> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

The Bug Man's 4th piece of evidence is that Marina said that Oswald, atypically, did not want to talk about JFK on Thursday night. Again, this implies guilt, but says nothing about conspiracy. This is the false paradigm that the Nutters and the Undercover Nutters promote. They frame the narrative as if Oswald is either guilty or it was a conspiracy, ignoring the most likely possibility that Oswald was a guilty member of a conspiracy. Either that, or Oswald was pissed about JFK wanting to end the oil depletion allowance. I favor the former.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 24, 2023, 5:57:46 PM4/24/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

The Bugmeister's 5th "piece" is that Oswald left the ring and the money on Friday morning. I think there is good reason to doubt the ring story, though it might be true. At most, once again, this implies guilt but says nothing about conspiracy.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 24, 2023, 8:11:41 PM4/24/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

The Silent G's 6th piece is just the curtain rod story again, a bag that's a foot too short for the Mannlicher-Carcano. Details!

donald willis

unread,

Apr 24, 2023, 9:21:21 PM4/24/23

to

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:48:22 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> The Bug Man's 4th piece of evidence is that Marina said that Oswald, atypically, did not want to talk about JFK on Thursday night. Again, this implies guilt, but says nothing about conspiracy. This is the false paradigm that the Nutters and the Undercover Nutters promote. They frame the narrative as if Oswald is either guilty or it was a conspiracy, ignoring the most likely possibility that Oswald was a guilty member of a conspiracy.

Second that motion.

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 24, 2023, 9:49:55 PM4/24/23

to

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:21:21 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:48:22 AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> > The Bug Man's 4th piece of evidence is that Marina said that Oswald, atypically, did not want to talk about JFK on Thursday night. Again, this implies guilt, but says nothing about conspiracy. This is the false paradigm that the Nutters and the Undercover Nutters promote. They frame the narrative as if Oswald is either guilty or it was a conspiracy, ignoring the most likely possibility that Oswald was a guilty member of a conspiracy.

That seems to be the minority viewpoint among conspiracy hobbyists. That POV actually is
theoretically possible. There is no question Oswald was the assassin. Oswald could have had
accomplices for which no evidence has surfaced of their existence. The Lincoln assassination
was a conspiracy even though it was carried out by a lone gunman. Likewise, others could have
taken part in planning the assassination of JFK but Oswald carried out the act all by himself. In
such an instance, the physical evidence would be the same as if Oswald had no accomplices. In
absence of evidence of any co-conspirators, I see no reason to believe there were any.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 24, 2023, 9:56:49 PM4/24/23

to

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:49:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:21:21?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:48:22?AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

>>> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05?AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>>>>
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
>>> The Bug Man's 4th piece of evidence is that Marina said that Oswald, atypically, did not want to talk about JFK on Thursday night. Again, this implies guilt, but says nothing about conspiracy. This is the false paradigm that the Nutters and the Undercover Nutters promote. They frame the narrative as if Oswald is either guilty or it was a conspiracy, ignoring the most likely possibility that Oswald was a guilty member of a conspiracy.
>
>That seems to be the minority viewpoint among conspiracy hobbyists.

It's a minority viewpoint because there's very little evidence for it.

>That POV actually is theoretically possible.

This is like saying that it's theoretically possible that water is
wet.

> There is no question Oswald was the assassin.

And yet you run away EVERY SINGLE TIME we challenge you to cite
evidence supporting this empty claim.

>Oswald could have had
>accomplices for which no evidence has surfaced of their existence.

This begs the question ... you need to show his guilt *first*.

>The Lincoln assassination
>was a conspiracy even though it was carried out by a lone gunman.

Either you don't know your history, or you're quite incorrectly
focused on Lincoln only.

>Likewise, others could have
>taken part in planning the assassination of JFK but Oswald carried out the act all by himself.

Yet you can't cite any evidence showing this.

>In such an instance, the physical evidence would be the same as if Oswald had no accomplices. In
>absence of evidence of any co-conspirators, I see no reason to believe there were any.

In the absence of YOUR cited evidence that Oswald was the lone
assassin, I see no reason to believe it.

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 24, 2023, 10:01:57 PM4/24/23

to

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:56:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:49:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:21:21?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:48:22?AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05?AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> >>>>
> >>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> >>> The Bug Man's 4th piece of evidence is that Marina said that Oswald, atypically, did not want to talk about JFK on Thursday night. Again, this implies guilt, but says nothing about conspiracy. This is the false paradigm that the Nutters and the Undercover Nutters promote. They frame the narrative as if Oswald is either guilty or it was a conspiracy, ignoring the most likely possibility that Oswald was a guilty member of a conspiracy.
> >
> >That seems to be the minority viewpoint among conspiracy hobbyists.
> It's a minority viewpoint because there's very little evidence for it.
> >That POV actually is theoretically possible.
> This is like saying that it's theoretically possible that water is
> wet.
> > There is no question Oswald was the assassin.
> And yet you run away EVERY SINGLE TIME we challenge you to cite
> evidence supporting this empty claim.

You are lying. The evidence has been cited numerous times by myself and others. Every
time we do, you just delete it and call it a logical fallacy because you are gutless.

> >Oswald could have had
> >accomplices for which no evidence has surfaced of their existence.
> This begs the question ... you need to show his guilt *first*.

The WC beat me to it. They did a thorough job of laying out that case. Only a moron could
look at the evidence of Oswald's guilt and conclude he was innocent. But look who I'm
talking to.

> >The Lincoln assassination
> >was a conspiracy even though it was carried out by a lone gunman.
> Either you don't know your history, or you're quite incorrectly
> focused on Lincoln only.

That's why I called it the Lincoln assassination. Booth did that part all by himself.

> >Likewise, others could have
> >taken part in planning the assassination of JFK but Oswald carried out the act all by himself.

> Yet you can't cite any evidence showing this.

Repeating the same lie hundreds of times isn't going to make it come true.

> >In such an instance, the physical evidence would be the same as if Oswald had no accomplices. In
> >absence of evidence of any co-conspirators, I see no reason to believe there were any.

> In the absence of YOUR cited evidence that Oswald was the lone
> assassin, I see no reason to believe it.

Nobody gives a shit what you believe. You're a moron.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 24, 2023, 10:08:29 PM4/24/23

to

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:01:55 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:56:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 14:49:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:21:21?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 10:48:22?AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05?AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
>>>>> The Bug Man's 4th piece of evidence is that Marina said that Oswald, atypically, did not want to talk about JFK on Thursday night. Again, this implies guilt, but says nothing about conspiracy. This is the false paradigm that the Nutters and the Undercover Nutters promote. They frame the narrative as if Oswald is either guilty or it was a conspiracy, ignoring the most likely possibility that Oswald was a guilty member of a conspiracy.
>>>
>>>That seems to be the minority viewpoint among conspiracy hobbyists.
>> It's a minority viewpoint because there's very little evidence for it.
>>>That POV actually is theoretically possible.
>> This is like saying that it's theoretically possible that water is
>> wet.
>>> There is no question Oswald was the assassin.
>>
>> And yet you run away EVERY SINGLE TIME we challenge you to cite
>> evidence supporting this empty claim.
>
>You are lying. The evidence has been cited numerous times by myself and others.

Cite just **ONE** example posted from you.

But you won't.

You can't.

>>>Oswald could have had
>>>accomplices for which no evidence has surfaced of their existence.
>> This begs the question ... you need to show his guilt *first*.
>
>The WC beat me to it.

The WC isn't here to defend their lies... you are.

Yet you CONTINUE to refuse to cite the evidence.

>>>The Lincoln assassination
>>>was a conspiracy even though it was carried out by a lone gunman.
>>
>> Either you don't know your history, or you're quite incorrectly
>> focused on Lincoln only.
>
>That's why I called it the Lincoln assassination. Booth did that part all by himself.

Yep... incorrectly focused.

>>>Likewise, others could have
>>>taken part in planning the assassination of JFK but Oswald carried out the act all by himself.
>>
>> Yet you can't cite any evidence showing this.
>
>Repeating the same lie hundreds of times isn't going to make it come true.

All it would take is a cite any post where you did - this would
*PROVE* me a liar. Yet you can't do it. Why is that, coward?

>>>In such an instance, the physical evidence would be the same as if Oswald had no accomplices. In
>>>absence of evidence of any co-conspirators, I see no reason to believe there were any.
>
>> In the absence of YOUR cited evidence that Oswald was the lone
>> assassin, I see no reason to believe it.

Logical fallacy deleted.

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 10:44:55 AM4/25/23

to

Evidence is needed to establish Oswald had accomplices. Got any? Didn't think so.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 10:48:11 AM4/25/23

to

Brains are needed to understand evidence. Got any? Didn't think so, moron.

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 10:52:25 AM4/25/23

to

The WC needs no defense against spit wad attacks from the likes of assholes like you.
It will be the definitive explanation of the assassination of JFK long after you are dead
and gone.

> Yet you CONTINUE to refuse to cite the evidence.

You're lying. AGAIN!!!

I've posted this several times just in the past month:

[quote on]

The WCR did a thorough job presenting the case against Oswald. Here's the Reader's Digest
version. The WC produced the rifle, the spent shells, and the bullets used to kill JFK. The
bullets and the shells were matched to the rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the
world. A clear paper trail and photos of Oswald with the rifle establish his ownership of such
rifle. Numerous witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor of the
TSBD as the location of the gunman. One witness got a good enough look at him to ID Oswald.
Shells were found at the window those witnesses pointed to as the location of the gunman.
Oswald's prints were found on the tops of the boxes in the window oriented as they would be
if he was facing down Elm St. on the line of fire. A short distance away, a handmade bag was
found long enough to hold a disassembled Carcano rifle. Oswald's palm print was lifted from
the underside of the rifle barrel which could only have been placed there when the rifle was
disassembled. Fibers in the bag matched the blanket that Oswald used to store his rifle in the Paines' garage. Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested were found in the
butt plate of the rifle found on the sixth floor. Immediately after the assassination, Oswald fled
the building and several witnesses establish that he first attempted to take a bus, then switched
to a cab to take him to his rooming house in Oak Cliff. Now if you want a summary of the
evidence that Oswald also killed Tippit, just say so.

