
>Message-id: <199803271447...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>
>.. so tell me which photo supports your claim
>>that
>>a gunman in the "sniper's nest" used boxes as a rest for aiming his rifle ??
>
>OK, Walt, let's play. I'll go with the photos in CoO. Jim Moore did a good
>job
>in helping to recreate the SN, even though he got screwed up on the shooting
>scenario.
>
>Steve K.
I'll have to go to the library and get Conspiracy of One.... I don't generally
keep trash laying around in my house.... Is there another book that has the pic
you are referring to? If you will simply post the page number perhaps a lurker
can cross reference that pic in Grodens POP or some other book. I'm sure the
pic you are referring to appears as a W. C. Exhibit.... If you have the W.C.
exhibit number then we can be certain we are talking about the same picture.
Walt Cakebread
Vern Pascal
Hi Steve, LN Buff Supreme:
I take it back, when I said you weren't hopeless
after all, when you yielded a point.-------You are hopeless! But then
so am I. We're in a hpeless deadlock. And we're all going to hell with
our convictions unshaken. I hope we don't have to continue this
discussion when we get there. That would really be hell!
Vern
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 10:14 EST
>Message-id: <199803271514...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>
>Vern, I did not say that he did prefer the open sights, but he may have used
>them if he suspected that the scope was not aligned to his liking.
Hey Parrot....... I think you've just added another bit of weight to your
already overloaded boat.
You acknowledge that the scope was misaligned and therefore worthless in
accurately firing the rifle....... You say that Oswald could have used the iron
sights" if he suspected the scope was not aligned".....
The TSBD rifle wasn't even his rifle but for the sake of this argument I'll
allow that it was.......
First off how could Oswald have known that the scope was misaligned..... He
hadn't handled the rifle since New Orleans.
and according to Marina he only dry fired it there....
The only way to KNOW that a sight is mis-aligned is to actually go to the range
and check to see if the bullet lands where you aim.
So If LHO had been the sniper he would have assumed that the scope was sighted
in and used it. There would have been no reason for him to resort to the iron
sights that could also have been mis-aligned.
I think you're starting to sink your own boat Parrot.....by overloading it with
lies.......
I hope you can swim.... cause your in a sea of S.....
Walt Cakebread
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 11:32 EST
>Message-id: <6fgkbb$pf$1...@newsd-162.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
You are right, Vern, but it should be no problem. I plan on going the other way
to the good place. BTW, say hello to LHO for me when you finally get there.
Steve K.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 14:29 EST
>Message-id: <199803271929...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>>Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 10:14 EST
>>Message-id: <199803271514...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>>
>>
>
>>Vern, I did not say that he did prefer the open sights, but he may have used
>>them if he suspected that the scope was not aligned to his liking.
>
>Hey Parrot....... I think you've just added another bit of weight to your
>already overloaded boat.
>
>You acknowledge that the scope was misaligned and therefore worthless in
>accurately firing the rifle....... You say that Oswald could have used the
>iron
>sights" if he suspected the scope was not aligned".....
Pay attention, Walt. Thescope could have been aligned just fine before he
dumped it into the hiding place.
>
>The TSBD rifle wasn't even his rifle but for the sake of this argument I'll
>allow that it was.......
Why do that?
>
>First off how could Oswald have known that the scope was misaligned..... He
>hadn't handled the rifle since New Orleans.
>and according to Marina he only dry fired it there....
Does your wife know everything you do. Marina really did not care what LHO did
from day to day. He lived alone except on weekends, for Pete's sake. Your
argument is weak.
>
>The only way to KNOW that a sight is mis-aligned is to actually go to the
>range
>and check to see if the bullet lands where you aim.
Agreed, and LHO could have done that hundreds of times if needed.
>
>So If LHO had been the sniper he would have assumed that the scope was
>sighted
>in and used it. There would have been no reason for him to resort to the
>iron
>sights that could also have been mis-aligned.
But they weren't. As to what LHO assumed, we just don't know, do we?
>
>I think you're starting to sink your own boat Parrot.....by overloading it
>with
>lies.......
What lies? All that is necessary for me to show or prove is that it was
possible for him to use his rifle to make the shots. That has already been
shown possible. You will never be able to prove that he did not sight the rifle
in, or practice with it. And, you can only speculate on whether he used the
scope or the iron sights. It really does not matter since he got the job done.
Steve K.
Vern Pascal
Steve, ol' Boy;
What a relief! I won't have to argue with you in hell for eternity.....
But in "that other place" you will have to deal with a very upset LHO
yourself, because you wrongly accused him.......
BTW, see Walt's post today on the MC sling, and try and convince
yourself that it was LHO's rifle which was found in the TSBD. I'm sure
he will have something special to convey to you on this
matter......Regards, Vern
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
>Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 13:17 EST
>Message-id: <6fjerl$54v$1...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
You can count on that, Vern. Walt always has a "special conveyance" for me. <g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Fred Glazier
Steve,
Apparently not according to the FBI
SKeat97 wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!
> >From: wc...@aol.com (WCAKE)
> >Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 14:29 EST
> >Message-id: <199803271929...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
> >
> >>Subject: Re: Oswald did it!!!!