A Lone Nut
Walt
even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
he wanted FAME.
He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
around the world.
This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention..... and they crow long
and loud after they have committed some outrage.
This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
Warren Commission said he was??
Walt
tomnln
(all those people are dangerous ti the American way)
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1177033083....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
people.
> that he didn't
> even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> he wanted FAME.
> He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> around the world.
I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
campus?
> This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
> and they crow long
> and loud after they have committed some outrage.
They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
also.
> This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> Warren Commission said he was??
Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
This event does make me wonder what would happen if say, a thousand
fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
more to their liking. See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
of this.
> Walt
cdddraftsman
a person as deeply embedded as one Walt would admit to his shill
playing games and similarity's with LHO's , his alter ego gone astry .
.............................tl
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
>
> What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
> people.
>
> > that he didn't
> > even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> > he wanted FAME.
> > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> > around the world.
>
> I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
> couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
> defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
> campus?
>
> > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
>
Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
I agree Lee seemed confident in the early hours of his arrest....I
believe he thought he would be released by The FBI so he wasn't
worried. It wasn't until saturday AFTER they showed him the FAKE
back yard photo (133C) that he began to realize that Hosty had double
crossed him.
Oz was loving all that attention he getting. Oh really?? Where or
when did he ever say that. The cops were beatin the snot outta him
( his autopsy photos show numerous bruises and abrasions on his head)
and you think he was "loving it"??
and they crow long
and loud after they have committed some outrage.
They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
themselves, as did this guy.
Yes but they left recordings and writings that they knew would be read
after they had made themselves famous.
Oz was willing to die for his actions also. He was??? What world
are you living in??
This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
Warren Commission said he was??
Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
although there are some similarities.
Bingo!!..... That's the point I was making... The Warren
Commission said Oswald was just a "Lone Nut" who killed for no
reason. In Cho we have a classic example of the type of person the
W.C. said Oswald was. As you just said.... "This is apples and
oranges". That is there is no comparison. Or in other words....
Oswald was NOT a Lone Nut.
Walt
Bud
<snicker? Classic Walt. He can`t support it, it doesn`t make sense,
so this is what he believes.
> Oz was loving all that attention he getting. Oh really?? Where or
> when did he ever say that.
If he did say it, that would be a good reason not to believe it.
> The cops were beatin the snot outta him
> ( his autopsy photos show numerous bruises and abrasions on his head)
> and you think he was "loving it"??
If you had even a basic understanding of the facts of this case,
you`d know how Oz came to have those bruises.
> and they crow long
> and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> themselves, as did this guy.
> Yes but they left recordings and writings that they knew would be read
> after they had made themselves famous.
You mean different people, with different personalities did things
differently? Many people, including his wife, commented on how Oz
liked secrets, felt superior that he knew things that others didn`t.
He also was a fan of the Rosenbergs, who went to the grave never
admitting their guilt. The Columbine shooters and Cho shoot people at
random, their statement was notoriety by body count, Oz selected
political targets. Actions speak louder than words, and the killing of
political figures was a statement in itself (I suspect he was on his
way to take another crack at Walker when Tippit stopped him. Tippit
became an obstacle to that objective, so Oz removed the obstacle).
> Oz was willing to die for his actions also. He was??? What world
> are you living in??
The real one. You should try it sometime, it`s not so bad.
> This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> Warren Commission said he was??
>
> Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> although there are some similarities.
>
> Bingo!!..... That's the point I was making... The Warren
> Commission said Oswald was just a "Lone Nut" who killed for no
> reason. In Cho we have a classic example of the type of person the
> W.C. said Oswald was.
Says who?
> As you just said.... "This is apples and
> oranges". That is there is no comparison. Or in other words....
> Oswald was NOT a Lone Nut.
Oz wasn`t shooting people at random, knucklehead. Columbine and
Virginia Tech are much more comparable to Charles Whitman, firing from
that clock tower in Texas. His victims were random, and he is notable
because of a high body count. I think Oz would have preferred not to
have had to shoot Tippit, he wasn`t out for a body count (more
interested in quality, not quantity). I think Oz is more comparable to
Hinckley, they both had a skewed sense of reality, and shot Presidents
to further personal, irrational goals.
curtjester1
I think he was mentally competent enough to be a part of a conspiracy
especially with his background as a spy and who he hung around
with...mob people and cia assets. The Hokie killer was just too much
into dementia to have anyone be attracted to his personality.
CJ
curtjester1
> Walt wrote:
> > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
>
> What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
> people.
>
> > that he didn't
> > even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> > he wanted FAME.
> > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> > around the world.
>
> I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
> couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
> defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
> campus?
>
> > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
>
> Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
> confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
> Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
>
> > and they crow long
> > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> also.
>
You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
> > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> > Warren Commission said he was??
>
> Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
>
It's a whole fruit basket.
> This event does make me wonder what would happen if say, a thousand
> fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
> of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
> said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
> couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
> pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
> witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
> campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
> the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
> could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
> one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
> at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
> said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
> right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
> bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
> of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
> exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
> produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
> disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
> of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
> more to their liking. See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> of this.
>
And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
try to do.
CJ
Bud
curtjester1 wrote:
> On 20 Apr, 03:43, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
> >
> > What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
> > people.
> >
> > > that he didn't
> > > even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> > > he wanted FAME.
> > > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> > > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> > > around the world.
> >
> > I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
> > couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
> > defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
> > campus?
> >
> > > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> > > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
> >
> > Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
> > confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
> > Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
> >
> Guilt unfortunately would not preclude conspiracy.
Of course I can`t prove to the kooks that there wasn`t a shooter
behind every blade of grass. By accepting Oz`s obvious culpability
would be a baby step in the right direction.
> > > and they crow long
> > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
> >
> > They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> > also.
> >
> You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, this is
from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when he was
surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in Philly
in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
> > > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> > > Warren Commission said he was??
> >
> > Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> > although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> > killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> > did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
> >
> It's a whole fruit basket.
That is one explaination.
> > This event does make me wonder what would happen if say, a thousand
> > fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
> > of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
> > said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
> > couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
> > pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
> > witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
> > campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
> > the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
> > could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
> > one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
> > at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
> > said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
> > right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
> > bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
> > of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
> > exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
> > produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
> > disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
> > of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
> > more to their liking. See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> > of this.
> >
> And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
> try to do.
I wasn`t lumping them. I was pointing out what an effort like the
one Oz received would likely produce in Cho`s case.
Walt
You really need to get yer head outta yer ass and read the affidavits
and police reports of many of the cops who were there in the theater.
Oswald never reached for his gun many of the cops, and civilian
witnesses said the gun was in his belt NOT in his hand. If he had
been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have it
ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him. He never
did that because he was not a coldblooded killer. If he had killed JFK
and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think he
did at tenth and Patton. He didn't have a clue what they were going
to accuse him of.
Walt
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Numerous witnesses said the gun was in Oz`s hand.
> If he had
> been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have it
> ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him.
There is evidence that is what he tried to do.
> He never
> did that because he was not a coldblooded killer.
You sound like Oz`s mother. "My boy wouldn`t do such a thing".
Guess what, he did.
> If he had killed JFK
> and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
> by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think he
> did at tenth and Patton.
Since he wouldn`t need a gun to see a movie, he must be Tippit`s
killer.
> He didn't have a clue what they were going
> to accuse him of.
So, he thought he`d punch the cop who confronted him, just to be
on the safe side.
Ben Holmes
says...
This is a perfect opportunity for the trolls to prove that such *could* happen.
Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
same nature as the JFK case.
>> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
>> of this.
There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
why pretend?
Ben Holmes
No, you were *asserting* "what an effort like the one Oz received would likely
produce in Cho's case". You are certainly unwilling to *prove* what you assert,
nor do I think you could even come close.
Walt
Hey Dud here's some of the testimony of the officers that were in the
theater arresting Oswald.
Mr. Hill.
He was fighting and turning and making an attempt to free himself of
the hold that the officers had on him. As to actually hitting anybody
or to actually seeing the suspect with a gun in his hand, I did not.
Mr. Walker.
McDonald approached him, and he said, I don't know exactly, I assumed
he said, "Stand up!" And Oswald stood up.
Mr. Belin.
Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. Walker.
No.
Mr. Belin.
Was Oswald facing you as he stood up?
Mr. Walker.
No; he faced McDonald.
Mr. Belin.
All right.
Mr. Walker.
He put his hand up, not exactly as you would raise your hands to be
searched, but more or less showing off his muscles, what I call it,
kind of hunching his shoulders at the same time, and McDonald put his
hand down to Oswald's pocket, it looked like to me, and McDonald's
head was tilted slightly to the right, looking down in the right
hand.
Mr. Belin.
Looking in whose?
Mr. Walker.
McDonald's right hand as he was searching, and he felt of his pocket,
and Oswald then hit him, ,it appeared, with his left hand first, and
then with his right hand. They was scuffling .there, and Officer
Hutson and I ran toward the back of Oswald and Hutson threw his arm
around his neck, and I grabbed his left arm, and we threw him back
over the seat.
At this time I didn't see any gun that was involved. I don't know
whether we pulled Oswald away .from McDonald for a split second or
what, but he was thrown back against the seat, and then the next thing
I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in his belt there, and
McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand.
The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
Mr. Hawkins.
I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember,
Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
doug.w...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ditto's on Bud's comments.
I thought it somewhat ironic comparing some of the actions of Oz &
Cho. Cho removed the serial numbers from his pistol yet was found to
have the purchase receipt for that pistol on his person. Oz purchased
his pistol & rifle using an alias yet when arrested had fake
identification connecting him with that same alias. Pathetic
individuals trapped in a world of paronoia & fantasy.
doug.w...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Both Oz & Cho were court ordered to undergo psych. theropy following
disruptive antisocial behavior. Both Oz & Cho failed to recieve the
court ordered psych help.. Oz & Cho both had suicidal tendacies &
felt they had been continually wronged by others.
Terp fan
together between the two murder scenes. They must have been in on it.
As Bud notes, you can take any event and arrange the facts to make any
case you want. Lawyers do it all the time. Every horrific event is full of
inconsistencies and misreporting, second-guessing and speculation. Those
things by themselves do not prove a conspiracy. The inability of
conspiracy buffs in the JFK assassination to grasp this simple and
pervasive fact of life amazes me.
gg
Bud
I see you didn`t try to make the case that many dedicated
individuals intent on proving Cho`s innocence could not raise
questions, and cast doubt on his guilt. Why is that?
> Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
> same nature as the JFK case.
I can approach these issues from any direction I desire. In this
instance, I prefer to make points about the nature of the kook
approach, instead of your preferred method of bogging down the
discussion by demanding answers to the questions you choose, and
judging whether you like the answers given or not.
> >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> >> of this.
>
>
> There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
> why pretend?
Shut up, Killfiler. We both know why you are afraid to engage me on
these issues. Coward.
Bud
Yah, I was asserting it by pointing it out.
> You are certainly unwilling to *prove* what you assert,
Fuck you and your "prove something I don`t want to believe to my
satisfaction" demands.
> nor do I think you could even come close.
Well, you do love to set yourself up as the judge, and claim the
lurkers are the jury that nods in agreement over your decisions. Is it
your contention that a thousand fanatics intent on proving Cho`s
innocense could not pour through the evidence of this event and make
hay over a thousand issues? Look at the 9-11 movement, how they attack
the official government report, raise questions on hundreds of things.
My claim is that this is the natural result of effort, and that such a
production is not indicative of having the truth on your side. Look at
what the effort put forth by OJ`s lawyers did in producing enough
muddle for OJ to escape through the fog. OJ had the money to buy the
experts to make the smoke, kooks have been doing it pro bono on Oz`s
behalf.
Bud
<snicker> Only a kook would offer testimony of Oz hitting the cop
with a left and a right, and reaching for the bun in his waistband as
evidence that Oz wasn`t a threat to the police who confronted him.
> The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
Yah, it was, before Oz reached down and pulled it out.
> Mr. Hawkins.
> I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
> they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
> both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
> gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
> their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
When a cop says "a gun was pulled", don`t you think he means the
suspect they were confronting pulled it. He wouldn`t say this if one
of his fellow officers pulled a gun.
> Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember,
> Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
> took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
>
> You really need to get yer head outta yer ass and read the affidavits
> and police reports of many of the cops who were there in the theater.
Reporter Victor Robertson...
"He [Oz] rose in his seat and lifted his arm with his pistol just
about simultaneously with the time they were all over him."
Similar to the accounts you produced, Oz hit McDonald, Oz reached
for the gun, Oz was instantly dogpiled.
Officer McDonald...
"He was drawing the gun as I put my hand [down to Oz`s waist].
Johnny Brewer...
"McDonald was back up [after being struck by Oz]. He just knocked
him down for a second and he was back up. As I jumped off the stage
and was walking towards that, and I see this gun come up, and... in
Oswald`s hand, a gun come up in the air."
> Oswald never reached for his gun many of the cops, and civilian
> witnesses said the gun was in his belt NOT in his hand.
Several witnesses say it was. But, the act of reaching for it would
be plenty of justification for shooting him. They should not have let
that opportunity slip away.
> If he had
> been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have
> it
> ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him.
Obviously not, because he was a cop killer, and he didn`t do as you
say he would have. Killing Tippit worked to get past Tippit. He may
have thought that his chances of getting though this were better if he
tried to blend in. But Brewer pointed him out.
> He never
> did that because he was not a coldblooded killer.
He killed several people in a cold blooded manner, so I think that
qualifies him as cold blooded.
> If he had killed
> JFK
> and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
> by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think
> he
> did at tenth and Patton.
In Walt`s world, if the criminal doesn`t act in all ways as he
expects he should, this mean the suspect is innocent. Kooky.
> He didn't have a clue what they were going
> to accuse him of.
Figured he punch the cop and reach for his concealed gun just to be
on the safe side, huh?
David Von Pein
Bingo, Bud.
But even the pro bono "lawyers" the world over, who are hellbent on
allowing Oswald (like Orenthal James Simpson) to escape through that
CTer-created fog, cannot escape the inescapable PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that
screams "Oswald Did It". (Plus the almost-equally-invincible
circumstantial evidence that tells the world that LHO killed 2 men in
'63.)
Even with all that pro bono effort on Oswald's behalf, the best the
CTers can do is to question the validity of the physical evidence
(which all leads to the beloved patsy and everybody knows it).
The CTers don't like the way CE399 was handled...so that evidence is
thrown out and deemed unfit for use by the CTers (despite the fact
that NO proof can be established to show that 399 is any kind of a
"plant" in this case).
And if 399 is a legit bullet in the case, which of course it is, then
even CTers know that that very fact means something they never want to
admit to themselves -- i.e., it means that that piece-of-shit MC
rifle, #C2766, owned by Oswald since early 1963, definitely DID do
what many CTers think was virtually impossible for it to do -- it
fired a bullet that HIT ONE OR MORE VICTIMS IN THE PRESIDENT'S LIMO ON
11/22/63 FROM THE 6TH FLOOR OF THE BOOK DEPOSITORY.*
* = Note Walt's latest diatribe re. C2766, wherein Walt essentially
tells of his belief that Rifle C2766 couldn't hit the broad side of a
barn....this belief being rooted in Walter's mind DESPITE the fact
that C2766 physical ballistics evidence was found in the HOSPITAL
where the two victims were transported, in the LIMOUSINE, inside JOHN
CONNALLY'S WRIST, and inside JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD.
And I still want to know who is MORE LIKELY to have used Oswald's own
rifle at any point in time than Lee Harvey Oswald himself?
