Link To Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Pieces Of Evidence (Complete & Uncut) (PDF File)

[David Von Pein]

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

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

Looking at No. 1, Bugliosi concludes that Oswald "obviously" went to Irving on Thursday to get "his" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Apparently, it is "obvious" to the Bugster because the rifle was later found in the TSBD. The rifle is incriminating, but the evidence indicates that it was not brought in by Oswald on Friday morning, because the only two witnesses who saw the package said it was at least a foot too short to be the rifle, even disassembled. And the only witness to Oswald entering the building, Jack Dougherty, said he wasn't carrying anything at all. But we do have another witness, Ralph Yates, who said Oswald carried a rifle towards the building on Wednesday morning. So, while the evidence still implicates Oswald, it indicates that he brought his rifle in on Wednesday morning, not Friday. But Nutters can't admit it, because the entirety of the evidence on this point implies conspiracy. They not only require Oswald to be guilty, but to be guilty all by himself. This is why they isolate the evidence on this matter and choose the impossibly small package as the rifle package.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

In No. 2 the Bugger makes a good point that there is something wrong with the curtain rod story. He doesn't understand the curtain rod situation at the rooming house, and he doesn't understand that the Lt. Day information implies that the curtain rods were found elsewhere and before they were "found" in Ruth Paine's garage. And he doesn't understand that the evidence indicates the Secret Service and the Warren Commission contrived to hide the provenance of Ruth's curtain rods, which is very incriminating of the investigators. But he still does have a good point about the curtain rod story being wrong. Somebody, maybe Oswald, lied about something there. And, if Oswald lied, then it does imply his guilt. But because he requires the Friday morning "curtain rods" to be the Mannlicher-Carcano, he has his blinders on regarding the interpretation of this evidence. Oswald might have lied and have been carrying something other than the Mannlicher-Carcano on Friday morning, something he also wished to lie about. Or, Frazier might have lied about the curtain rod story. He is the only person who says anything about curtain rods, other than Ralph Yates. There are reasons to think that Frazier has been less than honest on other matters. So, maybe Oswald is guilty AND Frazier lied about the curtain rod story. But Buggy And The Nutters want a simple Lone Nut Story, so they smooth over all of the pesky details.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:47:07 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

Let's look at a bit more of the evidence, shall we?

When the police showed up at the Paine residence, and asked if Oswald owned a rifle, Ruth Paine said no, then translated for Marina. But Marina Oswald said he did, and led the police to the garage and pointed out the blanket that she had previously seen the weapon within. But of course, when the police lifted the blanket, it was empty.

This is confirmed by the testimony of Ruth, Marina and at least one of the officers present.

Ruth Paine:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm
== quote ==
Mr. JENNER - How many police officers were there?
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
Mr. JENNER - This might be helpful. You had shaped that up yesterday and I will just put it on the floor.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle. And I then translated this to the officers that she knew that her husband had a gun that he had stored in here.
Mr. JENNER - Were you standing on the blanket when you advised--
Mrs. PAINE - When I translated. I then stepped off of it and the officer picked it up in the middle and it bent so.
Mr. JENNER - It hung limp just as it now hangs limp in your hand?
Mrs. PAINE - And at this moment I felt this man was in very deep trouble and may have done--
Mr. McCLOY - Were the strings still on it?
Mrs. PAINE - The strings were still on it. It looked exactly as it had at previous times I had seen it. It was at this point I say I made the connection with the assassination, thinking that possibly, knowing already that the shot had been made from the School Book Depository, and that this was a rifle that was missing, I wondered if he would not also be charged before the day was out with the assassination.
== unquote ==