[quote off]

Now let's see your evidence that somebody other than Oswald took part in the assassination.
As if there is any chance you will present that.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 10:54:28 AM4/25/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

10 is the loneliest number you will ever do. Here, Bugli Quotes Jarman saying that Oswald asked about the parade route, and Bugli sayeth, "Obviously, Oswald was trying to create the false impression that he knew nothing about the President's visit." And then, after saying what it "obviously" meant, he says it might have meant that Oswald was nervous. Bugliosi must have been nervous when he wrote those two sentences. Anyway, trusting the account of Jarman, Bugliosi once again is just speculating about Oswald's thoughts, which has no evidentiary value.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 12:58:30 PM4/25/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

11 is very messy, the Howard Brennan identification of Oswald as the man in the window. There is reason to believe that Brennan was not even there, that some other construction worker did what he said he did. The guy in the photography does not wear glasses. Brennan does. There is a story for that, but it sounds ridiculous, involving sandblasting and reading the Bible. And Bugliosi says that it is Brennan's description that went out on the radio, which seems not to be correct. And everybody knows that Billy Lovelady looks like Oswald from a distance, and Lovelady was on the Sith Foor, as I prove in some of my videos. I'm not going to write a book here.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 1:45:55 PM4/25/23

to

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 03:52:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

If this were true, most of America wouldn't deny the WCR.

>> Yet you CONTINUE to refuse to cite the evidence.
>
>You're lying. AGAIN!!!
>
>I've posted this several times just in the past month:

And I've very carefully explained to you that a CITATION is either a
quote of testimony, or preferably, an actual book and page number - so
that others CAN SEE WHAT YOU BASE YOUR CLAIMS ON.

What it is *NOT* is simply your unsourced claims. That's *NOT* a
citation. It's clear that you've never had any higher education, or
you would have learned what a citation is... and is not.

What you repeated was merely YOUR CLAIMS. And unsupported by any
citations to actual evidence.

I deleted it of course...

>Now let's see your evidence that somebody other than Oswald took part in the assassination.
>As if there is any chance you will present that.

I post it, you run from it. Then lie about it's existence.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 1:47:00 PM4/25/23

to

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 03:44:53 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:37:27?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

>> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05?AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>> >
>> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
>> Number 9. Number 9. Number 9. Here, Bugliosi tells us that contrary to routine Oswald did not read yesterday's newspaper in the Domino Room. I've never heard this before. There's a footnote, but the DVP PDF doesn't have the footnotes. It's the change of routine thing, and there seem to be many of those on Oswald's Friday. That might imply guilt, but it does not imply lone nuttedness.
>
> Evidence is needed to establish Oswald had accomplices. Got any?
> Didn't think so.

Evidence is needed to establish Oswald on the sixth floor. Got any?
Didn't think so.

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 2:01:35 PM4/25/23

to

As I've said before, I dare you to claim any item I mentioned is NOT a legitimate piece of
evidence and I will be more than happy to jam the specific cites right up your goddam
nose. You know perfectly every item I name is an actual piece of evidence and this is just
another of the chickenshit games you invariably resort to playing because your positions
on just about every issue is so weak. It's what chickenshits like you have to do.

>
> What you repeated was merely YOUR CLAIMS. And unsupported by any
> citations to actual evidence.

You're a lying sack of shit and everybody knows it.

>
> I deleted it of course...

Of course you did because you're a lying chickenshit and you couldn't refute it so you deleted
it. It's what you always do because you're not man enough to honestly debate.

> >Now let's see your evidence that somebody other than Oswald took part in the assassination.
> >As if there is any chance you will present that.

> I post it, you run from it. Then lie about it's existence.

More lies. You've never posted a bit of evidence that anybody other than Oswald was involved.
All your posts are nothing but attacks on the WC's case which you've copied from Mark Lane
because you can't even do that on your own. A criticism of the WC is not evidence that
somebody other than Oswald was involved.

Let's test this out. You've claim a shot from the south knoll went through the windshield and
struck JFK in the throat. Where is your evidence of a south knoll shooter? Do you have an
eyewitness? An earwitness? A discarded shell? A weapon? A photograph? Just what do you
have that would indicate you didn't just pull a south knoll shooter out of your ass?

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 2:45:31 PM4/25/23

to

All right, you piece of shit. Here's where I jam it up your nose.

Chapter 3, page 79 of the Warren Commission Report
"On the sixth floor of the Depository Building, the Dallas police found three spent cartridges and a rifle. A nearly whole bullet was discovered on the stretcher used to carry Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital. As described in the preceding section, five bullet fragments were found in the President's limousine. The cartridge cases, the nearly whole bullet and the bullet fragments were all subjected to firearms identification analysis by qualified experts. It was the unanimous opinion of the experts that the nearly whole bullet, the two largest. bullet fragments. and the three cartridge cases were definitely fired in the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building to the exclusion of all other weapons."

Specific cites for the shells and the recovered bullets. The shells were found on the 6th floor.

Still on page 79
"At 1:22 p.m. Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone and Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman found a bolt-action rifle with a telescopic sight between two rows of boxes in the northwest corner near the staircase on the sixth floor.114 No one touched the weapon or otherwise disturbed the scene until Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day arrived and the weapon was photographed as it lay on the floor.115 After Lieutenant Day determined that there were no fingerprints on the knob of the bolt and that the wooden stock was too rough to take fingerprints, he picked the rifle up by the stock and held it that way while Captain Fritz opened the bolt and ejected a live round.116 Lieutenant Day retained possession of the weapon and took it back to the police department for examination."

A specific cite for the rifle on the 6th floor.
Page 81
"The bolt-action, clip-fed rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository, described more fully in appendix X, is inscribed with various markings, including "MADE ITALY," "CAL. 6.5," "1940" and the number C2766.126 (See Commission Exhibit Nos. 1303, 541(2) and 541 (3), pp. 82-83.) These markings have been explained as follows: "MADE ITALY" refers to its origin; "CAL. 6.5" refers to the rifle's caliber; "1940" refers to the year of manufacture; and the number C2766 is the serial number. This rifle is the only one of its type bearing that serial number.127 After review of standard reference works and the markings on the rifle, it was identified by the FBI as a 6.5-millimeter model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.128 Experts from the FBI made an independent determination of the caliber by inserting a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter cartridge into the weapon for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the weapon's barrel and measuring the cast with a micrometer.129 From outward appearance, the weapon would appear to be a 7.35-millimeter rifle, but its mechanism had been rebarreled with a 6.5-millimeter barrel.130 Constable Deputy Sheriff Weitzman, who only saw the rifle at a glance and did not handle it, thought the weapon looked like a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle.131 (See chapter V, p. 235.)

The rifle is 40.2 inches long and weighs 8 pounds.132 The minimum length broken down is 34.8 inches, the length of the wooden stock."

The specific identification of the rifle found on the 6th floor, a Carcano rifle, serial number
C2766. The length of the disassembled rifle is also established.

Chapter 4, pages 118-121
"Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building,1 agents of the FBI learned from retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City, was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles.2 During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of the records of Crescent Firearms revealed that the firm had shipped an Italian carbine, serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., of Chicago, Ill.3 After searching their records from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. the officers of Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing serial number C2766 had been shipped to one A. Hidell,

Page 119

Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex., on March 20, 1963.4 (See Waldman Exhibit No. 7, p. 120.)

According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in handprinting, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." (See Commission Exhibit No. 773, p. 120.) It was sent in an envelope bearing the same name and return address in handwriting. Document examiners for the Treasury Department and the FBI testified unequivocally that the bold printing on the face of the mail-order coupon was in the handprinting of Lee Harvey Oswald and that the writing on the envelope was also his. 5 Oswald's writing on these and other documents was identified by comparing the writing and printing on the documents in question with that appearing on documents known to have been written by Oswald, such as his letters, passport application, and endorsements of checks.6 (See app. X, p. 568-569.)

In addition to the order coupon the envelope contained a. U.S. postal money order for $21.45, purchased as No. 2,202,130,462 in Dallas, Tex., on March 12, 1963.7 The canceled money order was obtained from the Post Office Department. Opposite the printed words "Pay To" were written the words "Kleins Sporting Goods," and opposite the printed word "From" were written the words "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915 Dallas, Texas." These words were also in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. 8 (See Commission Exhibit No. 788, p. 120.)

From Klein's records it was possible to trace the processing of the order after its receipt. A bank deposit made on March 13, 1963, included an item of $21.45. Klein's shipping order form shows an imprint made by the cash register which recorded the receipt of $21.45 on March 13, 1963. This price included $19.95 for the rifle and the scope, and $1.50 for postage and handling. The rifle without the scope cost only $12.78.9

According to the vice president of Klein's, William Waldman, the scope was mounted on the rifle by a gunsmith employed by Klein's, and the rifle was shipped fully assembled in accordance with customary company procedures. 10 The specific rifle shipped against the order had been received by Klein's from Crescent on February 21, 1963. It bore the manufacturer's serial number C2766. On that date, Klein's placed an internal control number VC836 on this rifle. 11 According to Klein's shipping order form, one Italian carbine 6.5 X-4 x scope, control number VC836, serial number C2766, was shipped parcel post to "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas," on March 20, 1963. 12 Information received from the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service has established that this particular rifle was the only rifle of its type bearing serial number C2766.13 (See app. X, p. 554.)

The post office box to which the rifle was shipped was rented to "Lee H. Oswald" from October 9, 1962, to May 14, 1963.14 Experts on handwriting identification from the Treasury Department and the FBI testified that the signature and other writing on the application for that box were in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald,15 as was a change-of-address card dated May 12, 1963,16 by which Oswald requested that mail addressed to that box be forwarded to him in New Orleans, where he had moved on April 24.17 Since the rifle was shipped from Chicago on March 20, 1963, it was received in Dallas during the period when Oswald rented and used the box. (See Commission Exhibit No. 791, p. 120.)"

Oswald's purchase of the rifle found on the 6th floor is establshed.
Pages 122-124
Oswald's Palmprint on Rifle Barrel

Based on the above evidence, the Commission concluded that Oswald purchased the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building. Additional evidence of ownership was provided in the form of palmprint identification which indicated that Oswald had possession of the rifle he had purchased.