Is it MORE likely for a band of patsy-framing plotters to have stolen
Oz's rifle and used it to frame him? Or for those same plotters to
have duped the dumber-than-dumb Oswald into bringing his rifle to work
for somebody ELSE to use on November 22?
Or is it more likely that Oswald HIMSELF used it on Friday, 11/22?
I ask....which of the above is the MOST-LIKELY scenario?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42faee01d94a58d5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/30f318ea48653a72
And I'm still waiting for that first non-Oswald bullet or fragment to
turn up that will prove the multi-gun conspiracy that virtually all
CTers advocate. 43 years of looking, and nary a conspiracy-proving
fragment to be found. Amazing.
Therefore, the CT crowd is forced to go down the "Evidence Must All Be
Faked Or Planted" route. They have no choice but to travel down that
route....because if they don't, then only ONE GUN (Oswald's C2766) is
the lone JFK murder weapon....period.
It's time to re-post this astute observation by ballistics expert and
author Larry M. Sturdivan once again.....
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246
of "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan
Walt
There's no argument that lee hit McDonald, he acknowledged that he
did.
There are a couple of reasons that could explain Lee hitting Mc
Donald.
He certainly didn't think he could effect an escape by punching Mc
Donald, so that wouldn't have been the reason. He punched him when
McDonald had his hand on Lee's crotch. Of course we'll never know
the reason for Lee hitting McDonald but that's not the point.... The
point is you made the claim that Lee pulled a gun and yelled "THIS IS
IT". As you can see from the testimony It never happened.
> > The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
>
> Yah, it was, before Oz reached down and pulled it out.
Idiot....The gun was pulled out of Oswald's belt by McDonald or Jerry
Hill....
Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun,"
>
> > Mr. Hawkins.
> > I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
> > they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
> > both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
> > gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
> > their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
>
> When a cop says "a gun was pulled", don`t you think he means the
> suspect they were confronting pulled it. He wouldn`t say this if one
> of his fellow officers pulled a gun.
You're a liar, and a drowning man grasping at straws......
>
> > Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember,
> > Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
> > took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
>
> > You really need to get yer head outta yer ass and read the affidavits
> > and police reports of many of the cops who were there in the theater.
>
> Reporter Victor Robertson...
>
> "He [Oz] rose in his seat and lifted his arm with his pistol just
> about simultaneously with the time they were all over him."
Did Victor testify under oath?? The cops who were there testified ...
>
> Similar to the accounts you produced, Oz hit McDonald, Oz reached
> for the gun, Oz was instantly dogpiled.
>
> Officer McDonald...
>
> "He was drawing the gun as I put my hand [down to Oz`s waist].
>
> Johnny Brewer...
>
> "McDonald was back up [after being struck by Oz]. He just knocked
> him down for a second and he was back up. As I jumped off the stage
> and was walking towards that, and I see this gun come up, and... in
> Oswald`s hand, a gun come up in the air."
Brewer could not have known WHO actually had the pistol in the melee.
He said he saw the gun in the the hand of a bare arm and a short
sleeved shirt.
Lee was wearing a long sleeved shirt. Dud, you shouldn't attempt to
wipe the egg off your face after you've been caught in a lie, by
smearing more egg on yer face.
Walt
>
> > Oswald never reached for his gun many of the cops, and civilian
> > witnesses said the gun was in his belt NOT in his hand.
>
> Several witnesses say it was. But, the act of reaching for it would
> be plenty of justification for shooting him. They should not have let
> that opportunity slip away.
>
> > If he had
> > been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have
> > it
> > ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him.
>
> Obviously not, because he was a cop killer, and he didn`t do as you
> say he would have. Killing Tippit worked to get past Tippit. He may
> have thought that his chances of getting though this were better if he
> tried to blend in. But Brewer pointed him out.
>
> > He never
> > did that because he was not a coldblooded killer.
>
> He killed several people in a cold blooded manner, so I think that
> qualifies him as cold blooded.
Wow... Yer really gittin desperate... Now yer sayin he killed SEVERAL
people in cold blood.... WHO are these SEVERAL people??
>
> > If he had killed
> > JFK
> > and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
> > by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think
> > he
> > did at tenth and Patton.
>
> In Walt`s world, if the criminal doesn`t act in all ways as he
> expects he should, this mean the suspect is innocent. Kooky.
>
> > He didn't have a clue what they were going
> > to accuse him of.
>
> Figured he punch the cop and reach for his concealed gun just to be
> on the safe side, huh?
I believe if someone grabbed my balls I'd probably punch the bastard.
Walt
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
As per the norm, Walt-Kook mangles every single bit of evidence and
witness testimony he can get his paws on. Absolutely incredible. .....
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal
reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I
struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that
was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the
pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
======================
GERALD HILL. Came down the north stairway, and the commotion would
have been to my right or just south of the center of the theatre near
the back. Went over, and as I ran to them I saw some officers
struggling with a white male. I reached out and grabbed the left arm
of the suspect, and just before I got to him I heard somebody yell,
"Look out, he's got a gun." I was on the same row with the suspect.
The man on the row immediately behind him was an officer named Hutson.
McDonald was on the other side of the suspect from me in the same
aisle. Two officers, C. T. Walker and Ray Hawkins, were in the row in
front of us holding the suspect from the front and forcing him
backwards and down into the seat.