Marina Oswald:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
== quote ==
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn of the shooting of President Kennedy?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was watching television, and Ruth by that time was already with me, and she said someone had shot at the President.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was hard for me to say anything. We both turned pale. I went to my room and cried.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you think immediately that your husband might have been involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't unroll the blanket. It was in its usual position, and it appeared to have something inside.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you at any time open the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, only once.
Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about that.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And what about Mrs. Paine? Did she look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. She didn't know about the rifle. Perhaps she did know. But she never told me about it. I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you learn that the rifle was not in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. When the police arrived and asked whether my husband had a rifle, and I said "Yes."
Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. They began to search the apartment. When they came to the garage and took the blanket, I thought, "Well, now, they will find it." They opened the blanket but there was no rifle there.
Then, of course, I already knew that it was Lee. Because, before that, while I thought that the rifle was at home, I did not think that Lee had done that. I thought the police had simply come because he was always under suspicion.
== unquote ==

Oswald's weapon was no longer in the Paine garage, by this time that weapon had been recovered from the Depository.

Are you following along so far?

So, Oswald going to his rooming house on Tuesday evening, does not give Oswald access to the weapon that you claim was in the package Yates saw on Wednesday morning. The evidence indicates that weapon is stored in the Paine garage, not at the rooming house. Oswald was not at the Paine residence the prior weekend, the weekend of the 16-17th. He had been there the previous three-day weekend (of the 9th - 11th) because of the Monday holiday. But no one saw him with the package on that Tuesday morning. And so, putting it all together, Oswald needs to obtain the weapon from the Paine's property, not the rooming house.

Unexplained by you (or Yates) is how the rifle got from the Paine garage to the rooming house for Oswald to bring to work on Wednesday morning to be seen by Yates.

The Commission reconstruction - summarized in part here - takes into account more of the known evidence and assumes only that the witnesses estimated the size of the package Oswald carried on Friday wrongly. It also takes into account the story told Frazier (a lie about curtain rods), his sudden interest in a trip to the Paine's on Thursday, the story that Oswald told the police (a lie about bringing his lunch), and numerous other facts.

Your reconstruction with Yates explains none of that. The one isolating the evidence and looking at the Yates story in isolation from the other evidence is you.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The fact that something isn't explained, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Surely your "logic" understands that. I don't have to explain where the rifle was on Tuesday. Yates saw Oswald carrying a rifle-sized package on Wednesday. Frazier and his sister said the package on Friday was a foot shorter than you need it to be. Oswald had something else on Friday. In fact, maybe the package Yates saw had a different rifle. The evidence is incomplete, as should be expected. You can't know everything. Oswald may have lied because he brought some other weapon, perhaps the one used behind the picket fence. It would do him no good to admit to bringing in a Remington XP-100. Your Friday package is too short, so I have an explanation that fits the evidence. You simply explain away the evidence that does not fit your explanation.

[Ben Holmes]

Amusingly, this PROVES that you've been reading the refutations you
ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to try to refute.

Your silence speaks volumes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 04:23:22 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:47:07?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
>> Looking at No. 1, Bugliosi concludes that Oswald "obviously" went to Irving on Thursday to get "his" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Apparently, it is "obvious" to the Bugster because the rifle was later found in the TSBD. The rifle is incriminating, but the evidence indicates that it was not brought in by Oswald on Friday morning, because the only two witnesses who saw the package said it was at least a foot too short to be the rifle, even disassembled. And the only witness to Oswald entering the building, Jack Dougherty, said he wasn't carrying anything at all. But we do have another witness, Ralph Yates, who said Oswald carried a rifle towards the building on Wednesday morning. So, while the evidence still implicates Oswald, it indicates that he brought his rifle in on Wednesday morning, not Friday. But Nutters can't admit it, because the entirety of the evidence on this point implies conspiracy. They not only require Oswald to be guilty, but to be guilty all by himself. This is why
>they isolate the evidence on this matter and choose the impossibly small package as the rifle package.
>
>Let's look at a bit more of the evidence, shall we?
>
> When the police showed up at the Paine residence, and asked if
> Oswald owned a rifle, Ruth Paine said no, then translated for Marina.
> But Marina Oswald said he did, and led the police to the garage and
> pointed out the blanket that she had previously seen the weapon
> within. But of course, when the police lifted the blanket, it was
> empty.
>
> This is confirmed by the testimony of Ruth, Marina and at least one
> of the officers present.