A few minutes after the rifle was discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository Building 44 it was examined by Lt. J. C. Day of the identification bureau of the Dallas police. He lifted the rifle by the wooden stock after his examination convinced him that the wood was too rough to take fingerprints. Capt. J. W. Fritz then ejected a cartridge by operating the bolt, but only after Day viewed the knob on the bolt through a magnifying glass and found no prints.45 Day continued to examine the rifle with the magnifying glass, looking for

Page 123

possible fingerprints. He applied fingerprint powder to the side of the metal housing near the trigger, and noticed traces of two prints.46 At 11:45 p.m. on November 22, the rifle was released to the FBI and forwarded to Washington where it was examined on the morning of November 23 by Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the FBI's Identification Division.47

In his testimony before the Commission, Latona stated that when he received the rifle, the area where prints were visible was protected by cellophane.48 He examined these prints, as well as photographs of them which the Dallas police had made, and concluded that:
...the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.49
Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no identifiable prints.50 He stated that the poor quality of the wood and the metal would cause the rifle to absorb moisture from the skin, thereby making a clear print unlikely. 51

On November 22, however, before surrendering possession of the rifle to the FBI Laboratory, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department had "lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." 52 "Lifting" a print involves the use of adhesive material to remove the fingerprint powder which adheres to the original print. In this way the powdered impression is actually removed from the object.53 The lifting had been so complete in this case that there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. 54 Day, on the other hand, believed that sufficient traces of the print had been left on the rifle barrel, because he did not release the lifted print until November 26, when he received instructions to send "everything that we had" to the FBI.55 The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card on which Lieutenant Day had written the words "off underside gun barrel near end of grip C2766." 56 The print's positive identity as having been lifted from the rifle was confirmed by FBI Laboratory tests which established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle. 57

Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.58 At the request of the Commission, Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department, conducted an independent examination and also determined that this was the right palmprint of Oswald.59 Latona's findings were also confirmed by Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint

Page 124

expert.60 In the opinion of these experts, it was not possible to estimate the time which elapsed between the placing of the print on the rifle and the date of the lift."

Oswald's handling of the rifle found on the 6th floor is established.
Still on page 124

"In a crevice between the butt plate of the rifle and the wooden stock was a tuft of several cotton fibers of dark blue, gray-black, and orange-yellow shades.64 On November 23, 1963, these fibers were examined by Paul M. Stombaugh, a special agent assigned to the Hair and Fiber Unit of the FBI Laboratory.65 He compared them with the fibers found in the shirt which Oswald was wearing when arrested in the Texas Theatre.66 This shirt was also composed of dark blue, gray- black and orange-yellow cotton fibers. Stombaugh testified that the colors, shades, and twist of the fibers found in the tuft on the rifle matched those in Oswald's shirt.67 (See app. X, p. 592.) Stombaugh explained in his testimony that in fiber analysis, as distinct from fingerprint or firearms identification, it is not possible to state with scientific certainty that a particular small group of fibers come from a certain piece of clothing to the exclusion of all others because there are not enough microscopic characteristics present in fibers.68 Judgments as to probability will depend on the number and types of matches.69 He concluded, "There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt."

Establishment the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle found on the 6th floor matched Oswald's
shirt.
Evidence of the rifle bag from pages 134-136:

"A handmade bag of wrapping paper and tape 174 was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor alongside the window from which the shots were fired.175 (See Commission Exhibit No. 2707, p. 142.) It was not a standard type bag which could be obtained in a store and it was presumably made for a particular purpose. It was the appropriate size to contain, in disassembled form, Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial No. C2766, which was also found on the sixth floor.176 Three cartons had been placed at the window apparently to act as a gun rest and a fourth carton was placed behind those at the window.177 (See Commission Exhibit No. 1301,

Page 135

p. 138.) A person seated on the fourth carton could assemble the rifle without being seen from the rest of the sixth floor because the cartons stacked around the southeast corner would shield him.178 (See Commission Exhibit No. 723, p. 80.) The presence of the bag in this corner is cogent evidence that it was used as the container for the rifle. At the time the bag was found, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas police wrote on it, "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lt. J. C. Day." 179

Return to Top

Scientific Evidence Linking Rifle and Oswald to Paper Bag

Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint found on bag.--Using a standard chemical method involving silver nitrates 180 the FBI Laboratory developed a latent palmprint and latent fingerprint on the bag. (See app. X, p. 565.) Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.181 The portion of the palm which was identified was the heel of the right palm, i.e., the area near the wrist, on the little finger side.182 These prints were examined independently by Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI,183 and by Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department. 184 Both concluded that the prints were the right palm and left index finger of Lee Oswald. No other identifiable prints were found on the bag.185

Oswald's palmprint on the bottom of the paper bag indicated, of course, that he had handled the bag. Furthermore, it was consistent with the bag having contained a heavy or bulky object when he handled it since a light object is usually held by the fingers.186 The palmprint was found on the closed end of the bag. It was from Oswald's right hand, in which he carried the long package as he walked from Frazier's car to the building.187

Materials used to make bag.--On the day of the assassination, the Dallas police obtained a sample of wrapping paper and tape from the shipping room of the Depository and forwarded it to the FBI Laboratory in Washington.188 James C. Cadigan, a questioned-documents expert with the Bureau, compared the samples with the paper and tape in the actual bag. He testified, "In all of the observations and physical tests that I made I found ... the bag ... and the paper sample ... were the same." 189

Among other tests, the paper and tape were submitted to fiber analysis and spectrographic examination.190 In addition the tape was compared to determine whether the sample tape and the tape on the bag had been taken from the tape dispensing machine at the Depository. When asked to explain the similarity of characteristics, Cadigan stated: 191
Well, briefly, it would be the thickness of both the paper and the tape, the color under various lighting conditions of both the paper and the tape, the width of the tape, the knurled markings
Page 136
on the surface of the fiber, the texture of the fiber, the letting pattern ...
° ° ° ° °
I found that the paper sack found on the sixth floor ... and the sample ... had the same observable characteristics both under the microscope and all the visual tests that I could conduct.
° ° ° ° °
The papers I also found were similar in fiber composition, therefore, in addition to the visual characteristics, microscopic and UV [ultra violet] characteristics."

It is established that the bag found on the 6th floor was long enough to hold the disassembled
rifle, that Oswald's prints were on the bag, and the bag contained fibers matching the blanket
Oswald used to store his rifle.

From pages 140-141:
Page 140 Palmprints and Fingerprints on Cartons and Paper Bag

Below the southeast corner window on the sixth floor was a large carton of books measuring approximately 18 by 12 by 14 inches which had been moved from a stack along the south wall.208 Atop this carton was a small carton marked "Rolling Readers," measuring approximately 13 by 9 by 8 inches.209 In front of this small carton and resting partially on the windowsill was another small "Rolling Readers" carton.210 These two small cartons had been moved from a stack about three aisles away. 211 The boxes in the window appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest.212 (See Commission Exhibit No. 1301, p. 138.) Behind these boxes was another carton placed on the floor on which a man sitting could look southwesterly down Elm Street over the top of the "Rolling Readers" cartons.213 Next to these cartons was the handmade paper bag, previously discussed, on which appeared the print of the left index finger and right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald.214 (See Commission Exhibit No. 1302, p. 139.)

The cartons were forwarded to the FBI in Washington. Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section, testified that 20 identifiable fingerprints and 8 palmprints were developed on these cartons.205 The carton on the windowsill and the large carton below the window contained no prints which could be identified as being those of Lee Harvey Oswald.216 The other "Rolling Readers" carton, however, contained a palmprint and a fingerprint which were identified by Latona as being the left palmprint and right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.217 (See app. X, p. 566.)

The Commission has considered the possibility that the cartons might have been moved in connection with the work that was being performed on the sixth floor on November 22. Depository employees were laying a new floor at the west end and transferring books from the west to the east end of the building.218 The "Rolling Readers" cartons, however, had not been moved by the floor layers and had apparently been taken to the window from their regular position for some particular purpose.219 The "Rolling Readers" boxes contained, instead of books, light blocks used as reading aids.220 They could be easily adjusted and were still solid enough to serve as a gun rest.

The box on the floor, behind the three near the window, had been one of these moved by the floor layers from the west wall to near the east side of the building in preparation for the laying of the floor.221 During the afternoon of November 22, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas police dusted this carton with powder and developed a palmprint on the top edge of the carton on the side nearest the window.222 The position of this palmprint on the carton was parallel with the long axis of the box, and at right angles with the short axis; the bottom of the palm rested on the box.223 Someone sitting on the box facing the window would have his palm in this position if he placed his hand alongside his right hip. (See Commission Exhibit No. 1302, p. 139.) This print

Page 141

which had been cut out of the box was also forwarded to the FBI and Latona identified it as Oswald's right palmprint.224 In Latona's opinion "not too long" a time had elapsed between the time that the print was placed on the carton and the time that it had been developed by the Dallas police.225 Although Bureau experiments had shown that 24 hours was a likely maximum time, Latona stated that he could only testify with certainty that the print was less than 3 days old.226

The print, therefore, could have been placed on the carton at any time within this period. The freshness of this print could be estimated only because the Dallas police developed it through the use of powder. Since cartons absorb perspiration, powder can successfully develop a print on such material 227 only within a limited time. When the FBI in Washington received the cartons, the remaining prints, including Oswald's on the Rolling Readers carton, were developed by chemical processes. The freshness of prints developed in this manner 228 cannot be estimated, so no conclusions can be drawn as to whether these remaining prints preceded or followed the print developed in Dallas by powder. Most of the prints were found to have been placed on the cartons by an FBI clerk and a Dallas police officer after the cartons had been processed with powder by the Dallas Police.229 (See ch. VI, p. 249; app. X, p. 566.)

