It's a Mystery
Walt
evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
Oswald was not the murder, can still cling to the weak theory proposed
by the Warren Commission.
The Warren Report is riddled with provable lies, half truths, and
distortions and yet the apologists tenaciously cling to the report and
defend the liars that created it.
The Lner's remind me of the Flat Earth people. No matter how much
evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they
will not give up their belief in a fallacy.
Can anybody shine some light on this Mystery?
Walt
Bud
I think I can shine it through your ears.
> Walt
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a fallacy." <<<
>
> CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
> testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
> hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
> (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
> Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
Lurker's love to see you Von Pein dangling by the short hairs, that
being said, it is considerably less painful than witnessing Tom
*nutsack-please talk to me lone nutters* Lowry stepping all over his
balls with golf shoes on.... OUCH! GREAT SHOW man!
> Walt needs VB's CS&L ..... badly. There is no doubt of that.
>
> Seek it out when available, Walt. (But make sure you don't confuse the
> window on the east end of the book store where you purchase "Final
> Verdict" for the west-end window.)
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393045250/104-5813140-9596737?redirect=true&v=glance&n=283155
Walt
Now that's a real clever answer, Dud......But it doesn't address the
issue, it merely makes it look like you have no solid ground to stand
on. You LNer's are on quick sand, and the more you wiggle, and squirm,
(away from the facts) the deeper you sink. Why don't grab the hand
being offered and pull yourself from the quagmire.
Walt
Walt
>
> > Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
aeffects wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a fallacy." <<<
> >
> > The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
> > CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
> > testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
> > hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
> > (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
> > Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
>
> Lurker's love to see you Von Pein dangling by the short hairs, that
> being said, it is considerably less painful than witnessing Tom
> *nutsack-please talk to me lone nutters* Lowry stepping all over his
> balls with golf shoes on.... OUCH! GREAT SHOW man!
Tell us Dave, do you agree with Jack White's assesments of the Apollo
moon landing photographs or not?
Can you honestly give us your honest opinion. Despite what Jack White
may or may not think?
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a fallacy." <<<
>
> CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
> testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
> hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
> (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
> Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
>
That may reveal much about your simple mind, because his testimony is
anything but ..."plain -as-day". Brennan's testimony is often
interrupted by David Belin who interjects ideas into the testimony to
distort and confuse the reader. Apparently Belin's leading of the
witness and distorting his words worked on you. Not to worry, it
happens to many..... An unwary, naive, and simple mind, can be fooled
by simple tricks..... like changing a WHITE shirt that the witness saw
on the gunman into the BROWN shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Don't you allow for the possibility that LHO was only wearing a T-shirt
when he was killing JFK?
>
> Walt
aeffects
question is: did the WC allow for that possibility?
>
>
>
> >
> > Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Question is, do you?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Walt
Walt
First off.....LHO did NOT.... did NOT... kill JFK, and secondly let's
assume that you misbegotten notion about LHO being in his undershirt
has validity.....How are you going to account for the FACT the Brennan
described the gunman's trousers as "A SHADE LIGHTER than the dingy
white shirt he was wearing" and Oswald was wearing dark gray trousers?
Are you going to propose that the 35 year old, 175 pound, gunman was
really Oswald dressed only in his underwear?
Walt
Walt
Oh I'm sorry Toad..... I just posted a response to your question, and
noe I realize I didn't read it very well.
Now I see that you're not proposing that Lee was in his underwear when
he murdered JFK, you're saying that the gunman was Lee Oswald dressed
only in a T-Shirt. I suppose that might explain why Brennan said that
the gunman's trousers were a "Shade lighter than his shirt". You think
the gunman was Lee Oswald dressed only in a T-shirt with his bare white
ass showing up as a shade lighter than his shirt. I gotta hand it to
ya Toad.....That's pretty clever... But I still doubt that many will
accept your theory.
Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
How do you know Oswald was wearing dark gray trousers at the time he
killed JFK?
Grizzlie Antagonist
> It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with documented
> evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
> Oswald was not the murder, can still cling to the weak theory proposed
> by the Warren Commission.
Well, among other things, no one has been presented with such evidence.
Walt
Get rid of the notion that Lee Oswald killed JFJ.....He didn't. But I
thought a "respected" researcher such as yourself would know that....
Captain Fritz and several other officers said that the clothing Oswald
took off and placed in the dresser drawer was a reddish brown shirt,
and gray trousers.
Walt
Walt
Ah contrair monsewer....You've just not seen it, because you refuse to
pull yer head outta yer ass.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
You're right, Oswald did not kill JFJ.
The record in this case shows that Captain Fritz said nothing like what
you claim.
If you have citations that you think show otherwise, please post them.
Steve
He may not have killed "JFJ" but, he did, in fact kill JFK.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with documented
> evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
> Oswald was not the murder
It's a mystery to me why some people still cling to Communist ideology
in spite of the fact that Communism proved itself to be a failed
experiment in the last century.
Steve
Walt wrote:
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > David VP wrote:
> > > > >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a fallacy." <<<
> > > >
> > > > The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
> > > > CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
> > > > testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
> > > > hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
> > > > (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
> > > > Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
> > > >
> > > Hmmmm......You think Howard Brennan's testimony is as "plain-as-day"
> > > That may reveal much about your simple mind, because his testimony is
> > > anything but ..."plain -as-day". Brennan's testimony is often
> > > interrupted by David Belin who interjects ideas into the testimony to
> > > distort and confuse the reader. Apparently Belin's leading of the
> > > witness and distorting his words worked on you. Not to worry, it
> > > happens to many..... An unwary, naive, and simple mind, can be fooled
> > > by simple tricks..... like changing a WHITE shirt that the witness saw
> > > on the gunman into the BROWN shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Don't you allow for the possibility that LHO was only wearing a T-shirt
> > when he was killing JFK?