And contradicted by her testimony, as you well know...

What you *NEED* to be doing Huckster, is refuting my refutations of
Bugliosi's 53 Reasons...

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

Buglossiani No. 3- Well, this is just an apparent Oswald lie, which does imply guilt, but has no bearing on conspiracy. Oswald apparently lies to Frazier, if Frazier can be believed, about the curtain rods, and then says that he won't need a ride Friday, which might imply that he knows the President is going to be shot, or it could mean something else that I don't know about. Maybe Oswald planned to go bowling Friday night.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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. Either that, or Oswald was pissed about JFK wanting to end the oil depletion allowance. I favor the former.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:23:23 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Why did you run away, Hank? Is it because I didn't call you a Fucktard? Of course you are a Fucktard. You'll always be one.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

Piece number 7, according to Frazier, Oswald did not bring his lunch. That's a weak one!

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

8. For the first time EVAH, Oswald walked ahead of Frazier into the TSBD. What Bugsy doesn't tell you is that Frazier has always said that it was not a matter of Oswald walking ahead, but of Frazier staying behind, to "charge his battery." Bugliosi also does not say how Frazier said that Oswald carried the package, cupped in his hand and tucked under his armpit, making the bag impossibly short to contain a Mannlicher-Carcano. This is the sort of lie of OMISSION of which Hank is always accusing Mark Lane, and which Hank himself often does.Was it Goebbels who said to always accuse your enemies of what you yourself do? Perhaps Bugliosi has read Goebbels, and probably Hank has read him twice.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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.

[John Corbett]

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

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

[John Corbett]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thank you for the source note.

[Ben Holmes]

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]

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]

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.

>>>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.

Yep... Science is pretty good at this...

>>> Do you have an eyewitness? An earwitness?

>>> A discarded shell? A weapon? 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.

Answer the question coward... are you a science denier?

[John Corbett]

No source named. No page number. As usual, Benny can't meet the demands he makes for
others. 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.

[John Corbett]

One of us provided evidence and the other is named Benny Holmes.

>
> >>>>>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.
> >>>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.
> Yep... Science is pretty good at this...
> >>> Do you have an eyewitness? An earwitness?
> >>> A discarded shell? A weapon? 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.
> Answer the question coward... are you a science denier?

You didn't ask a question asshole. All you did was offer excuses for being a lying, chickenshit
weasel.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Notice folks, that Corbutt just got spanked, and had nothing to say...

>> 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.

And despite being spanked... STILL refuses to make his case with
citations... He can't.

>>>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?
>
>No source named. No page number.

From the post referenced:

Larry Hancock, Tipping Point, pgs 198-199

Tell us Corbutt, do you think lies will convince anyone? Or are you
simply a moron?

>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.

>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. 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.

You ran.

You'll continue to run... cowards run... that's what they do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

(And a good example is Bugliosi #12, posted today, AND *STILL* NOT
ADDRESSED BY YOU!)

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:01:34 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>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.
>> Yep... Science is pretty good at this...
>>>>> Do you have an eyewitness? An earwitness?
>>>>> A discarded shell? A weapon? 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.
>> Answer the question coward... are you a science denier?
>

>You didn't ask a question...

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

...are you a science denier?

Ready to answer the question you deny exists?

[David Von Pein]

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. 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.

FYI....

A related "Oswald Reading The Newspaper" discussion can be found here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1284.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:10:39 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>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. 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.
>
>FYI....
>
>A related "Oswald Reading The Newspaper" discussion can be found here:
>

>http://jfk-archives.blogs ...