Bud
Good thing, if Oz denied it, you would have no choice but to deny
it also. Your beloved patsy wouldn`t lie, would he?
> There are a couple of reasons that could explain Lee hitting Mc
> Donald.
One good one. Oz was a double murderer.
> He certainly didn't think he could effect an escape by punching Mc
> Donald, so that wouldn't have been the reason.
Right, he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, so he punched
McDonald in order to buy him the time to reach for his pistol.
> He punched him when
> McDonald had his hand on Lee's crotch.
You can`t support that. And it doesn`t change anything even if that
was true.
> Of course we'll never know
> the reason for Lee hitting McDonald but that's not the point....
You will never know the most basic elements of this case, because
you are clueless.
> The
> point is you made the claim that Lee pulled a gun and yelled "THIS IS
> IT". As you can see from the testimony It never happened.
I said it was from memory. McDonald said he said "Well, I guess
this is it."
> > > The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
> >
> > Yah, it was, before Oz reached down and pulled it out.
>
> Idiot....The gun was pulled out of Oswald's belt by McDonald or Jerry
> Hill....
Numerous witness said the gun was in Oz`s hand. they were there,
not you.
> Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun,"
Yah, out of Oz`s hand.
> > > Mr. Hawkins.
> > > I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
> > > they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
> > > both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
> > > gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
> > > their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
> >
> > When a cop says "a gun was pulled", don`t you think he means the
> > suspect they were confronting pulled it. He wouldn`t say this if one
> > of his fellow officers pulled a gun.
>
> You're a liar, and a drowning man grasping at straws......
Really? Numerous witnesses corroborate that Oz did pull the gun.
Why did you advise me to look into the testimony surrounding this
event, when you are so woefully ignorant of them yourself?
> > > Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember,
> > > Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
> > > took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
>
> >
> > > You really need to get yer head outta yer ass and read the affidavits
> > > and police reports of many of the cops who were there in the theater.
> >
> > Reporter Victor Robertson...
> >
> > "He [Oz] rose in his seat and lifted his arm with his pistol just
> > about simultaneously with the time they were all over him."
>
> Did Victor testify under oath?? The cops who were there testified ...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertson.htm
> > Similar to the accounts you produced, Oz hit McDonald, Oz reached
> > for the gun, Oz was instantly dogpiled.
> >
> > Officer McDonald...
> >
> > "He was drawing the gun as I put my hand [down to Oz`s waist].
> >
> > Johnny Brewer...
> >
> > "McDonald was back up [after being struck by Oz]. He just knocked
> > him down for a second and he was back up. As I jumped off the stage
> > and was walking towards that, and I see this gun come up, and... in
> > Oswald`s hand, a gun come up in the air."
>
> Brewer could not have known WHO actually had the pistol in the melee.
If it was impossible for witnesses to determine who had the gun,
why did you advise me to look at the testimony? How do you know the
gun *wasn`t* in Oz`s hand in that melee?
> He said he saw the gun in the the hand of a bare arm and a short
> sleeved shirt.
No, he didn`t. that was Aplin who said that.
> Lee was wearing a long sleeved shirt.
Yah, I know, CE 150. And Lord knows a sleeve coundn`t be pulled
down during a struggle.
> Dud, you shouldn't attempt to
> wipe the egg off your face after you've been caught in a lie, by
> smearing more egg on yer face.
It wasn`t Brewer who said the person with the gun had on a short
sleeved shirt, it was George Jefferson Aplin, who said...
"I guess it was Oswald, because... for one reason, that he had on a
short sleeved shirt, and I seen a man`s arm that was connected to the
gun."
> Walt
> >
> > > Oswald never reached for his gun many of the cops, and civilian
> > > witnesses said the gun was in his belt NOT in his hand.
> >
> > Several witnesses say it was. But, the act of reaching for it would
> > be plenty of justification for shooting him. They should not have let
> > that opportunity slip away.
> >
> > > If he had
> > > been a cop killer he had ample opportunity to pull his gun and have
> > > it
> > > ready to shoot many of the cops who were closing in on him.
> >
> > Obviously not, because he was a cop killer, and he didn`t do as you
> > say he would have. Killing Tippit worked to get past Tippit. He may
> > have thought that his chances of getting though this were better if he
> > tried to blend in. But Brewer pointed him out.
> >
> > > He never
> > > did that because he was not a coldblooded killer.
> >
> > He killed several people in a cold blooded manner, so I think that
> > qualifies him as cold blooded.
>
> Wow... Yer really gittin desperate... Now yer sayin he killed SEVERAL
> people in cold blood.... WHO are these SEVERAL people??
Still stuck on the basics of the case, or are you reduced to parsing
words to score points?
> > > If he had killed
> > > JFK
> > > and Tippit he would have known he was guilty and had nothing to lose
> > > by trying to shoot his way out of the situation as you LNer's think
> > > he
> > > did at tenth and Patton.
> >
> > In Walt`s world, if the criminal doesn`t act in all ways as he
> > expects he should, this mean the suspect is innocent. Kooky.
> >
> > > He didn't have a clue what they were going
> > > to accuse him of.
> >
> > Figured he punch the cop and reach for his concealed gun just to be
> > on the safe side, huh?
>
> I believe if someone grabbed my balls I'd probably punch the bastard.
Guess what, the cops are allowed to search suspects.