> >
> >
> > > Walt
>
> First off.....LHO did NOT.... did NOT... kill JFK,
Prove it, Walt.
And, while you are at it, please, explain *why* it is that *you* think
Oswald " didn't ikill JFK".
Grizzlie Antagonist
Anyone who thinks that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent is a Communist.
I voted twice for Ronald Reagan, asshole, and I've got just two words
to say to long-haired floppy drug-dealing Communist hippies that have a
hard-on for Marxist assassins and those two words are not "Happy
Birthday".
Walt
Nope....Lee never killed either of these gentlemen..... He's on record
as saying...."No Sir, I never killed anybody.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Walt wrote:
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > David VP wrote:
> > > > >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a fallacy." <<<
> > > >
> > > > The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
> > > > CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
> > > > testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
> > > > hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
> > > > (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
> > > > Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
> > > >
> > > Hmmmm......You think Howard Brennan's testimony is as "plain-as-day"
> > > That may reveal much about your simple mind, because his testimony is
> > > anything but ..."plain -as-day". Brennan's testimony is often
> > > interrupted by David Belin who interjects ideas into the testimony to
> > > distort and confuse the reader. Apparently Belin's leading of the
> > > witness and distorting his words worked on you. Not to worry, it
> > > happens to many..... An unwary, naive, and simple mind, can be fooled
> > > by simple tricks..... like changing a WHITE shirt that the witness saw
> > > on the gunman into the BROWN shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Don't you allow for the possibility that LHO was only wearing a T-shirt
> > when he was killing JFK?
>
> Oh I'm sorry Toad..... I just posted a response to your question, and
> noe I realize I didn't read it very well.
No problem Wilt.
>
> Now I see that you're not proposing that Lee was in his underwear when
> he murdered JFK, you're saying that the gunman was Lee Oswald dressed
> only in a T-Shirt.
You know what I mean, Wilt, only wearing a t-shirt in the sense that
that is the only shirt he was wearing.
Sorry you're so dumb that I have to spell that out.
>I suppose that might explain why Brennan said that
> the gunman's trousers were a "Shade lighter than his shirt". You think
> the gunman was Lee Oswald dressed only in a T-shirt with his bare white
> ass showing up as a shade lighter than his shirt. I gotta hand it to
> ya Toad.....That's pretty clever... But I still doubt that many will
> accept your theory.
>
Silly Wilt. Don't quit your day job.
>
> Walt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Walt
Walt
C'mon lay off the cheap tricks..... qiut trying to change the subject.
We are not talking about the merits of different political
ideologies... Toad claims the 35 year old, 175 pound gunman, was
really Lee Oswald dressed only in a T-shirt. I want to hear more about
this theory.
Walt
David VP
The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
(while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
Walt needs VB's CS&L ..... badly. There is no doubt of that.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> > He may not have killed "JFJ" but, he did, in fact kill JFK.
>
> Nope....Lee never killed either of these gentlemen..... He's on record
> as saying...."No Sir, I never killed anybody.
>
> Walt
I was a criminal defense attorney for three years. I can count on the
fingers of one hand the number of adult suspects who ever confessed to
me that they were guilty.
So that's your evidence of Oswald's innocence? His assertion of it?
You're a stupid dickwad.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with documented
> > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
> > > Oswald was not the murder
> >
> >
> > It's a mystery to me why some people still cling to Communist ideology
> > in spite of the fact that Communism proved itself to be a failed
> > experiment in the last century.
>
> C'mon lay off the cheap tricks..... qiut trying to change the subject.
This IS the subject. Oswald was a Communist. You are a Communist.
The position that you are taking is an ideological one. That's all
that this is about.
Alger Hiss maintained his innocence for a half century up until his
death but records released by Soviet military intelligence proved that
he was a spy. Hiss and others maintained Hiss's innocence at the
expense of integrity in service to what they believed was a greater
cause.
That's what's happening here. That's what you are doing. That's all
that this is about.
Todd W. Vaughan
You're an idiot, Wilt.
>
> Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Since you're such a retard, Wilt, here's what I think Oswald was
wearing when JFK was killed.
A white t-shirt (same ones he was arrested wearing)
A dark pair of pants (same ones he was arrested wearing)
A dark belt (same one he was arrested wearing)
A pair of under shorts (same one he was arrested wearing)
A pair of socks (same one he was arrested wearing)
A pair of shoes (same one he was arrested wearing)
Not worn, but lying somewhere nearby, was a brownish shirt (same one he
was arrested wearing).
Now, you claimed that "Captain Fritz and several other officers said
that the clothing Oswald took off and placed in the dresser drawer was
a reddish brown shirt,
and gray trousers."
Citation, please?
> Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with documented
> > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
> > > by the Warren Commission.
> > >
> > > distortions and yet the apologists tenaciously cling to the report and
> > > defend the liars that created it.
> > >
> > > The Lner's remind me of the Flat Earth people. No matter how much
> > > evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they
> > > will not give up their belief in a fallacy.
> > >
> >
> > I think I can shine it through your ears.
>
> Now that's a real clever answer, Dud
I`ve done better.
>......But it doesn't address the
> issue,
Nor did it attempt to. It addresses the root of the issue, idiots.
> it merely makes it look like you have no solid ground to stand
> on. You LNer's are on quick sand, and the more you wiggle, and squirm,
> (away from the facts) the deeper you sink. Why don't grab the hand
> being offered and pull yourself from the quagmire.
Jack Ruby, my personal hero, plugged your commie punk, writing the
ending in this sad chapter of American history. Keep demanding sequels,
I`m sure the conspiracy book writers will be more than happy to oblige.