What you CANNOT defend in a free and open forum is Bugliosi's wacky
assertion that if one person claims he didn't see you reading a
newspaper on a particular day from half a year earlier, that it's
evidence that the one not reading the paper is guilty of murder.


Run coward... RUN!!!

As cowards like you do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[John Corbett]

Of course you won't tell us what is on those pages that you consider evidence. I was very
specific about the evidence I was citing and my source is online for all to verify. You have
cited an obscure book written by another conspiracy hobbyist. Typically, you shift the burden
by expecting me to find the evidence to support your claims. The only online version I can find
is on the Mary Ferrell website which has some good information but is also a repository for
kook theories. This version doesn't provide page numbers so it is hard to know what you
are referencing since you won't tell us and won't tell us where to find it. Or do you expect me
to buy the book so I can provide you with support for YOUR claims?

When I cited the WCR, I not only gave you the chapter and page numbers, I copied and pasted
the pertinent passages to support my arguments. You, of course, refuse to do that. You choose
to be as vague as possible about your "evidence" because revealing it would show how lame it
is. Your bluff has been called and still you refuse to show your cards.

> Tell us Corbutt, do you think lies will convince anyone? Or are you
> simply a moron?

It's never worked for you.

> >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.

Bullshit. You don't provide anything close to what you demand from others.

> >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.

Liar. You didn't cite a page number until this post and then its a source that can't be verified
unless you can provide an online source with page numbers.

> 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 by the FBI investigators to have been made by
a missile striking the inside of the windshield. The witnesses were wrong that a hole went
through the windshield. Even if the defect was a hole, it wouldn't tell us what direction the
missile that caused it was traveling nor would that establish where the missile came from
You simply assume it came from the south knoll without any supporting evidence.

You continually fail to live up to the demands you make of others.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:43:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Of course you won't tell us...


Tut tut tut... **FIRST** you admit that you lied. Then you can
continue.

>> Tell us Corbutt, do you think lies will convince anyone? Or are you
>> simply a moron?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You're still a moron.

[Ben Holmes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

With #17 Bugliosi explains Oswald getting on the Marsalis bus as a "frenzied flight" from the crime scene. It's not the bus that Oswald would normally take to get to 1026 North Beckley. The bus transfer and Mary Bledsoe seem to prove that Oswald got on this bus, but it is all very murky. The man whom the bus driver associated with Oswald was actually a teenager, "Milton Jones" according to the Official Story, and Allan Tippit according to me. This would have been Allan Tippit's bus, and he was on Elm Street when JFK was shot, and he did carry away Mrs. Chism's shorter handbag. Allan Tippit was on this bus. He said the president had been shot in the temple. Tippit and his father were involved with Oswald. So, maybe Oswald did get on this bus with Tippit. Or maybe the bus transfer was associated with Oswald after the fact, as it was not "found" until more than 2 hours after he had been arrested. Mary Bledsoe read her identification from her notes, as suggested by coverup tool, Forrest Sorrels. And, although no followup is recorded in his testimony, Cecil McWatters, the bus driver, did tell Senator Cooper that The Dallas Police had *told him* that Oswald was the man who had said that JFK had been shot in the temple. It's a bit murky.

[donald willis]

I remember finding out that the "roll call" was simply a checking out and recording of each employee as he or she left the building.

[donald willis]

But that Sorrels was in on it (coverup and probably the crime itself) is not murky. It's pretty damn clear...

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I have no doubt about it. Sorrels was a coverup manager. And I don't think he was a rogue agent. I think he was taking orders.

[John Corbett]

I love how conspiracy hobbyists are willing to dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt and
then turn around and accuse somebody else of being complicit based solely on their hunches.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're becoming more retarded with each passing day. Those golden showers from the Skipper were the only thing keeping you IQ above 25.