In his independent investigation, Arthur Mandella of the New York City Police Department reached the same conclusion as Latona that the prints found on the cartons were those of Lee Harvey Oswald.229 In addition, Mandella was of the opinion that the print taken from the carton on the floor was probably made within a day or a day and a half of the examination on November 22.230 Moreover, another expert with the FBI, Ronald G. Wittmus, conducted a separate examination and also agreed with Latona that the prints were Oswald's.231

In evaluating the significance of these fingerprint and palmprint identifications, the Commission considered the possibility that Oswald handled these cartons as part of his normal duties. Since other identifiable prints were developed on the cartons, the Commission requested that they be compared with the prints of the 12 warehouse employs who, like Oswald, might have handled the cartons. They were also compared with the prints of those law enforcement officials who might have handled the cartons. The results of this investigation are fully discussed in chapter VI, page 249. Although a person could handle a carton and not leave identifiable prints, none of these employees except Oswald left identifiable prints on the cartons.232 This finding, in addition to the freshness of one of the prints and the presence of Oswald's prints on two of the four cartons and the paper bag led the Commission to attach some probative value to the fingerprint and palmprint identifications in reaching the conclusion that Oswald was at the window from which the shots were fired, although the prints do not establish the exact time he was there."

Oswald's prints on the boxes and the paper bag establish his presence on the 6th floor. His
ownership of the rifle and palmprint on the rifle which was the only rifle in the world that could
have fired the recovered cases and bullets and the fibers matching his shirt on the butt plate of
the rifle establish Oswald as the shooter seen firing from the 6th floor.

So there you go, Benny. Specific cites including chapter and page numbers for all of the evidence
I mentioned previously. Now you have no excuses. Provide your evidence, including sources,
chapters, and page numbers that show evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in
the crime. Provide your evidence of a south knoll shooter.

Of course, everyone knows you are going to welch because you always welch. The only question
is what your excuse for welching is going to be.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 3:03:32 PM4/25/23

to

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 07:01:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy. You were TERRIFIED of the fact that not a single
statement of yours was a **CITATION**. So you moved the goalposts.

>and I will be more than happy to jam the specific cites right up your goddam
>nose.

I keep asking for cites, you keep running.

>You know perfectly every item I name is an actual piece of evidence

No, it's an unsupported CLAIM by you.

>> What you repeated was merely YOUR CLAIMS. And unsupported by any
>> citations to actual evidence.
>>

>> I deleted it of course...
>

>Of course you did because you're a lying chickenshit and you couldn't refute it...

"I see you offering your opinion, and nothing else. I also see you
making an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Where’s your
evidence? Your argument, your burden." - Huckster Sienzant

>>>Now let's see your evidence that somebody other than Oswald took part in the assassination.
>>>As if there is any chance you will present that.
>
>> I post it, you run from it. Then lie about it's existence.
>
>More lies. You've never posted a bit of evidence that anybody other than Oswald was involved.
>All your posts are nothing but attacks on the WC's case which you've copied from Mark Lane
>because you can't even do that on your own. A criticism of the WC is not evidence that
>somebody other than Oswald was involved.

The 53 Reason series is ENTIRELY my own arguments, not copied from
anyone else... This one fact proves you a liar.

>Let's test this out. You've claim a shot from the south knoll went through the windshield and
>struck JFK in the throat. Where is your evidence of a south knoll shooter?

The trajectory of the bullet.

> Do you have an eyewitness? An earwitness? A discarded shell? A weapon? A photograph? Just what do you
>have that would indicate you didn't just pull a south knoll shooter out of your ass?

Nope. None of that. Just science. Are you a science denier?

Gil Jesus

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 3:11:38 PM4/25/23

to

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 10:45:31 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Scientific Evidence Linking Rifle and Oswald to Paper Bag
>
> Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint found on bag.--Using a standard chemical method involving silver nitrates 180 the FBI Laboratory developed a latent palmprint and latent fingerprint on the bag. (See app. X, p.
> 565.) Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.181 The portion of the palm which was
> identified was the heel of the right palm, i.e., the area near the wrist, on the little finger side.182 These prints were examined independently by Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI,183 and by Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint
> expert with the New York City Police Department. 184 Both concluded that the prints were the right palm and left index finger of Lee Oswald. No other identifiable prints were found on the bag.

So you're suggesting what, that Oswald made the bag using only his left index finger and his right palm ?
Because that's what your evidence says.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/bag_prints.jpg

Even if he didn't make it like that, did he carry it like that ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_-5L_JNF6g

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 3:13:20 PM4/25/23

to

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 3:37:27 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> Number 9. Here, Bugliosi tells us that contrary to routine Oswald did not read yesterday's newspaper in the Domino Room. I've never heard this before. There's a footnote, but the DVP PDF doesn't have the footnotes.

FYI / FWIW:

The PDF file that I provided in my opening post does, indeed, contain all the FOOTnotes that exist on pages 955 thru 966 (4 footnotes in total).

There is no "footnote" attached to the #9 item on Bugliosi's list (concerning Oswald's habit of reading newspapers at the Depository every morning). There is a SOURCE note (#27) listed, however. And that Source Note takes us to Charles Givens' WC testimony, at 6 H 352 (below):

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0181b.htm

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 3:19:46 PM4/25/23

to

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 07:45:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, all you've just done is shift the unsupported claims from yourself
to the Warren Commission. I see NO EVIDENCE other than raw
unsupported claims by you. Let's see if I can do the same:

John Corbett was seen Saturday night flirting with his granddaughter's
13 year old friend, placing his hands most inappropriately up her
skirt. 17 witnesses saw what happened, and John Corbett was nearly
arrested, but managed to run away before the police arrived.

So, based on the EXACT SAME SORT OF "CLAIMS" - we can presume that
you're a child molester...

Now, a *reasonable* person would say, "Hold up... who saw what, who
are these 17 eyewitnesses, and CAN YOU QUOTE THEIR STATEMENTS?"

But no... I "cited" according to Corbutt's own standards, I need do no
more.

Deleted more "citations" that are simply unsupported claims...

>Latona testified ...

Ah! We're getting *closer* to real evidence... but sadly, Corbutt was
too afraid of quoting the actual testimony, instead quoting what
someone THOUGHT that the testimony said.

You see, *THIS* is why we need citations. REAL citations.

More nonsense deleted.

>So there you go, Benny. Specific cites

NO STUPID!!! ALL YOU'VE DONE IS SHOW THAT YOU AGREE WITH WHAT THE
WARREN COMMISSION *THOUGHT* ABOUT THE EVIDENCE!!!

You've quite carefully refused to cite any ACTUAL evidence.

>Now you have no excuses.

Never needed any.

> Provide your evidence, including sources, chapters, and page numbers
> that show evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in
> the crime.

Actually, I already have. (See the Larry Hancock cite, for example)
And continue to do daily. You can continue to run, who cares?

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 3:26:33 PM4/25/23

to

Thank you for the source note.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 3:28:15 PM4/25/23

to

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:13:19 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

Refuted by his EARLIER contemporary statement given to the FBI.

Terrified of that fact, aren't you Von Penis?

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 3:36:51 PM4/25/23

to

You lying chickenshit scum. I gave you exactly what you asked for which was this:

"And I've very carefully explained to you that a CITATION is either a
quote of testimony, or preferably, an actual book and page number - so
that others CAN SEE WHAT YOU BASE YOUR CLAIMS ON."

I told you that the quotes came from the Warren Commission Report and gave you both the
chapters and page numbers and now you have the nerve to claim what I gave you wasn't a
citation. Every time I think you can't sink any lower, you surprise me. We all knew you would
welch. Even I didn't think you would come up with something this pathetic.

> >You know perfectly every item I name is an actual piece of evidence
> No, it's an unsupported CLAIM by you.

You are lying scum.

> >> What you repeated was merely YOUR CLAIMS. And unsupported by any
> >> citations to actual evidence.
> >>
> >> I deleted it of course...
> >
> >Of course you did because you're a lying chickenshit and you couldn't refute it...
>
>
> "I see you offering your opinion, and nothing else. I also see you
> making an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Where’s your
> evidence? Your argument, your burden." - Huckster Sienzant

I provided the citations you asked for to support my claims. I asked you for proof of YOUR
claims. How is that burden shifting? The burden is on you to support the things you claim
which you are never able to do. All you know how to do is play chickenshit games as you
are doing now.

> >>>Now let's see your evidence that somebody other than Oswald took part in the assassination.
> >>>As if there is any chance you will present that.
> >
> >> I post it, you run from it. Then lie about it's existence.
> >
> >More lies. You've never posted a bit of evidence that anybody other than Oswald was involved.
> >All your posts are nothing but attacks on the WC's case which you've copied from Mark Lane
> >because you can't even do that on your own. A criticism of the WC is not evidence that
> >somebody other than Oswald was involved.

> The 53 Reason series is ENTIRELY my own arguments, not copied from
> anyone else... This one fact proves you a liar.

> >Let's test this out. You've claim a shot from the south knoll went through the windshield and
> >struck JFK in the throat. Where is your evidence of a south knoll shooter?

> The trajectory of the bullet.

That's what you call evidence. YOUR standard is a quote from a witness or a book and page
number so others can see what you base your claims on. You have provide neither. Even your
claim is vague.

> > Do you have an eyewitness?

Of course you don't.

> > An earwitness?

Of course you don't.

> > A discarded shell?

Of course you don't.

> > A weapon?

Of course you don't.

> > A photograph?

> > Of course you don't.Just what do you

> >have that would indicate you didn't just pull a south knoll shooter out of your ass?

> Nope. None of that. Just science. Are you a science denier?

That's your idea evidence? A vague, empty claim with no supporting cites? You keep sinking to
new lows. It almost looks like you are trying to do your own version of the China Syndrome.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 3:47:19 PM4/25/23

to

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:36:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logical fallacies deleted.

Your inability to use evidence means logical fallacies and lies are
all you have to fall back on.

>>>You know perfectly every item I name is an actual piece of evidence
>> No, it's an unsupported CLAIM by you.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>> What you repeated was merely YOUR CLAIMS. And unsupported by any
>>>> citations to actual evidence.
>>>>
>>>> I deleted it of course...
>>>
>>>Of course you did because you're a lying chickenshit and you couldn't refute it...
>>
>> "I see you offering your opinion, and nothing else. I also see you
>> making an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Where’s your
>> evidence? Your argument, your burden." - Huckster Sienzant
>
>I provided the citations you asked for to support my claims. I asked you for proof of YOUR
>claims. How is that burden shifting? The burden is on you to support the things you claim
>which you are never able to do. All you know how to do is play chickenshit games as you
>are doing now.