> Walt
>
> Walt
>
> >
> > > Walt
David VP
It always helps your CT cause to say shit twice. It makes Oswald all
the more innocent.
>>> "The 35-year-old gunman..." <<<
Kook Device -- Extend the assassin's age to as high a number as
possible -- even though Brennan never once said "35-year-old man" to
describe the SN killer in either his affidavit or in his WC testimony.
He said "early 30s".
>>> "Oswald dressed only in his underwear..." <<<
Another kook device here ("underwear"). A T-shirt = only "underwear" to
this kook, even though many men wear T-shirts as their ONLY shirts many
times (seems this trend was more popular in years past though; I've
never worn one of the horrible things in my life).
IOW -- A "T-shirt" isn't QUITE the same "underwear" as Oswald's jockey
shorts (or briefs); don't know which type he preferred...but I'll bet
Mr. Nutsack has some idea though.
Walt
Thanks for the brief history lesson... Now let's get back to talking
about Toad's idea of Oswald shuckin his briefs while shooting out of
the wide open window. If Toad thinks Breenan saw Oswald's bare, white
ass then he has to explain how that was possible while Oswald was
crouched down behind a partly open window.
Walt
Walt
David VP
And if there's somebody we CERTAINLY want to believe is telling us the
absolute truth, it's the accused double-murderer -- right Walt??
LOL.
Just like when Oswald said "I'm just a patsy" ....
and "I don't own a gun" ....
and "I don't know who A.J. Hidell is?" ....
and "I was denied legal counsel" (which, in fact, he never once was;
Fritz, et al, were allowing LHO to call for legal assistance at ANY
time; but LHO decided to lie to the press....yet again).
So I guess O.J.'s innocent too. After all, he claimed to be "absolutely
100% not guilty".
This Walt's a real piece of CT work. He must have taken lessons from
Mr. Groden....lots of 'em.
Hey Walt -- Do you advocate a 10-shot shooting scenario too (like
Groden), with zero of those shots likely to have come from Oswald's
Sniper's Nest?
Bud
Walt wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> >
> > CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
> > testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
> > hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
> > (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
> > Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
> >
What is the alternative? Either Brennan was an ordinary citizen who
took time out his his day to watch the President go by, or what,
exactly? You aren`t giving us any good reason to follow you down the
rabbit hole. What is the kook version of reality, that shadowy figures
approached Brennan? They knew he was to be working in the area, how?
They knew they could get him to say what they wanted, how? They
say "Look, we`re killing the President, would you be kind enough to say
you saw shots from such and such a location, and give this description
of the person you saw?" But, of course, you assign the shadowy figures
the amazing power of having any witness say anything they wish. I gotta
say, I don`t see people with limited thinking skills being much of a
match for such a formidable opponent.
> That may reveal much about your simple mind, because his testimony is
> anything but ..."plain -as-day". Brennan's testimony is often
> interrupted by David Belin who interjects ideas into the testimony to
> distort and confuse the reader.
Funny that to the already confused reader like yourself, they lend
clarity.
> Apparently Belin's leading of the
> witness and distorting his words worked on you. Not to worry, it
> happens to many..... An unwary, naive, and simple mind, can be fooled
> by simple tricks....
Not Walt. Him too klever.
>. like changing a WHITE shirt that the witness saw
> on the gunman into the BROWN shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing.
One need only try to describe someone they saw briefly to put
Brennan`s observations in their proper context.
>
> Walt
Walt
> Since you're such a retard, Wilt, here's what I think Oswald was
> wearing when JFK was killed.
>
> A white t-shirt (same ones he was arrested wearing)
> A dark pair of pants (same ones he was arrested wearing)
EXCELLENT!!!!....... Now... Explain how you can still believe the
Warren Commission's crap when Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers
as "A Shade lighter than his "dingy WHITE' shirt.
Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> > Since you're such a retard, Wilt, here's what I think Oswald was
> > wearing when JFK was killed.
> >
> > A white t-shirt (same ones he was arrested wearing)
> > A dark pair of pants (same ones he was arrested wearing)
>
> EXCELLENT!!!!....... Now... Explain how you can still believe the
> Warren Commission's crap when Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers
> as "A Shade lighter than his "dingy WHITE' shirt.
Givens said he saw Oz on the sixth floor of the TSBD around 11:55.
Said Oz was wearing green pants and a green shirt. Does this establish
that it wasn`t Oz he was speaking to?
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with documented
> > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
> > > Oswald was not the murder
> >
> >
> > It's a mystery to me why some people still cling to Communist ideology
> > in spite of the fact that Communism proved itself to be a failed
> > experiment in the last century.
>
> C'mon lay off the cheap tricks..... qiut trying to change the subject.
> We are not talking about the merits of different political
> ideologies... Toad claims the 35 year old, 175 pound gunman,
Who gave this description, Walt?
David VP
color?
BRENNAN -- I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same
color of the shirt or a little lighter.
~~~~~~~~~
"Khaki", btw, can be a wide range of actual colors/shades...greenish,
brownish, yellowish.
But if Walt wants to take Brennan at his literal word (based on
Brennan's brief observations of the assassin) -- it appears that
Brennan saw the Good Humor Man in the SN window. Everything's
white...or even lighter than "light"/white.
Walt
Bud wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > > Since you're such a retard, Wilt, here's what I think Oswald was
> > > wearing when JFK was killed.
> > >
> > > A white t-shirt (same ones he was arrested wearing)
> > > A dark pair of pants (same ones he was arrested wearing)
> >
> > EXCELLENT!!!!....... Now... Explain how you can still believe the
> > Warren Commission's crap when Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers
> > as "A Shade lighter than his "dingy WHITE' shirt.
>
> Givens said he saw Oz on the sixth floor of the TSBD around 11:55.