[donald willis]

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]

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]

Now there's an articulate response. <chuckle>

[donald willis]

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

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

But Curry never said to surround the building. He said to get a man up on the overpass and find out what happened up there. So why didn't Sorrels return to the overpass?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

18,19 & 20

All of these Buggy pieces involve the Whaley cab ride, and if true, they all seem to indicate Oswald's guilty attitude. I think that Oswald was acting guilty and was part of the assassination conspiracy, but I'm not sure that the cab ride ever happened. So, I don't want to get overly involved in the details. I concede to the Bugster that Oswald was acting like a guilty creature.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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. He probably deals with that elsewhere by painting Roberts as unreliable, which wouldn't look good here in his pieces. This is an example of isolating the evidence and picking the cherry. If we are to believe Earlene about Oswald's haste, then why not believe her about car 207? "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."

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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. He might have got it there, but I'm not convinced. Of course, he did have it at the Texas Theatre, apparently. Even that is a little murky. But he did admit in interrogation that it was his gun...allegedly. There's not much firm ground concerning the revolver on the day of the assassination, but any reasonable explanation implies guilt in the matter of JFK, which I think is the case. Oswald was a guilty conspirator. Da Bug has something right.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I favor the latter explanation, the coverup manager Sorrels wanted not to talk about Norman & Jarman. Their stories needed some managing before they could be allowed to make statements.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

25 & 26 - Here Bugliosi refers to shoe store manager Johnny Brewer and theater ticket seller Julia Postal. As I say in a recent video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e1yJnp4ZuA I think that Johnny Brewer was engaged after the fact to replace "Johnny Pardis," as named By WC witness Gibson, and that both Brewer and Postal were persuaded to lie about events. But, if you accept the Official Story witnesses and evidence, then of course Bugliosi's interpretation seems reasonable. That's the trouble with an inside job, the Official Story is controlled by the murderers.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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. And this might be the case. But I am not sure that Oswald isn't role-playing here per some conspiracy script. 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. That could be my imagination. 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.

[Bud]

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]

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

[Bud]

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]

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

[John Corbett]

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?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're too stupid to understand an explanation, having been trained in logic by sitcoms and celebrity roasts. But you are good for laughs and insults, just like your Little Buddy, Bud.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

29. Oswald refused to give the arresting cops his name. If this hearsay is true, then it does imply guilt of something, I say guilt of conspiracy to murder John Kennedy.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

30. Oswald raised his "power to the people" fist for the cameras. To Bugliosi, this means Oswald is guilty of something. I think he was guilty of something, conspiracy to murder John Kennedy. But Oswald also saw himself as a Marxist dissident, so the raised fist could be associated with his feelings of being a persecuted dissident.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

31. Oswald refused to take a polygraph. This alleged hearsay, according to Bugliosi is "not conclusive." No shit, Sherlock. And Oswald, knowing that the authorities are populated by some of the most despicable of criminals, might reasonably refuse to take their "lie detector" test, which even J. Edgar Hoover famously admitted works not by detecting lies, but by scaring the witness into thinking that it can detect lies, causing the guilty to confess. Was Bugliosi just trying for the number 53?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

32. Marina "knew" her husband was guilty by looking into his eyes. C'mon now, Vinny! He also told her that he was being treated alright, which Marina knew meant that he had murdered the President. And this revelations were revealed by Marina after being locked away in a cabin for weeks with CIA spook Priscilla Johnson. C'mon now, Vinny! Do try to be serious!

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

33-35. Here the Bugmeister recites the rifle and bullet and palm print evidence presented by the murderers, to prove that Oswald is "guilty." And if you believe the evidence presented by the fox which proves that the mouse ate the chickens all by himself, then that should be good enough for you, pathetic sap that you are.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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

36. Now Bug Boy says that the bag "found" "inside" the "sniper's nest" was "undoubtedly" the same bag "seen" by Frazier that morning, without mentioning that the bag is more than a foot too long to have been the bag which Frazier claimed to see. Details!

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

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.

[David Von Pein]

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.