Walt
The point being.... You lying bastards always try to get away with
claiming that Oswald pulled out his pistol and started waving it
around while yelling "THIS IS IT".... Yer a bunch of damned liars who
can't face the truth....Just Like the Warren Commission that you
apologize for, you have to embroider the facts. I don't know why you
bastards feel you need to lie to convict Oswald.....If he was guilty
the the bare essential facts should be enough to convict him, and we
both know that the basic facts do NOT support the W.C. decree. Do
you think that piling on lie on another really will help your case??
Walt
Bud
Nice work, David, seems that hammering Walt with the facts has
caused him to crack. Who next, Gil Jesus? I wish Ben would take me off
his killfile list. I`m sure I could push the right buttons to expose
him as a sputtering fool like Walt here. He knew it too, which is why
he did the preemptive defensive blacklisting. I`m tired of tangling
with these lightweights, I`m a big game hunter, and Ben`s head would
look good on my wall.
> Walt
Walt
Oh Right!! .... I rip into one of you lyin assholes, and expose you
for the liars you are by postin the actual testimony that reveals that
Oswald never pulled a gun not did he yell "THIS IS IT". Mc Donald's
the only one who claims to have heard Oswald Yell "THIS IS IT" I guess
you'll want to make it look like Lee yelled it in a whisper.....Huh,
Dud?
Anybody reading these posts can see that you lied .....
Walt
Bud
There is actual testimony from at least three witnesses that Oz did
pull his gun.
> not did he yell "THIS IS IT".
"Well, it`s all over now."
> Mc Donald's
> the only one who claims to have heard Oswald Yell "THIS IS IT" I guess
> you'll want to make it look like Lee yelled it in a whisper.....Huh,
> Dud?
McDonald didn`t say Oz yelled. Why do you always misrepresent the
evidence?
> Anybody reading these posts can see that you lied .....
Your credibility is shot, Walt. All you do is make claims you can`t
support. And you are one of the few CT still willing to post their
ridiculous beliefs. Conspiracy is dead in the water.
Walt
HEY DUD...WAKE UP!!! ...yer dreamin.... I'm still yer worst
nightmare.
Walt
Walt
Hey Dud since you have a reading comprehension problem,I'll post
Walker's statement once more.....
"and then the next thing I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in
his belt there, and
McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand. "
Can you understand that Dud....Mc Donald was holding Oswald's
hand ....Do you tink Oswald could have been stronger than the 250
pound Mc Donald and pulled his hand out of McDonald's police
submission grip??
Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
Now I'll put it all together for you Dud, and I'll type real slow, so
you can understand.
McDonald squeezed Oswald's balls and Oswald's reflexes caused him to
strike McDonald. In the ensuing scuffle McDonald grabbed Oswald's hand
while Jerry Hill pulled the pistol from Oswald's belt.
Can you understand that now Dud??
McDonald's right hand as he was searching, and he felt of his pocket,
and Oswald then hit him, ,it appeared, with his left hand first, and
then with his right hand. They was scuffling .there, and Officer
Hutson and I ran toward the back of Oswald and Hutson threw his arm
around his neck, and I grabbed his left arm, and we threw him back
over the seat.
At this time I didn't see any gun that was involved. I don't know
whether we pulled Oswald away .from McDonald for a split second or
what, but he was thrown back against the seat, and then the next
thing
I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in his belt there, and
McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand.
The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
> > Mr. Hawkins.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Walt evidently thinks that Oswald had his hand on his gun just in
order to push it further down inside his pants.
Oz couldn't possibly have had his hand on his gun for the purpose of
pulling it OUT of his pants and possibly shooting some cops with it,
could he? Oz, after all, wouldn't harm a fly.
Walt The Kook continues to bat 1.000....he gets everything wrong and
skews/mangles all evidence & testimony beyond all common-sense
recognition.
An incredible record Walt. Even Pete Rose (the all-time hits king)
only batted .303 lifetime.
Walt
Ha,ha,ha,ha....LMAO.... Yer makin my day, dumbass
If you weren't worried about the facts I post you wouldn't bother to
try to refute them, with ad hominem attacks. Yer not the sharpest
knife in the drawer are you?
Walt
Bud
> > evidence that Oz wasn`t a threat to the police who confronted him.
> >
> The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
>
> Yah, it was, before Oz reached down and pulled it out.
>
> Hey Dud since you have a reading comprehension problem,I'll post
> Walker's statement once more.....
Try posting Aplin`s observations of the struggle, and whether Oz
pulled the gun. Or Brewer`s. Or McDonald`s.
> "and then the next thing I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in
> his belt there, and
> McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand. "
>
> Can you understand that Dud....Mc Donald was holding Oswald's
> hand ....
Was the gun in or out of Oz`s waistband at the time, Walt? It
doesn`t say in this account, but it does in the accounts of other
witnesses.
>Do you tink Oswald could have been stronger than the 250
> pound Mc Donald and pulled his hand out of McDonald's police
> submission grip??
Stupidity had a hammer-lock on your brain.
> Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he
> took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.
Was Hill in short sleeves?
> Now I'll put it all together for you Dud, and I'll type real slow, so
> you can understand.
>
> McDonald squeezed Oswald's balls
Quote any witness to Mcdonald hand being that low. McDonald said
"waist", I saw where another witness said "hip".