> Said Oz was wearing green pants and a green shirt. Does this establish
> that it wasn`t Oz he was speaking to?
DamnedifIknow..... could be Givens was color blind. Are you
referring to Given's encounter with Oswald when he returned to the
sixth floor to retrieve his package of Viceroys? Do you know if he went
to his hidaway behind the book barricade to retrieve his cigs?
Walt
David VP
Tenth Street too. Does that mixed bag of clothing descriptions get
Oswald off the hook for the Tippit murder too, Walt?
You're attaching way too much importance to things that (by their very
nature) lend themselves to major discrepancy and ambiguity -- such as:
a witness attempting to describe in some detail what a person was
wearing after only seeing that person for a few fleeting moments.
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > > Since you're such a retard, Wilt, here's what I think Oswald was
> > > > wearing when JFK was killed.
> > > >
> > > > A white t-shirt (same ones he was arrested wearing)
> > > > A dark pair of pants (same ones he was arrested wearing)
> > >
> > > EXCELLENT!!!!....... Now... Explain how you can still believe the
> > > Warren Commission's crap when Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman's trousers
> > > as "A Shade lighter than his "dingy WHITE' shirt.
> >
> > Givens said he saw Oz on the sixth floor of the TSBD around 11:55.
> > Said Oz was wearing green pants and a green shirt. Does this establish
> > that it wasn`t Oz he was speaking to?
>
> DamnedifIknow..... could be Givens was color blind.
You jump right over the ordinary to the extraordinary. How about
reality, where people don`t recall what a person they saw briefly was
wearing very well?
> Are you
> referring to Given's encounter with Oswald when he returned to the
> sixth floor to retrieve his package of Viceroys?
No, an entirely different encounter between the two men on the 6th
floor of the TSBD at 11:55.
> Do you know if he went
> to his hidaway behind the book barricade to retrieve his cigs?
No, I think he would have mentioned Oz`s rifle there if he had.
Walt
David VP wrote:
> BELIN -- Could you see the man's trousers at all? Do you remember any
> color?
>
> BRENNAN -- I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same
> color of the shirt or a little lighter.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Khaki", btw, can be a wide range of actual colors/shades...greenish,
> brownish, yellowish.
Hey Von Peon you omitted the modifing adjective "light"..."Khaki", can
be a wide range of actual colors/shades...(light) greenish, (light)
brownish, (actually not "brown") however TAN could be called a LIGHT
shade of "brown' (light) yellowish.
Brennan in his testimony told David Belin that the gunman's shirt was a
"DINGY WHITE"
He said the gunman's trousers...... quote:..."as being similar to the
same color of the shirt or a little lighter".... unquote.
Oswald's trouser's were a dark gray.
>
> But if Walt wants to take Brennan at his literal word (based on
> Brennan's brief observations of the assassin) -- it appears that
> Brennan saw the Good Humor Man in the SN window.
Very good!..... There are several photos of men in Dealey plaza dressed
just as you said....Like the Good Humor Man. I know you don't have
the guts to think they might have been plotters who were dressed like
that for easy identification of each other, so I'm wondering if you
believe that there was a Good Humor man convention going on in the
vicinity.
Walt
Walt
David VP wrote:
> BELIN -- Could you see the man's trousers at all? Do you remember any
> color?
>
> BRENNAN -- I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same
> color of the shirt or a little lighter.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Khaki", btw, can be a wide range of actual colors/shades...greenish,
> brownish, yellowish.
Hey Von Peon you omitted the modifing adjective "light"..."Khaki", can
be a wide range of actual colors/shades...(light) greenish, (light)
brownish, (actually not "brown") however TAN could be called a LIGHT
shade of "brown' (light) yellowish.
Brennan in his testimony told David Belin that the gunman's shirt was a
"DINGY WHITE"
He said the gunman's trousers...... quote:..."as being similar to the
same color of the shirt or a little lighter".... unquote.
Oswald's trouser's were a dark gray.
>
> But if Walt wants to take Brennan at his literal word (based on
> Brennan's brief observations of the assassin) -- it appears that
> Brennan saw the Good Humor Man in the SN window.
Very good!..... There are several photos of men in Dealey plaza dressed
just as you said....Like the Good Humor Man. I know you don't have
the guts to think they might have been plotters who were dressed like
that for easy identification of each other, so I'm wondering if you
believe that there was a Good Humor man convention going on in the
vicinity.
Walt
Everything's
aeffects
Steve wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > David VP wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a fallacy." <<<
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
> > > > > > > CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
> > > > > > > testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
> > > > > > > hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
> > > > > > > (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
> > > > > > > Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmmm......You think Howard Brennan's testimony is as "plain-as-day"
> > > > > > anything but ..."plain -as-day". Brennan's testimony is often
> > > > > > interrupted by David Belin who interjects ideas into the testimony to
> > > > > > witness and distorting his words worked on you. Not to worry, it
> > > > > > happens to many..... An unwary, naive, and simple mind, can be fooled
> > > > > > on the gunman into the BROWN shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > when he was killing JFK?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > First off.....LHO did NOT.... did NOT... kill JFK, and secondly let's
> > > > assume that you misbegotten notion about LHO being in his undershirt
> > > > has validity.....How are you going to account for the FACT the Brennan
> > > > described the gunman's trousers as "A SHADE LIGHTER than the dingy
> > > > white shirt he was wearing" and Oswald was wearing dark gray trousers?
> > >
> > >
> > > How do you know Oswald was wearing dark gray trousers at the time he
> > > killed JFK?
> >
> > Get rid of the notion that Lee Oswald killed JFJ.....He didn't. But I
> > thought a "respected" researcher such as yourself would know that....
> > took off and placed in the dresser drawer was a reddish brown shirt,
> > and gray trousers.