"I see you offering your opinion, and nothing else. I also see you
making an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Where’s your evidence?
Your argument, your burden." - Huckster Sienzant

>>>>>Now let's see your evidence that somebody other than Oswald took part in the assassination.
>>>>>As if there is any chance you will present that.
>>>
>>>> I post it, you run from it. Then lie about it's existence.
>>>
>>>More lies. You've never posted a bit of evidence that anybody other than Oswald was involved.
>>>All your posts are nothing but attacks on the WC's case which you've copied from Mark Lane
>>>because you can't even do that on your own. A criticism of the WC is not evidence that
>>>somebody other than Oswald was involved.
>
>> The 53 Reason series is ENTIRELY my own arguments, not copied from
>> anyone else... This one fact proves you a liar.

Notice the dead silence as Corbutt gets spanked.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>As usual, Benny can't meet the demands he makes for
>>>others.
>>
>> I cite on nearly a daily basis. Even after cites have been explained
>> to you... you don't.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>He demands specific cites for any evidence others provide, yet all he can ever provide
>>>is vague, unsourced claims that don't add up to squat.
>>>
>>>These are some examples of Benny's "evidence":
>>>
>>>"The trajectory of the bullet."
>>>
>>>"Just science."
>>>
>>>A little sketchy on the details there, Benny. Can you cite the source for these pearls you have
>>>provided us. Remember your standard. Book title and page number.
>>
>> Already cited.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Gave you the names of the witnesses who stated that
>> the windshield had a hole in it, gave you measurments, angles, and
>> diagrams of the shot.
>

>The crack in the windshield was determined...

Tut tut tut... mentioning CONTRADICTING evidence is not a
refutation... you need to explain ALL the evidence, not merely the
pieces you like.

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 6:32:36 PM4/25/23

to

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 1:52:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Benny's worthless drivel deleted.

Still nothing of substance, Benny.

You still don't matter.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 25, 2023, 7:49:57 PM4/25/23

to

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 11:32:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 1:52:45?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>Benny's worthless drivel deleted.
>
>Still nothing of substance, Benny.
>
>You still don't matter.

A demonstration of your cowardice is always funny:

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 26, 2023, 6:29:14 AM4/26/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

12. Bugliosi KNOWS that ""the assassin" was at the 6th floor window. We know somebody was there, yes. It was Billy Lovelady and he was not "the assassin." Lovelady had a photographic alibi provided by James Altgens, and he was in the window because he looked like Oswald and the plan was to blame Oswald as the lone nut. But Lovelady did not shoot JFK. Bugliosi is in over his head, the poor hopeless blackmail victim. He should never have let the Boy Scouts into the cabin!

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 26, 2023, 6:39:20 AM4/26/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

13. Bugliosi does a good job of using Oswald's alleged statements to police to place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. But these alleged statements contain several similar contradictions, the statements about how he got to Beckley being an example. If Oswald really said these things, they reveal him to be either an habitual liar, or just somebody who doesn't remember stuff consistently. But it could be his interrogators are the liars. No recordings or transcripts were made of the interrogations. Perhaps everybody in the room were habitual liars. But, for the Bug Man, this is one of his better rationalizations, a "gotchya!" moment, even though it might be meaningless.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 26, 2023, 6:46:39 AM4/26/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

14. Once again, this Bugliosi conclusion is built upon the shifting sands of what Oswald allegedly said to police. In this regard, bugliosi is just like Scrum Drum, building firm conclusions on infirm evidence.

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 26, 2023, 10:57:28 AM4/26/23

to

On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 2:39:20 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> 13. Bugliosi does a good job of using Oswald's alleged statements to police to place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. But these alleged statements contain several similar contradictions, the statements about how he got to Beckley being an example.

The forensic evidence alone is enough to place Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the
assassination.

> If Oswald really said these things, they reveal him to be either an habitual liar, or just somebody who doesn't remember stuff consistently.

I vote for habitual liar.

> But it could be his interrogators are the liars. No recordings or transcripts were made of the interrogations. Perhaps everybody in the room were habitual liars. But, for the Bug Man, this is one of his better rationalizations, a "gotchya!" moment, even though it might be meaningless.

The assassin would have more reason to lie than the interrogators.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 26, 2023, 11:11:30 AM4/26/23

to

You're still a moron.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 26, 2023, 12:23:32 PM4/26/23

to

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 03:57:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 2:39:20?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

>> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05?AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
>> 13. Bugliosi does a good job of using Oswald's alleged statements to police to place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. But these alleged statements contain several similar contradictions, the statements about how he got to Beckley being an example.
>
>The forensic evidence alone is enough to place Oswald in the sniper's nest at the time of the
>assassination.

You're lying, and will be unable to cite for such a lie.

BT George

unread,

Apr 27, 2023, 4:51:06 PM4/27/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:28:05 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

Thanks. Much better than a put together short summary as one person read it. ...Not that he wasn't usually correct or the so at least "in essence".

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 28, 2023, 1:15:46 AM4/28/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

In No. 15 Bugliosi pieces in Oswald's behavior, his apparent lack of interest in the president's visit and shooting. It's a good point, but of course, if Oswald had seemed to be extremely interested, then Bugliosi would have used that against him, too. To me the hearsay story of Oswald's behavior implies that he was disguising his assassination time activity, but that doesn't mean that he was on the 6th floor. He might have been behind the picket fence whence one shot was fired and whence JC Price saw a young man running to the TSBD, carrying something. His behavior after the assassination also seems incriminating, but not Lonenuttifying. The puzzle is coming together of a guilty Oswald conspirator.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 28, 2023, 6:54:44 AM4/28/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

16. Oswald not at "roll call." Basically, whatever the circumstances of the "roll call," Oswald, unlike most other warehouse employees, left work. Bugliosi sees this as another "piece." Hearsay has Oswald talking to Shelley about leaving, but that's probably a lie. Yeah. Oswald was involved...with a conspiracy. And the plan was for him to leave the TSBD PDQ.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

unread,

Apr 28, 2023, 8:35:09 PM4/28/23

to

No, on Sorrell's own testimony. He testified that he had to get back to the depository area pronto because the sheriff radioed at 12:30 that the shooting came from there. The sheriff said no such thing. Leaving Sorrell for no motivation to return to Dealey & engage with Brennan.

dcw

Steven Galbraith

unread,

Apr 28, 2023, 10:04:02 PM4/28/23

to

Here is the relevant testimony. After helping place JFK and then Connally on stretchers Sorrels said he immediately went to a police car:
SORRELS: "I immediately went into a police car that was leaving and asked them to take me to the building as fast as they could, and when I said the building I meant the one on the corner there, which was the Book Depository.
Mr. STERN - Why did you designate the Book Depository?
Mr. SORRELS - Because I wanted to get there and get something going in establishing who the people were that were in that vicinity. And upon arrival at the Book Store, we pulled up on the side, and I went in the back door.
Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Had you heard any mention of the Book Depository on police broadcasts as you drove to the hospital?
Mr. SORRELS - No; I never heard anything.
Mr. STERN - And, at this point, you were not certain that the shots came from the Book Depository?
Mr. SORRELS - No; I didn't know at that time.

"No, I never heard anything" about the TSBD. Nothing in this testimony about being told the shots came from the TSBD.

Link: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/sorrels1.htm

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 28, 2023, 11:47:12 PM4/28/23

to

Now there's an articulate response. <chuckle>

donald willis

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 2:15:18 AM4/29/23

to

You missed the following in Sorrels' testimony:

"And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital, and said, "Surround the building." He didn't say what building. He just said, "Surround the building." And by that time we had gotten almost in under the underpass, and the President's car had come up and was almost abreast of us."

The "building" which they had just passed, of course, was the depository. And neither the chief nor the sheriff mentioned a building.

dcw

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 8:45:54 AM4/29/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

23. Here Bugliosi fixates on Oswald's trousers. He changed his trousers at Beckley. I thought he changed his shirt. I see Bookhout says that Oswald said that he changed shirt and trousers, the reason being that his work clothes were dirty. That's a reasonable explanation. This is a weak piece in Bugliosi's puzzle, but whatever! Changing clothes might imply guilt and it might not. And maybe he did not change his clothes. Maybe the conspirators wanted us to think that he did. There's a lot of funny shit going on about Oswald's shirt on Friday. Policeman Ray Hawkins is said in an FBI report to have accompanied Oswald to the police station, just to prove that he was wearing the same shirt he was arrested in, when in fact Hawkins did *not* accompany Oswald to the police station. How does such a report happen? The shirt is a murky thing, so I wouldn't believe any hearsay from the authorities on the matter of the shirt. We really don't know whether or not Oswald changed his clothes. But Earlene did say that he put on a jacket, and that accomplishes the same effect of changing his appearance, even if it doesn't prove anything about guilt or innocence or conspiracy.

Bud

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 11:44:31 AM4/29/23

to

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:10:47 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> 21. Here Bugliosi again makes an attitude point by referencing Earlene Roberts' account of Oswald scurrying in. Yep, that does seem funny. Of course Bugliosi does not mention here Earlene Roberts' seeing the horn-honking DPD car #207 while Oswald was in his room, which I think is more to the point, the point of conspiracy.

How so? Did the conspiracy have a phony police car made up for the purpose of annoying Robert`s neighbors with their horn? And blow the horn and get as many people looking to see what is going on, that is the way to keep a low profile.

>He probably deals with that elsewhere by painting Roberts as unreliable, which wouldn't look good here in his pieces.

Maybe he looks at the available information in a reasonable manner, instead of playing silly games with it like conspiracy folk do.

Was there a patrol car 207 in the area to be seen?

Does the "207" information really draw into question that he went to the boarding house (especially in light of the information Oswald gave to his interrogators)?

> This is an example of isolating the evidence and picking the cherry.

An idiot raised on Gilligan`s Island would definitely think this. A thinking person would realize that when you are putting together a premise you gather things together you see as supportive of that premise.

> If we are to believe Earlene about Oswald's haste, then why not believe her about car 207?

Because Oswald is known to have been there and a police car 207 wasn`t?

>"Oh, she has low mentality and is a fat and blind diabetic, and is always making up stuff...unless it fits my wacky Lone Nut Theory. Then she's as good as gold."