>and Oswald's reflexes caused him to
> strike McDonald.
Twice?
> In the ensuing scuffle McDonald grabbed Oswald's hand
> while Jerry Hill pulled the pistol from Oswald's belt.
>
> Can you understand that now Dud??
You are ignoring the numerous witnesses who said Oz pulled the gun.
why is that, Walt?
Walt
What credible witness stated that Oswald pulled a gun?
The point behind this entire started when you said Oswald pulled his
pistol and said"this is it".
You were lying.....Oswald never pulled his pistol nor did anybody
McDonald hear Oswald say anything.
With all of those cops around Oswald they would not have hesitated to
report that Oswald had pulled a gun if he had done that. They all
wanted to make him to appear to be guilty of shooting Tippit, and
pulling a gun on those cops would definitely have been something they
would have reported. And apparently Oswald whispered to McDonald
"pssst ...officer, this is it", because none of the other officers
heard it.
>
> > McDonald's right hand as he was searching, and he felt of his pocket,
> > and Oswald then hit him, ,it appeared, with his left hand first, and
> > then with his right hand. They was scuffling .there, and Officer
> > Hutson and I ran toward the back of Oswald and Hutson threw his arm
> > around his neck, and I grabbed his left arm, and we threw him back
> > over the seat.
> > At this time I didn't see any gun that was involved. I don't know
> > whether we pulled Oswald away .from McDonald for a split second or
> > what, but he was thrown back against the seat, and then the next
> > thing
> > I saw, Oswald's hand was down on the gun in his belt there, and
> > McDonald had came forward again and was holding his, Oswald's hand.
>
> > The gun was in Oswald's BELT......
>
> > > > Mr. Hawkins.
> > > > I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where
> > > > they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had
> > > > both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a
> > > > gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to
> > > > their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre.
>
> > > When a cop says "a gun was pulled", don`t you think he means the
> > > suspect they were confronting pulled it. He wouldn`t say this if one
> > > of his fellow officers pulled a gun.
We both know that a cop saying "a gun was pulled" is a evasive way of
saying "Oswald pulled a gun" He knew damned well that oswald never
pulled a gun, so therefore he couldn't be on record as saying"Oswald
pulled a gun"...so he IMPLIES that Oswald pulled the gun by
saying...."a gun was pulled". The fact that you believe it proves
that gullible idiots will believe anything.
Walt
David Von Pein
does anyway.
What the hell difference does it make if Oswald "pulled" his gun or
not?
If he didn't "pull it", is he suddenly innocent of killing JFK and
Officer Tippit? Does all of that evidence that proves Oz guilty of 2
killings suddenly vanish if LHO keeps that gun in his pants?
It's a moot point, you scrotumhead! Johnny Brewer pointed out the
suspect (Oswald) in the theater....and the cops took it from there.
Oswald certainly hit McDonald in the face FIRST. That act (alone) is
the act of a guilty person. Does an innocent person go around hitting
cops in the face just because an officer him to stand up from his
theater seat?
Bud
I gave three names, there may be more. What makes them not
credible, the fact that they say something you don`t want to believe?
> The point behind this entire started when you said Oswald pulled his
> pistol and said"this is it".
>
> You were lying.....Oswald never pulled his pistol
Numerous witnesses said he did. They were there, not you.
> nor did anybody
> McDonald hear Oswald say anything.
McDonald did. He was closest.
> With all of those cops around Oswald they would not have hesitated to
> report that Oswald had pulled a gun if he had done that.
Some did. Some might not have had a good view. At least two came
from behind Oz.
> They all
> wanted to make him to appear to be guilty of shooting Tippit, and
> pulling a gun on those cops would definitely have been something they
> would have reported.
It was reported. By a patron to the moviehouse, by a reporter who
followed the cops in, and by a shoe salesman who pointed out the
suspicious man he saw. These aren`t even cops, just ordinary citizens.
> And apparently Oswald whispered to McDonald
> "pssst ...officer, this is it", because none of the other officers
> heard it.
They were converging from different rows. McDonald was right in
front of Oz. And it wasn`t "this is it", it was "Well, it`s all over
now." It probably wasn`t even meant for McDonald to hear, just Oz
appraising the situation to himself. Clearly, it was the end of the
road for him, and he decided on a suicidal course of action.
Walt
> Just when you thought Walt couldn't go deeper into insanity.....he
> does anyway.
>
> What the hell difference does it make if Oswald "pulled" his gun or
> not?
The point being ....You lying bastarrds always embroider Oswald's
arrest, by saying Oswald pulled his gun and yelled "this is it", but
when the testimonies of the cops who were there are examined it's
clear that nothing of the kind happened. I know it makes a good
believable lie for those of you who have been raised to believe that
Oswald was a "boggie man" in the image of Snidely Whiplash, but the
testimonies show that you've been lead to believe in a fairy tale.
Walt
curtjester1
upon numerous who heard gunshots, smelled gunpowder, and saw gunsmoke
from behind the stockade fence on the GK, but that gets into 'Oz's
unculpability'.
> > > > and they crow long
> > > > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> > > They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> > > themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> > > also.