> >
>
now there is a tough guy.... LMAO
>
>
> > Walt
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Are you going to propose that the 35 year old, 175 pound, gunman was
> > > > really Oswald dressed only in his underwear?
> > > >
> > > > Walt
tomnln
When are you gonna understand you support the WCR that was Ruled Against
being admitted in a Court Room.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154463015....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Grizzlie Antagonist
Walt wrote:
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with documented
> > > > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
> > > > > Oswald was not the murder
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's a mystery to me why some people still cling to Communist ideology
> > > > in spite of the fact that Communism proved itself to be a failed
> > > > experiment in the last century.
> > >
> > > C'mon lay off the cheap tricks..... qiut trying to change the subject.
> >
> >
> > This IS the subject. Oswald was a Communist. You are a Communist.
> > The position that you are taking is an ideological one. That's all
> > that this is about.
> >
> > Alger Hiss maintained his innocence for a half century up until his
> > death but records released by Soviet military intelligence proved that
> > he was a spy. Hiss and others maintained Hiss's innocence at the
> > expense of integrity in service to what they believed was a greater
> > cause.
>
> Thanks for the brief history lesson...
Thanks aren't necessary. You haven't learned a damn thing from it.
You have no wish to. You're still a Communist.
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154463493.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> aeffects wrote:
>> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> > Walt wrote:
>> > > David VP wrote:
>> > > > >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their
>> > > > >>> belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a
>> > > > >>> fallacy." <<<
>> > > >
>> > > > The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
>> > > > CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
>> > > > testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
>> > > > hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
>> > > > (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
>> > > > Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
>> > > >
>> > > Hmmmm......You think Howard Brennan's testimony is as "plain-as-day"
>> > > That may reveal much about your simple mind, because his testimony is
>> > > anything but ..."plain -as-day". Brennan's testimony is often
>> > > interrupted by David Belin who interjects ideas into the testimony to
>> > > distort and confuse the reader. Apparently Belin's leading of the
>> > > witness and distorting his words worked on you. Not to worry, it
>> > > happens to many..... An unwary, naive, and simple mind, can be fooled
>> > > by simple tricks..... like changing a WHITE shirt that the witness
>> > > saw
>> > > on the gunman into the BROWN shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > Don't you allow for the possibility that LHO was only wearing a T-shirt
>> > when he was killing JFK?
>> >
>>
>>
>> question is: did the WC allow for that possibility?
>>
>
>
> Question is, do you?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Walt
>
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>>"Lee never killed either of these gentlemen. He's on record as saying "No sir, I
>>>>never killed anybody"." <<<
>
>And if there's somebody we CERTAINLY want to believe is telling us the
>absolute truth, it's the accused double-murderer -- right Walt??
>
>LOL.
>
>Just like when Oswald said "I'm just a patsy" ....
>
>and "I don't own a gun" ....
>
>and "I don't know who A.J. Hidell is?" ....
>
>and "I was denied legal counsel" (which, in fact, he never once was;
>Fritz, et al, were allowing LHO to call for legal assistance at ANY
>time; but LHO decided to lie to the press....yet again).
Actually, untrue... He *was* denied legal counsel.
Walt
David VP wrote:
> BELIN -- Could you see the man's trousers at all? Do you remember any
> color?
>
> BRENNAN -- I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same
> color of the shirt or a little lighter.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Khaki", btw, can be a wide range of actual colors/shades...greenish,
> brownish, yellowish.
Hey Von Peon you omitted the modifing adjective "light"..."Khaki", can
be a wide range of actual colors/shades...(light) greenish, (light)
brownish, (actually not "brown") however TAN could be called a LIGHT
shade of "brown' (light) yellowish.
Brennan in his testimony told David Belin that the gunman's shirt was a
"DINGY WHITE"
He said the gunman's trousers...... quote:..."as being similar to the
same color of the shirt or a little lighter".... unquote.
Oswald's trouser's were a dark gray.
>
> But if Walt wants to take Brennan at his literal word (based on
> Brennan's brief observations of the assassin) -- it appears that
> Brennan saw the Good Humor Man in the SN window.
Very good!..... There are several photos of men in Dealey plaza dressed
just as you said....Like the Good Humor Man. I know you don't have
the guts to think they might have been plotters who were dressed like
that for easy identification of each other, so I'm wondering if you
believe that there was a Good Humor man convention going on in the
vicinity.
Walt
Everything's
David VP
Oh, dear sweet Lord! Somebody tell me Walt The Weird-o isn't serious
with this "dressed alike" stuff!
I really need a ROFL icon right now! Gimme one, quick!!
LOLOLOLOL......
Kinda like how, in the movies, when all the bad guys wear black...right
Walt?
Did any of these guys have little tags on their "Good Humor CT Suits"
too -- e.g., "CONSPIRATOR # 6" .... or .... "PATSY-FRAMER # 21;
ASSIGNED TO BE UMBRELLA MAN'S USELESS RIGHT-HAND MAN"?
Steve
Walt, please , prove that Lee Oswald "didn't kill JFK", won't you? I
asked you this earlier.
David VP
Absolutely false, no matter how many times Ben-Kook chooses to spout
it.
.....
Mr. BALL -- Did you say anything to him about an attorney the first
time you talked to him?
Mr. FRITZ -- Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an attorney, and
I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it. I
told him he could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney he
wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it.
~~~~~~~~~~~
All lies from the lips of Fritz, right Ben-K.?
Plus -- WHY would it really have mattered to the Patsy-Framers anyhow
(whether Oswald gained access to an attorney or not)? The Patsy plot,
with tons of "He's Guilty" evidence in its proper place, was going to
succeed no matter what (according to most kooks like Benjamin) -- so
what possible DIFFERENCE would it have made whether Oswald was allowed
a lawyer or not?