We look at information reasonably. If everyone could be it there would be no conspiracy hobbyists.

Bud

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 11:46:47 AM4/29/23

to

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:25:24 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> 22. Oswald picks up his revolver at the rooming house. Yep. That looks funny. But I'm not sure he did pick up his gun here. The cops said they found a holster here, but Earlene said she had never seen holster or revolver, and she cleaned the room.

What did she say about going through his things?

Bud

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 11:56:20 AM4/29/23

to

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:45:54 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> 23. Here Bugliosi fixates on Oswald's trousers. He changed his trousers at Beckley. I thought he changed his shirt. I see Bookhout says that Oswald said that he changed shirt and trousers, the reason being that his work clothes were dirty. That's a reasonable explanation.

Is it really reasonable in the context of events?

"The president was killed out front of my workplace, let me go home, change, grab a gun and sneak into a movie" is not a reasonable response.

> This is a weak piece in Bugliosi's puzzle, but whatever! Changing clothes might imply guilt and it might not. And maybe he did not change his clothes. Maybe the conspirators wanted us to think that he did. There's a lot of funny shit going on about Oswald's shirt on Friday. Policeman Ray Hawkins is said in an FBI report to have accompanied Oswald to the police station, just to prove that he was wearing the same shirt he was arrested in, when in fact Hawkins did *not* accompany Oswald to the police station. How does such a report happen? The shirt is a murky thing, so I wouldn't believe any hearsay from the authorities on the matter of the shirt. We really don't know whether or not Oswald changed his clothes. But Earlene did say that he put on a jacket, and that accomplishes the same effect of changing his appearance, even if it doesn't prove anything about guilt or innocence or conspiracy.

For the clueless (you and Ben), these things are meant to be looked at in toto, not as individual things (hence the list). If each individual thing was seen as prove of Oswald`s guilt the could stand alone, they wouldn`t need to be compiled into a list. The premise is that the cumulative effect of these things establishes Oswald`s guilt.

Hard to see how all these indications of Oswald`s guilt (and others) can all exist and Oswald be innocent. And that is the point.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 12:59:59 PM4/29/23

to

There's no reasoning with you, Bud. You're good only for laughs and insults. At least Hank sometimes has the decency to run away when his ass has been whipped. But you just double down on your own stupidity and say any stupid thing you can think of. Ben can have you!

Bud

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 1:53:47 PM4/29/23

to

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:59:59 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 7:56:20 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:45:54 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> > > 23. Here Bugliosi fixates on Oswald's trousers. He changed his trousers at Beckley. I thought he changed his shirt. I see Bookhout says that Oswald said that he changed shirt and trousers, the reason being that his work clothes were dirty. That's a reasonable explanation.
> > Is it really reasonable in the context of events?
> >
> > "The president was killed out front of my workplace, let me go home, change, grab a gun and sneak into a movie" is not a reasonable response.
> > > This is a weak piece in Bugliosi's puzzle, but whatever! Changing clothes might imply guilt and it might not. And maybe he did not change his clothes. Maybe the conspirators wanted us to think that he did. There's a lot of funny shit going on about Oswald's shirt on Friday. Policeman Ray Hawkins is said in an FBI report to have accompanied Oswald to the police station, just to prove that he was wearing the same shirt he was arrested in, when in fact Hawkins did *not* accompany Oswald to the police station. How does such a report happen? The shirt is a murky thing, so I wouldn't believe any hearsay from the authorities on the matter of the shirt. We really don't know whether or not Oswald changed his clothes. But Earlene did say that he put on a jacket, and that accomplishes the same effect of changing his appearance, even if it doesn't prove anything about guilt or innocence or conspiracy.

> > For the clueless (you and Ben), these things are meant to be looked at in toto, not as individual things (hence the list). If each individual thing was seen as prove [should have been "proof", like I should proof read] of Oswald`s guilt the could stand alone, they wouldn`t need to be compiled into a list. The premise is that the cumulative effect of these things establishes Oswald`s guilt.

> >
> > Hard to see how all these indications of Oswald`s guilt (and others) can all exist and Oswald be innocent. And that is the point.
> There's no reasoning with you, Bud.

That was reasoning. Not surprised you didn`t recognize it.

donald willis

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 4:06:25 PM4/29/23

to

I doubt that he returned at all. But he needed a pretext (Brennan, who was not on the overpass) to get Brennan on record as having attended a lineup. (His presence is "recorded" on a follow-up lineup report to the one you can see in Dale's book.)

Steven Galbraith

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 4:46:39 PM4/29/23

to

Sorrels returned to the scene/Plaza and heard/was told about someone filming the assassination. He went to Zapruder and asked about a film. They then went to get the film developed. Zapruder then gave him two copies; which were sent to Washington.
If Sorrels didn't go back then how did this all happen?

Steven Galbraith

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 6:54:37 PM4/29/23

to

Okay, correction. I have my timeline wrong. Sorrels said he went *from* the hospital to the TSBD and then from there to the police station. At the police station a reporter came up and told him about a person possible filming the assassination. He then went with that reporter to Zapruder's office where he was told about the film.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 9:40:02 PM4/29/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

24. "Oswald shot Tippit." I say that Tippit was shot in Dealey Plaza, not on 10th Street, and that the Oak Cliff action was a staged shooting, a fake shooting, with conspiracy-supplied witnesses. I'm not going to try to explain that here. I've got videos for that. I don't know who shot Tippit in Dealey Plaza. It might have been Oswald, but I think that Black Dog Man (of the Betzner photo), AKA Shadow Man (of the Bothun photo) is the most likely suspect, and that could possibly be Jack Ruby. But I don't know. It's possible that Oswald did play Tippit's shooter on 10th Street, though I tend to think it was some Dallas police officer working with Gerald Hill, and that Acquilla Clemmons, not a conspiracy-supplied witness, saw them both. But, if you want to accept the honesty of the Oak Cliff witnesses, and you want to ignore the possibility of Tippit being shot in Dealey Plaza, then Bugliosi's explanation is plausible, and shooting Tippit would implicate him in the JFK shooting.

donald willis

unread,

Apr 29, 2023, 11:12:53 PM4/29/23

to

There's a big hole in the Brennan-Sorrels story. Brennan testified that he introduced Norman & Jarman to Sorrels on the depository steps. Sorrels' own testimony has no such episode--he testifies only that he saw the open 5th-floor windows. Someone's either lying or has a rotten memory or grasp of reality. Of course, it would be embarrassing for Sorrels to admit that he talked to N&J, but did not have them make out statements that day!

dcw

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 30, 2023, 1:20:46 AM4/30/23

to

In terms of sheer stupidity, this one ranks right up there with Greer shooting JFK with a handgun.
I never cease to be amazed at the nutty ideas conspiracy hobbyists can dream up. I can't even
imagine how wacky the thought process would have to be to come up with something this crazy.

unread,

Apr 30, 2023, 11:40:28 AM4/30/23

to

Sky Guy brought up the supposed tooting of the horn of a cop car outside the boardinghouse when Oswald went there to get changed and grab his gun. This used to be seen as some sort of signal (of what, who knows). The horn that went off in the basement was seen as a signal for Ruby to get ready (how that helps, who knows). The guy opening his umbrella in Dealy Plaza used to be seen as some sort of signal (of what, who knows). Shows how they reverse engineer everything, anything that happens is seen as both significant, and the work of the conspiracy. But even though the conspiracy is huge, everywhere doing everything, some insist it is a small conspiracy.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 30, 2023, 11:59:07 AM4/30/23

to

See what I mean? You're just to fucking stupid to reason.

Bud

unread,

Apr 30, 2023, 12:04:08 PM4/30/23

to

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:59:07 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> See what I mean? You're just to fucking stupid to reason.

I suppose you are talking to me, although you removed everything. In what way was my reasoning deficient? Don`t be afraid to spell out your ideas, I know they are bad but perhaps I can help you with them.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Apr 30, 2023, 12:08:09 PM4/30/23

to

Well, of course, you're too stupid to see what I mean. My mistake!

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 30, 2023, 12:34:49 PM4/30/23

to

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:32:29 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> 27 & 28 - Oswald's arrest. "It's all over now," and the attempted shooting of a cop. Sure, if you accept the Official Story at face value, then this makes Oswald look like a desperate fleeing murderer.

That and a whole lot of other evidence, forensic and eyewitness.

> And this might be the case.

It is.

> But I am not sure that Oswald isn't role-playing here per some conspiracy script.

Why would he participate in a plot to frame himself?

> It's that photo where Oswald and Cigar Man Bentley have their heads together and are looking at the camera. It's just a moment, but to me they look like they're on the same team.

Now there's an empirical piece of evidence.

> That could be my imagination.

It is.

> But either way, it makes Oswald look guilty, as a lone nut or as a conspirator. Bugliosi, by proving Oswald's guilt, is diverting attention from Oswald's involvement in a conspiracy.

Present your evidence of the conspiracy. You've already given us the "evidence" of the photo
showing Oswald and Bentley being on the same team. What else have you got?

unread,

May 1, 2023, 10:11:59 AM5/1/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

37. Then the Bugger babbles something about fingerprints and stuff. Par for the course. Fortunately, nobody but his sycophants has actually read the book, so no harm done.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

May 1, 2023, 11:48:30 AM5/1/23

to

If only the conspiracy-happy fantasists could learn how to ADD things up. Just think of the heavy burden that could be lifted off of them if just *once* they could perform such a basic skill of addition. But, I guess it's just too much to ask. Ben Holmes has never been able to do it. And now I see that Mr. Triple-P (whoever he or she might be) is going to pretend that the majority of Vincent Bugliosi's 53 items are pretty much worthless. It's evidently a terminal anti-math disease that cripples all conspiracy fantasists.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 1, 2023, 12:13:45 PM5/1/23

to

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:48:30 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:11:59 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
> > 37. Then the Bugger babbles something about fingerprints and stuff. Par for the course. Fortunately, nobody but his sycophants has actually read the book, so no harm done.
> If only the conspiracy-happy fantasists could learn how to ADD things up. Just think of the heavy burden that could be lifted off of them if just *once* they could perform such a basic skill of addition. But, I guess it's just too much to ask. Ben Holmes has never been able to do it. And now I see that Mr. Triple-P (whoever he or she might be) is going to pretend that the majority of Vincent Bugliosi's 53 items are pretty much worthless. It's evidently a terminal anti-math disease that cripples all conspiracy fantasists.