>
> > You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> > part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
>
> What is this "proof" you kooks call for? You disregard large
> portions of the evidential record, and cry for proof. It is in
> evidence that Oz shouted "This is it!" (or something like, this is
> from memory), and reached for his gun, a suicidal action when he was
> surrounded by armed police, one with a shotgun. A cop killer in Philly
> in the 60s pulling a stunt like would not have lived.
>
Whoever came at him, came at him "gun drawn". Ever think it could
have been a reflex action if any of the speculation about his revolver
were true? It's hardly compelling either when that particular
revolver was said to have a defective firing pin, and that was
supposed to be working just fine just prior. And one would think,
that if he had fired all those rounds at the Tippit scene that the
revolver would have been reeking of smell, huh?
> > > > This raises the question..... Was Lee Oswald the lone nut that the
> > > > Warren Commission said he was??
>
> > > Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> > > although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> > > killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> > > did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
>
> > It's a whole fruit basket.
>
> That is one explaination.
>
>
Lucy, you got's a whole lot of splainin to do....
>
>
>
> > > This event does make me wonder what would happen if say, a thousand
> > > fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
> > > of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
> > > said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
> > > couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
> > > pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
> > > witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
> > > campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
> > > the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
> > > could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
> > > one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
> > > at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
> > > said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
> > > right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
> > > bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
> > > of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
> > > exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
> > > produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
> > > disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
> > > of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
> > > more to their liking. See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> > > of this.
>
> > And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
> > try to do.
>
> I wasn`t lumping them. I was pointing out what an effort like the
> one Oz received would likely produce in Cho`s case.
>
Lucy, you got's more splainin to do.
>
>
> > CJ
>
> > > > Walt- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> In article <1177101287.125383.259...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, curtjester1
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 20 Apr, 03:43, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> Walt wrote:
> >> > On monday April 16, a lone nut murdered thirty people
>
> >> What a coincidence, thats the same day some other guy killed 33
> >> people.
>
> >> > that he didn't
> >> > even know. His reason..... according to mental heath experts.........
> >> > he wanted FAME.
> >> > He sent a long, rambling, incoherent, diatribe, inculding home video
> >> > tapes of himself, to NBC news to be sure he would be seen on TV sets
> >> > around the world.
>
> >> I liked when he compared himself to Jesus Christ, like Jesus
> >> couldn`t double his body count. He said he was doing it for "the
> >> defemseless people". Who is more defenseless than college kids on
> >> campus?
>
> >> > This guy apparently is a classic case of a LONE NUT. Mental health
> >> > experts say that ALL lone nuts want attention.....
>
> >> Look at the pictures of Oz in custody. His demeanor is one of smug
> >> confidence, not a panicked fall guy being set up by powerful forces.
> >> Oz was loving all that attention he getting.
>
> >Guilt unfortunately would not preclude conspiracy.
>
> >> > and loud after they have committed some outrage.
>
> >> They seem to be suicidal to me. The kids at Columbine killed
> >> themselves, as did this guy. Oz was willing to die for his actions
> >> also.
>
> >You have no proof Oz was willing to die for his part if he was indeed
> >part of the killing of JFK or Tippit.
>
> >> > Warren Commission said he was??
>
> >> Was Oz shooting people at random? This is apples and oranges,
> >> although there are some similarities. There was a pause between Oz`s
> >> killings, as there was with Cho`s. Oz used two different weapons, so
> >> did Cho. Cho wrote his ramblings down, as did Oz.
>
> >It's a whole fruit basket.
>
> >> fanatics convinced of Cho`s innocence were to descend on the evidence
> >> of this case. Pour through all the witness accounts ("This witness
> >> said the shooter had on a white hat, and Cho had on a black one, it
> >> couldn`t have been him", or "This witness said the shooter was 190
> >> pounds, and Chi was only 155, it must`ve been someone else". or "One
> >> witness said Cho was shooting someone at 1:15 on the east side of
> >> campus at the same time someone else said he was shooting someone on
> >> the west side, there must have been two gunman, because the witnesses
> >> could not be mistaken about the time", or "This witness said he went
> >> one way, another said he walked a different route, there must`ve been
> >> at least two, and possibly 17 shooters"), the autopsies ("Five witness
> >> said MaryAnn was shot in the left temple, but the autopsy says her
> >> right temple, I am very suspicious"), the physical evidence ("Those
> >> bullet casings were handed to the authorities by students, the chain
> >> of custody is broken") looking to dispute everything in order to
> >> exhonerate him. I suspect it would look very close to what they have
> >> produced in the JFK case. A lot of complaints, criticisms, muddle,
> >> disputes, ect, until the actually what happened is obscured by a level
> >> of smoke , at which time the kooks would be free to rewrite events
> >> more to their liking.
>
anything guilty become possibly clouded. I bet that bushy hair, and
blocked hairline is just witnesses that tend to be conspiratorial in
their observations instead of a more stable LN. I doubt Bud watches
too much of Forensic Crime shows on TV either.
> This is a perfect opportunity for the trolls to prove that such *could* happen.
> Simply dig into this case, and try to come up with evidential problems of the
> same nature as the JFK case.
>
> >> See dw`s recent Markham offering for an example
> >> of this.
>
> There isn't *any* LNT'er who is willing to believe what we know she said. So
> why pretend?
>
>
Funny how they have to stock all their marbles on a LN to support a
LN.
CJ
>
> >And no JFK CT is going to back Cho, so you can't lump them like you
> >try to do.
>