Oswald's goose was cooked from the get-go anyway, right Ben-K.? So how
could ANY lawyer possibly fight the perfect patsy frame-up that was
underway in November 1963?
Plus -- Didn't the Patsy-Framers also know that Oswald was going to be
knocked off very shortly anyway? Therefore, denying an attorney to a
man who the plotters knew would very soon be a dead man makes no sense
either.
So, either way you slice your silly "Not Allowed Legal Counsel" baloney
-- it'll still turn out to be stupid-sounding.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Actually, untrue...He {Oswald} *was* denied legal counsel.
>
>
>.....
>
>Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him about an attorney the first time
>you talked to him?
>
>Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an attorney, and I
>told him he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it. I
>told him he could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney he
>wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>All lies by Fritz, right Ben-K.?
Yep... he lied.
If you're willing to publically admit that you're wrong, I'll be happy to post
the evidence that he was *denied* counsel.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Actually, untrue...He *was* denied legal counsel.
>
>Absolutely false,
Liar, aren't you?
>no matter how many times Ben-Kook chooses to spout
>it.
>.....
>
>Mr. BALL -- Did you say anything to him about an attorney the first
>time you talked to him?
>
>Mr. FRITZ -- Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an attorney, and
>I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it. I
>told him he could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney he
>wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>All lies from the lips of Fritz, right Ben-K.?
Yep... provable, too.
>Plus -- WHY would it really have mattered to the Patsy-Framers anyhow
>(whether Oswald gained access to an attorney or not)?
Because they couldn't control what LHO might have said to an attorney -
particularly as defense counsel aren't exactly unknown for refusing to accept
the prosecution's case.
>The Patsy plot,
>with tons of "He's Guilty" evidence in its proper place, was going to
>succeed no matter what
Not if it went to trial.
>(according to most kooks like Benjamin) -- so
>what possible DIFFERENCE would it have made whether Oswald was allowed
>a lawyer or not?
>
>Oswald's goose was cooked from the get-go anyway, right Ben-K.? So how
>could ANY lawyer possibly fight the perfect patsy frame-up that was
>underway in November 1963?
LHO would have walked from any real trial.
>Plus -- Didn't the Patsy-Framers also know that Oswald was going to be
>knocked off very shortly anyway? Therefore, denying an attorney to a
>man who the plotters knew would very soon be a dead man makes no sense
>either.
Of course it does. No sense in letting non-conspirators know anything that they
don't need to know. You're logic isn't even consistent, is it, Davey-boy?
>So, either way you slice your silly "Not Allowed Legal Counsel" baloney
>-- it'll still turn out to be stupid-sounding.
Would you care to put money on it?
David VP
Can't wait to hear from the Almighty Ben-Kook what evidence he
possesses in this regard.
Everybody listen up...a kook's about to present solid evidence that J.
Will Fritz was a bald-faced liar when he said this to the WC in
'64.......
"I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it."
Let 'er rip, kook.....
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1154473654.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> Actually, untrue...He *was* denied legal counsel.
> >
> >Absolutely false,
>
>
> Liar, aren't you?
I`m not sure what lengths the police have to go to to allow a
suspect to procure legal counsel. Interesting question to me. "Deny"
sounds like he was forbidden, but if Oz was allowed phone calls, what
would stop him from using them to call lawyers?
> >no matter how many times Ben-Kook chooses to spout
> >it.
> >.....
> >
> >Mr. BALL -- Did you say anything to him about an attorney the first
> >time you talked to him?
> >
> >Mr. FRITZ -- Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an attorney, and
> >I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it. I
> >told him he could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney he
> >wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it.
> >
> >~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >All lies from the lips of Fritz, right Ben-K.?
>
>
> Yep... provable, too.
If you have something to say, spill it or shut the fuck up.
> >Plus -- WHY would it really have mattered to the Patsy-Framers anyhow
> >(whether Oswald gained access to an attorney or not)?
>
>
> Because they couldn't control what LHO might have said to an attorney -
> particularly as defense counsel aren't exactly unknown for refusing to accept
> the prosecution's case.
They are also known to refuse to represent a client. I believe Abt
indicated he wouldn`t have taken Oz on.
> >The Patsy plot,
> >with tons of "He's Guilty" evidence in its proper place, was going to
> >succeed no matter what
>
>
> Not if it went to trial.
<snicker>
> >(according to most kooks like Benjamin) -- so
> >what possible DIFFERENCE would it have made whether Oswald was allowed
> >a lawyer or not?
> >
> >Oswald's goose was cooked from the get-go anyway, right Ben-K.? So how
> >could ANY lawyer possibly fight the perfect patsy frame-up that was
> >underway in November 1963?
>
>
> LHO would have walked from any real trial.
Thats a kook wet dream.
> >Plus -- Didn't the Patsy-Framers also know that Oswald was going to be
> >knocked off very shortly anyway? Therefore, denying an attorney to a
> >man who the plotters knew would very soon be a dead man makes no sense
> >either.
>
>
> Of course it does. No sense in letting non-conspirators know anything that they
> don't need to know. You're logic isn't even consistent, is it, Davey-boy?
Kook logic isn`t consistant. What is the point of Oz hinting he was
framed, like kooks interpret his "patsy" remark to be? Once he broke
the ice that he was framed, why not dive in and divulge everthing to
the DPD about how he was set up?
> >So, either way you slice your silly "Not Allowed Legal Counsel" baloney
> >-- it'll still turn out to be stupid-sounding.
>
> Would you care to put money on it?
It would likely come down to an interpreation, as so much else is in
this case.