The same could be said about you and your crowd not being able to add up the evidence of conspiracy. The chief of police's first reaction to the shooting was to say, "Get somebody up on top of that overpass and see what happened up there!" But Bugliosi and his minions just keep scratching their heads, about this conspiracy stuff. It never ceases to amaze them that somebody takes this sort of evidence seriously, the poor dears. Why do you need my name? It wouldn't mean anything to you. It would just allow you to track me down and hang my cat in the front yard. Is that what you want to do?

David Von Pein

unread,

May 1, 2023, 12:25:16 PM5/1/23

to

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 8:13:45 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> Why do you need my name? It wouldn't mean anything to you. It would just allow you to track me down and hang my cat in the front yard. Is that what you want to do?

Good heavens, no! Why on Earth would I even consider doing such a terrible thing?! I love cats. I have two myself.

I just kind of like to know the real name of the person I'm talking to, that's all. (Plus, if I have real names, I don't have to refer to people like yourself as "The Anonymous Conspiracy Theorist" when I archive the discussions at my own website.)

Haven't you gone by another name here too (besides this "Sky Throne" moniker)? Or am I thinking of somebody else? Perhaps I'm confusing you with Doyle/Scrum. He's changed his name multiple times here at acj, hasn't he?

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 1, 2023, 12:41:00 PM5/1/23

to

On YouTube I used to be "SaintlyOswald." I still use that on my BitChute account. YouTube started censoring me and demonetizing me so I closed the account. I opened a new one soon and used a few other names, concerned that YouTube would continue to censor me. They have shadow banned me anyway with my current "NoTrueFlags Here" account. In these forums I have used a few different names just to amuse myself, but not for deception. "Willie Gingersnaps" was to make fun of Walt Cakebread. I think everybody knew I was the same person. I have never used different names simultaneously. I forget at the moment what else I have called myself here. Probably other people know. I am only "Sky Throne" because your friends started calling me an airline seat. "Fine, I'll be a sky throne, then." I don't care.

David Von Pein

unread,

May 1, 2023, 12:57:23 PM5/1/23

to

unread,

May 1, 2023, 1:39:21 PM5/1/23

to

On Mon, 1 May 2023 04:48:29 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:11:59?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05?AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> > Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>> >
>> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view
>> 37. Then the Bugger babbles something about fingerprints and stuff. Par for the course. Fortunately, nobody but his sycophants has actually read the book, so no harm done.
>

> Ben Holmes has never been able to do it.

Yes, 0 + 0 simply doesn't equal 1.

Von Penis has never understood that fact.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 1, 2023, 3:47:46 PM5/1/23

to

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 3:28:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Here are Pages 955-966 of the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYlqvSGaGHObpVVugSM9rwh_Zjr61HFb/view

37. Bugliosi says it is Oswald's revolver. He's probably right. Oswald, allegedly, said it was his.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 1, 2023, 3:53:40 PM5/1/23

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 1, 2023, 5:56:08 PM5/1/23

to

I disagree. You too easily dismiss anything that contradicts your ridiculous Lone Nut Theory. I have an explanation for the evidence you refuse to explain. The timing evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK616l10brU , the Clayton Butler and ambulance 602 issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uq2u0jlXAg , then ambulance 601 issues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHRV_6iQE1E , the fact that Tippit was in Dealey Plaza https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgEYLaXjtQY , the evidence that Tippit was shot there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp5HRsg8fBk , RC Nelson's activities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrfdBitDFtk & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEZK2g7c8T4&t=6s , and the fake witnesses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0MbW9y-A-Y&t=1s . But the Nutters would rather keep their blinders on and bow to their beloved authorities.

David Von Pein

unread,

May 1, 2023, 6:26:03 PM5/1/23

to

Mr. Throne,

Did you know that J.D. Tippit's body was still lying in the middle of Tenth Street as late as 1:18 PM (CST) on Nov. 22nd?

So how could Tippit possibly have been pronounced dead at Methodist Hospital at 1:15?

Do you think the ambulance call slip is a fake too? Dudley Hughes filled out the ambulance call slip, put it into a time clock, and stamped it "1:18 PM, November 22". (See Dale Myers' book, "With Malice", pages 101-104; 1998 Edition.)

Also see:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 1, 2023, 7:12:36 PM5/1/23

to

I explained the answers to your questions in my videos. The "body" on Tenth Street was not JD Tippit, but somebody else playing dead. Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:15 because ambulance 601 brought him there before shots were fired on Tenth Street. Ambulance 602 took the somebody else, probably RC Nelson back to his squad car which he had left in the Dealey Plaza area. The ambulance call slip was real, but 602, not 601, responded to 10th Street. 602 brought Nelson to Dealey Plaza. 601 brought Tippit to Methodist. Do try to pay attention.

donald willis

unread,

John Corbett

unread,

May 2, 2023, 10:44:15 PM5/2/23

to

While Reclaiming History is a magnificent work, I fear it will largely be for naught. The hardcore
conspiracy believers will continue to invent excuses to dismiss it just as they have with the WCR
since its release. Those who believe Oswald acted alone don't need to be convinced of that
although they will find it to be a useful reference work. The people who would likely be swayed by
it will probably never read it. Those are the people who believe there was some sort of
conspiracy although they probably aren't sure just what. They haven't studied the evidence
closely and have no desire to. Most of them haven't read the book and have no intention of
doing so. They just don't have any passion for the subject, one way or another.

John Corbett

unread,

May 2, 2023, 10:47:37 PM5/2/23

to

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:46:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:39:22 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 9:04:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Proving that a shell was fired from a particular weapon HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER A PARCULAR [sic] BULLET WAS FIRED FROM THAT WEAPON!
> >
> > We're talking about the situation that exists in THIS case (the Tippit case), Mr. Prick. Not other cases.
> >
> > And since we know that in THIS (Tippit) case there was only ONE gunman firing bullets from ONE gun on Tenth Street on Nov. 22, then the fact that the bullets themselves could not be tied conclusively to Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver is immaterial and irrelevant.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because: The four shells that Oswald was kind enough to dump in the Davis girls' yard WERE matched to the gun Oswald had on him in the theater just minutes later. Ergo, Oswald cannot be innocent of killing Tippit.
> Strangely enough, however, the police were so inept in Oak Cliff that all the casings recovered were (supposedly) found by other people. One (supposed) witness, Virginia Davis, even found yet another casing years later. Talk about a thorough search by the cops of 1963! Someone should check that yard again today....

You have the unrealistic expectation that every cop should be as diligent as Sherlock Holmes.
Cops are no different than most professions. There are some who are very good at their jobs,
some who are screw-ups, and most of them fall somewhere in between.

donald willis

unread,

May 2, 2023, 11:57:38 PM5/2/23

to

Yeah, I guess that back then there was no concern re civilians disturbing a crime scene.

unread,

May 3, 2023, 2:41:25 PM5/3/23

to

On Tue, 2 May 2023 06:39:21 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 9:04:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Proving that a shell was fired from a particular weapon HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER A PARCULAR [sic] BULLET WAS FIRED FROM THAT WEAPON!
>
>We're talking about the situation that exists in THIS case (the Tippit case), Mr. Prick. Not other cases.

Yes, you're PRESUMING guilt, then using that "guilt" to overturn
science. Science would tell you that knowing that a shell was fired
from a particular weapon HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE
BULLETS FIRED.

> And since we know that in THIS (Tippit) case there was only ONE
> gunman firing bullets from ONE gun on Tenth Street on Nov. 22,

Actually, we don't know that. The evidence and eyewitnesses are FAR
more consistent with two suspects, not one.

> then the fact that the bullets themselves could not be tied
> conclusively to Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver is immaterial and
> irrelevant.

Yep... just as I stated. You PRESUME Oswald's guilt, then twist the
evidence to support your belief.

I deleted your logical fallacies for you... no thanks required.

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 3, 2023, 2:41:49 PM5/3/23

to

On Tue, 2 May 2023 12:46:27 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>"A defense counsel who was given free leave by the courts to invent
> any explanation which would account for the facts in this case and yet
> be consistent with his client’s innocence would have had a desperate
> task.

Douglas Horne proves otherwise.

John Corbett

unread,

May 3, 2023, 4:32:39 PM5/3/23

to

Douglas Horne proved there are lot of gullible people in this world. Of course,
we already knew that. There's one born every minute.

John Corbett

unread,

May 3, 2023, 4:32:52 PM5/3/23

to

Nobody needs to twist the evidence. It takes us straight to Oswald and it's
a very short journey. All the twisting is done by conspiracy hobbyists who
are forced to dismiss each and every piece of his guilt.

David Von Pein

unread,

May 3, 2023, 4:38:33 PM5/3/23

to

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 7:22:26 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> Maybe the 38-inch bag is the one Yates saw Oswald with on Wednesday.

The tall tale told to the FBI on December 10, 1963, by 27-year-old refrigeration service man Ralph Leon Yates can be found in its entirety in this FBI report:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57741#relPageId=67

Yates claimed that he picked up hitchhiker Lee Harvey Oswald and drove him to the corner of Houston and Elm Streets in Dallas (the location of the TSBD) on Wednesday, November 20, 1963, two days before JFK's assassination.

But none of the things that Oswald allegedly said to Yates come even close to ringing true in any way at all. Yates' story, in my opinion, has all the earmarks of a totally made-up tale that was created by Yates in the days following the murders of Kennedy and Oswald.

Conspiracy theorists who choose to believe Mr. Yates' fantastic tall tale can always, of course, choose to also believe that Yates really encountered an "imposter" Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/20/63, and this fake "Oswald" was therefore part of an elaborate plot to frame the real Lee Oswald for President Kennedy's murder two days later.

Or those conspiracists can choose to believe as I do --- that Mr. Ralph Leon Yates invented his story from whole cloth.