David VP
You mean to tell me there were ACTUALLY some "non-conspirators" on the
planet, circa 1963? Nah! Can't be. Everybody and his mailman was
framing Saint O., so there couldn't have been anybody left in America
who didn't want Oswald to take the rap.
And exactly what could a "non-plotting" lawyer have learned from Oswald
anyway? He WAS a totally-innocent "Patsy", right? He didn't know a damn
thing about the forces that were plotting against his dumb ass (per a
gob of CT-Kooks), right?
For Pete sake, this silly Oswald goof wouldn't even blab on Live TV
when he was provided multiple opportunities to do just that. Which
brings up the stupidity of the DPD, if they were "in on the plot" too
(as most kooks down in Kooktown definitely think was the case).
How stupid was it for the DPD to parade their Patsy through the halls
while TV cameras were a-whirrin' and Oswald had every chance in the
world to blow the conspiracy sky high (if you think he knew ANYTHING at
all about "the plot", that is)?
So allowing a lawyer to talk to the Oz-man for a few hours before "the
Mob" bumped off the Patsy wouldn't be harmful to "the plot" at all.
Especially since (via a kook's mindset here) anything Oswald might have
said that could lead to "innocence" was probably going to be ignored or
stifled in some manner anyhow....by yet another branch of the
ever-efficient "Patsy-Framers 101" conspiracy department.*
* = This item would not apply to Oswald spouting "the truth" on Live
television, however. It'd be tough, indeed, for the plotters to have
been able to confiscate every TV station's taped copies of Oswald
yelling "It was that bastard Clay Shaw in New Orleans who framed me!!
Go check him out! Goddamn faggot set me up! And get that asswipe Ferrie
while you're at it too! I'm just a patsy!!"
Don't CT-Kooks of the "LHO Was A Little Bit Aware Of What Was
Happening" persuasion ever wonder why something similar to the above
didn't come out of Oswald's mouth on November 22 or November 23, 1963?
And then, too, Mr. Abt would be knocked off in another in the series of
"Mystery Deaths". So Ozzie's lawyer would be resting at the bottom of
the Mississippi soon enough anyway. Surely CT-Kooks think that would
have certainly occurred, right?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>If you're willing to publicly admit that you're wrong, I'll be happy to post the
No, Davey-boy, first you have to state right here in words that cannot be
misconstrued that you will publicly admit that you were wrong should I post
evidence that Oswald was *denied* counsel.
Of course, the *simple* proof is that although he immediately began seeking one,
he still didn't have an attorney when he was killed. But I can provide evidence
that goes beyond those simple facts.
Will you step up to the plate, and tell everyone right now what we all know will
be a lie - that you'll *admit* that you're wrong should I produce the evidence?
For of course, we already know that you won't.
David VP
Should I call Regis Philbin in to moderate this melodrama??
>>> "Of course, the *simple* proof is that although he immediately began seeking one, he still didn't have an attorney when he was killed." <<<
And what makes you think he "immediately began seeking one"?
And what makes you think (as Bud alluded) that some lawyers wouldn't
have just simply refused to help him? (Yes, I suppose a lawyer would
have eventually been APPOINTED at some stage of the game; but it
probably hadn't gotten that far as of 11:21 AM on Nov. 24th when Ruby
intervened).
>>> "But I can provide evidence that goes beyond those simple facts." <<<
Hope so. Because that other stuff was pretty crappy.
>>> "Will you step up to the plate, and tell everyone right now what we all know will be a lie - that you'll *admit* that you're wrong should I produce the evidence?" <<<
How sweet. The kook is calling me a liar even before I say anything.
But, I'll play (even sans Regis' help).
OK, Ben....deal.
>>> "For of course, we already know that you won't." <<<
And we already know that YOU cannot prove Oswald was "denied legal
counsel". Fritz told Oswald in his VERY FIRST INTERVIEW with him that
he could have any lawyer he desired......
"Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an attorney, and I told him
he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it. I told him
he could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney he wanted. I
told him, I said, we will do it." -- J.W. Fritz
But give it your best 'kook' shot anyhow.
tomnln
I can prove Lovelady WAS wearing a T-Shirt.
Does that mean Lovelady shot from the 6th floor window??
Doncha just Love Official Records??
ps; Did toad vaughan prove Oswald was ewearing just a T-Shirt??
Or, is toad vaughan still trying to defend the WCR that was Rejected as
evidence in a
U S Court Room Trial??
Doncha just Love Official Records?
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154463278.5...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> Walt wrote:
>> > David VP wrote:
>> > > >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their
>> > > >>> belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a
>> > > >>> fallacy." <<<
>> > >
>> > > The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
>> > > CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
>> > > testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
>> > > hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
>> > > (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
>> > > Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
>> > >
>> > Hmmmm......You think Howard Brennan's testimony is as "plain-as-day"
>> > That may reveal much about your simple mind, because his testimony is
>> > anything but ..."plain -as-day". Brennan's testimony is often
>> > interrupted by David Belin who interjects ideas into the testimony to
>> > distort and confuse the reader. Apparently Belin's leading of the
>> > witness and distorting his words worked on you. Not to worry, it
>> > happens to many..... An unwary, naive, and simple mind, can be fooled
>> > by simple tricks..... like changing a WHITE shirt that the witness saw
>> > on the gunman into the BROWN shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Don't you allow for the possibility that LHO was only wearing a T-shirt
>> when he was killing JFK?