Anyone who chooses to accept Ralph Yates' story as the truth should also be made aware of the five other FBI reports regarding Mr. Yates (linked below, and scroll down past the first report to also see the other four), some of which deal with Yates' deteriorating mental condition as of late 1963 and early 1964:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730#relPageId=137

1. In that first statement above (from January 4, 1964), Yates backpedals on some of the details concerning his alleged encounter with Oswald that he originally told the FBI on 12/10/63, including the part which supposedly had Oswald mentioning to Yates the name of Jack Ruby.

Addendum:

I find it interesting (but not altogether surprising, given the information that can be garnered in the multiple FBI reports I just linked above) that author Vincent Bugliosi thought so little of Ralph Yates' story that Vince decided not to utter one single word about Yates or his tall tale in his massive JFK book. Vince didn't even think it was worth mentioning, even though he covered just about every other crackpot theory imaginable within his huge 2,800-page tome.*

* It's possible, however, that Mr. Bugliosi wasn't even aware of the Yates story when his book was published in 2007. But I think that's highly unlikely, given Vincent's vast scope of knowledge concerning nearly every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 3, 2023, 5:25:29 PM5/3/23

to

I find his story to be credible, even though he became mentally unstable afterwards. Bugliosi might not have known about him. The FBI didn't let the WC know, either. I suggest interested parties read all of the Yates documents. Note that Yates told a coworker about "Oswald" *before* the assassination, and the coworker acknowledged this. But unfortunately, Yates did not at this time give the details. Note also that Yates picked up Oswald at 10:30 AM in Oak Cliff, and that Oswald had been seen at the Dobbs House in Oak Cliff at 10 AM, with JD Tippit present. Note that a relative of his did printing work for Jack Ruby, and the FBI misspelled that relative's name as "White," when it was actually "Wyatt." Note also that one of the FBI reports describes a scar on Yates' left cheek: "2 inch burn scar running from left corner of mouth upward on left cheek." In relation to that, also note what Mary Lawrence said to the Dallas Police about her "Oswald" sighting at the B&B Cafe, the meeting with Jack Ruby: "...she could not be sure that this man was Oswald, but if he had a small deep scar on his left cheek, it was him." So, a man with the Yates scar met with Jack Ruby in the wee hours of the 22nd, after Oswald had ridden with Yates. There is much correlation to this story, some of which cannot be explained by Yates' imagination.

John Corbett

unread,

May 3, 2023, 6:10:45 PM5/3/23

to

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:25:29 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 12:38:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 7:22:26 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > Maybe the 38-inch bag is the one Yates saw Oswald with on Wednesday.
> > The tall tale told to the FBI on December 10, 1963, by 27-year-old refrigeration service man Ralph Leon Yates can be found in its entirety in this FBI report:
> >
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57741#relPageId=67
> >
> > Yates claimed that he picked up hitchhiker Lee Harvey Oswald and drove him to the corner of Houston and Elm Streets in Dallas (the location of the TSBD) on Wednesday, November 20, 1963, two days before JFK's assassination.
> >
> > But none of the things that Oswald allegedly said to Yates come even close to ringing true in any way at all. Yates' story, in my opinion, has all the earmarks of a totally made-up tale that was created by Yates in the days following the murders of Kennedy and Oswald.
> >
> > Conspiracy theorists who choose to believe Mr. Yates' fantastic tall tale can always, of course, choose to also believe that Yates really encountered an "imposter" Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/20/63, and this fake "Oswald" was therefore part of an elaborate plot to frame the real Lee Oswald for President Kennedy's murder two days later.
> >
> > Or those conspiracists can choose to believe as I do --- that Mr. Ralph Leon Yates invented his story from whole cloth.
> >
> > Anyone who chooses to accept Ralph Yates' story as the truth should also be made aware of the five other FBI reports regarding Mr. Yates (linked below, and scroll down past the first report to also see the other four), some of which deal with Yates' deteriorating mental condition as of late 1963 and early 1964:
> >
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730#relPageId=137
> >
> > 1. In that first statement above (from January 4, 1964), Yates backpedals on some of the details concerning his alleged encounter with Oswald that he originally told the FBI on 12/10/63, including the part which supposedly had Oswald mentioning to Yates the name of Jack Ruby.
> >
> > Addendum:
> >
> > I find it interesting (but not altogether surprising, given the information that can be garnered in the multiple FBI reports I just linked above) that author Vincent Bugliosi thought so little of Ralph Yates' story that Vince decided not to utter one single word about Yates or his tall tale in his massive JFK book. Vince didn't even think it was worth mentioning, even though he covered just about every other crackpot theory imaginable within his huge 2,800-page tome.*
> >
> > * It's possible, however, that Mr. Bugliosi wasn't even aware of the Yates story when his book was published in 2007. But I think that's highly unlikely, given Vincent's vast scope of knowledge concerning nearly every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case.
> I find his story to be credible,

Of course you do because you are really, really bad at weighing evidence.

> even though he became mentally unstable afterwards.

And probably before.

> Bugliosi might not have known about him. The FBI didn't let the WC know, either. I suggest interested parties read all of the Yates documents. Note that Yates told a coworker about "Oswald" *before* the assassination, and the coworker acknowledged this.

How would Yates or his co-worker even know who Oswald was before the assassination.
Yates might have picked up a hitchhiker and he might have resembled Oswald but there is
nothing to support his claim it was Oswald.

> But unfortunately, Yates did not at this time give the details.

Of course not. Much easier to fill those in after the fact.

> Note also that Yates picked up Oswald at 10:30 AM in Oak Cliff, and that Oswald had been seen at the Dobbs House in Oak Cliff at 10 AM, with JD Tippit present.

Now we are getting into the fantasy part.

Logical fallacy deleted. Corbutt couldn't refute the truth...

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 5, 2023, 1:29:05 PM5/5/23

to

On Wed, 3 May 2023 09:32:50 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 10:41:25?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 May 2023 06:39:21 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 9:04:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Proving that a shell was fired from a particular weapon HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER A PARCULAR [sic] BULLET WAS FIRED FROM THAT WEAPON!
>>>
>>>We're talking about the situation that exists in THIS case (the Tippit case), Mr. Prick. Not other cases.
>> Yes, you're PRESUMING guilt, then using that "guilt" to overturn
>> science. Science would tell you that knowing that a shell was fired
>> from a particular weapon HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE
>> BULLETS FIRED.

Notice that Cobutt couldn't address this, or help out Von Penis...

>>> And since we know that in THIS (Tippit) case there was only ONE
>>> gunman firing bullets from ONE gun on Tenth Street on Nov. 22,
>>
>> Actually, we don't know that. The evidence and eyewitnesses are FAR
>> more consistent with two suspects, not one.

Corbutt ran again...

>>> then the fact that the bullets themselves could not be tied
>>> conclusively to Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver is immaterial and
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Yep... just as I stated. You PRESUME Oswald's guilt, then twist the
>> evidence to support your belief.
>
>Nobody needs to twist the evidence.

What was the length of the bag that Oswald had on 11/22/63?

How many shots struck Connally?

Could the Tippit bullets be tied to "Oswald's" gun?

Was Oswald "in flight?"

Message has been deleted

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 6, 2023, 6:43:43 AM5/6/23

to

And here are two Oswald Sighting documents which corroborate each other as two independent sightings of Oswald in Oak Cliff on November 20, one at 10:00 and the other at 10:30. This corroboration proves that Oswald, or somebody who looked like him was at the Dobbs House at the same time as JD Tippit, and that Oswald was given a ride to the TSBD carrying a 3-4 foot package. https://postimg.cc/7GKfFp6z

Bud

unread,

May 7, 2023, 12:04:01 AM5/7/23

to

38 inches, if memory serves.

> How many shots struck Connally?

One.

> Could the Tippit bullets be tied to "Oswald's" gun?

Yes.

> Was Oswald "in flight?"

Yes.

John Corbett

unread,

May 7, 2023, 2:21:07 AM5/7/23

to

All it proves is that a witness convinced himself he saw Oswald in a place Oswald wasn't at.
Oswald would have been at work at 10:00 on November 20 if he wanted to still be working in
the TSBD come November 22.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

May 7, 2023, 2:25:07 AM5/7/23

to

He's so stupid, so very stupid that he was thrown off Gilligan's Is;and.

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 8, 2023, 1:42:40 PM5/8/23

to

On Sat, 6 May 2023 19:21:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>All it proves is that a witness convinced himself he saw Oswald in a place Oswald wasn't at.
>Oswald would have been at work at 10:00 on November 20 if he wanted to still be working in
>the TSBD come November 22.

Notice folks, that all we see here is speculation.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 1:28:14 PM6/8/23

to

On Wed, 3 May 2023 03:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 1:33:51?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 3:46:28?PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> "A defense counsel who was given free leave by the courts to invent any explanation which would account for the facts in this case and yet be consistent with his client’s innocence would have had a desperate task.
>>>

>>> The best tribute to the solidity of the [Warren] report comes from its critics. It would, I should have thought, have been obvious even to an amateur that he could not make much impression on the structure of this report unless he had a charge of high explosives to put under some parts of it. But all that the critics seem to be doing is to clamber about on the surface, chipping away with a hammer and chisel as if the height of their ambition were to deface the exterior slightly.
>>>
>>> It is no doubt distressing to the logical mind when after an immense investigation, two extraordinary murders occurring in the course of the same story are explained only as disconnected and senseless actions. But life is more distressing than logic. And what is the alternative? Perhaps one day the critics will produce one. If they can suggest one that is even faintly credible, they will deserve more public attention than they are likely to get by making charges of suppression that are more than faintly ridiculous."
>>>
>>> -- Lord Patrick Arthur Devlin; 1964-1965
>>>
>>> http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

>> Yeah, well, Bugliosi's theory can only be possible if he changes the evidence from a 24-inch bag to a 38-inch bag. I allow the evidence to be as it is, and my theory works.
>

> It is also possible if you look at the available information correctly, and realize the "24 inch" estimate was a guess from a glance.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 1:28:15 PM6/8/23

to

On Sat, 6 May 2023 17:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

You're lying.

>> How many shots struck Connally?
>
> One.

Again lying. What did the medical experts testify to?

>> Could the Tippit bullets be tied to "Oswald's" gun?
>
> Yes.

Again provably lying.

>> Was Oswald "in flight?"
>
> Yes.

Yet another lie.

Let me clue you in, you can't convince people with lies.