>>
>
>
> question is: did the WC allow for that possibility?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Walt
>
tomnln
As Batman said "Foiled Again Joker".
ps;
toad there's a page on my website as a Salute to Your Credibility. (Or,
Lack of)
Lovelady was wearing a T-Shirt toad NOT Oswald.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:1154464425.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> Walt wrote:
>> > David VP wrote:
>> > > >>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their
>> > > >>> belief is not true, they will not give up their belief in a
>> > > >>> fallacy." <<<
>> > >
>> > > The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
>> > > CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
>> > > testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
>> > > hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
>> > > (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
>> > > Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
>> > >
>> > Hmmmm......You think Howard Brennan's testimony is as "plain-as-day"
>> > That may reveal much about your simple mind, because his testimony is
>> > anything but ..."plain -as-day". Brennan's testimony is often
>> > interrupted by David Belin who interjects ideas into the testimony to
>> > distort and confuse the reader. Apparently Belin's leading of the
>> > witness and distorting his words worked on you. Not to worry, it
>> > happens to many..... An unwary, naive, and simple mind, can be fooled
>> > by simple tricks..... like changing a WHITE shirt that the witness saw
>> > on the gunman into the BROWN shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Don't you allow for the possibility that LHO was only wearing a T-shirt
>> when he was killing JFK?
>
> Oh I'm sorry Toad..... I just posted a response to your question, and
> noe I realize I didn't read it very well.
>
> Now I see that you're not proposing that Lee was in his underwear when
> he murdered JFK, you're saying that the gunman was Lee Oswald dressed
> only in a T-Shirt. I suppose that might explain why Brennan said that
> the gunman's trousers were a "Shade lighter than his shirt". You think
> the gunman was Lee Oswald dressed only in a T-shirt with his bare white
> ass showing up as a shade lighter than his shirt. I gotta hand it to
> ya Toad.....That's pretty clever... But I still doubt that many will
> accept your theory.
>
>
> Walt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Walt
>
tomnln
Smart people like you/toad/robber/steve/david/lower-ee/satan KNOW Lovelady
was in a white T-Shirt on 11/22/63.
Doncha just Love Official Records??
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154465128.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Walt wrote:
>> It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with documented
>> evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
>> Oswald was not the murder, can still cling to the weak theory proposed
>> by the Warren Commission.
>
>
> Well, among other things, no one has been presented with such evidence.
>
tomnln
WCR was NOT allowed as evidence in a U S Court Room.
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154465952....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Walt wrote:
>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> > Walt wrote:
>> > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with
>> > > documented
>> > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that
>> > > Lee
>> > > Oswald was not the murder, can still cling to the weak theory
>> > > proposed
>> > > by the Warren Commission.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well, among other things, no one has been presented with such
>> evidence.
>>
>> Ah contrair monsewer....You've just not seen it, because you refuse to
>> pull yer head outta yer ass.
>>
>> Walt
>
=======================================================================
> Anyone who thinks that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent is a Communist.
Everyone who believes Oswald was THE Assassin is NUTSACK EATER.
=======================================================================
> I voted twice for Ronald Reagan, asshole, and I've got just two words
> to say to long-haired floppy drug-dealing Communist hippies that have a
> hard-on for Marxist assassins and those two words are not "Happy
> Birthday".
All that leaves is people like YOU.....Abortion Survivor. 1/2 Human.
Doncha just Love Official Records??
Het grizz....do bears shit in the woods?
=========================================================================
tomnln
Hey Bear who shits in the woods;
The WCR was NOT allowed in a U S Court Room as evidence because it was Ruled
by a
Superior Court Judge as "Hearsay"
Doncha just Love Official Records??
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154465857....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Walt wrote:
>> It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with documented
>> evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that Lee
>> Oswald was not the murder
>
>
tomnln
The WCR was NOT allowed as evidence in a U S court Room because it was Ruled
as "Hearsay"
Your Horsie DIED.
Give it up, You Already LOST.
Doncha just Love Official Records??
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154466871.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Walt wrote:
>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> > Walt wrote:
>> > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with
>> > > documented
>> > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that
>> > > Lee
>> > > Oswald was not the murder
>> >
>> >
>> > It's a mystery to me why some people still cling to Communist ideology
>> > in spite of the fact that Communism proved itself to be a failed
>> > experiment in the last century.
>>
>> C'mon lay off the cheap tricks..... qiut trying to change the subject.
>
>
> This IS the subject. Oswald was a Communist. You are a Communist.
> The position that you are taking is an ideological one. That's all
> that this is about.
>
> Alger Hiss maintained his innocence for a half century up until his
> death but records released by Soviet military intelligence proved that
> he was a spy. Hiss and others maintained Hiss's innocence at the
> expense of integrity in service to what they believed was a greater
> cause.
>
> That's what's happening here. That's what you are doing. That's all
> that this is about.
>
tomnln
"Terrorist" is 7 steps BELOW communist.
we make $ from commies now.
You're a Terrorist.
Doncha just Love Official Records??
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154470631.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Walt wrote:
>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> > Walt wrote:
>> > > Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> > > > Walt wrote:
>> > > > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with
>> > > > > documented
>> > > > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence
>> > > > > that Lee
>> > > > > Oswald was not the murder
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > It's a mystery to me why some people still cling to Communist
>> > > > ideology
>> > > > in spite of the fact that Communism proved itself to be a failed
>> > > > experiment in the last century.
>> > >
>> > > C'mon lay off the cheap tricks..... qiut trying to change the
>> > > subject.
>> >
>> >
>> > This IS the subject. Oswald was a Communist. You are a Communist.
>> > The position that you are taking is an ideological one. That's all
>> > that this is about.
>> >
>> > Alger Hiss maintained his innocence for a half century up until his
>> > death but records released by Soviet military intelligence proved that
>> > he was a spy. Hiss and others maintained Hiss's innocence at the
>> > expense of integrity in service to what they believed was a greater
>> > cause.
>>
>> Thanks for the brief history lesson...
>
>
>
> Thanks aren't necessary. You haven't learned a damn thing from it.
> You have no wish to. You're still a Communist.
>
David VP
WESLEY FRAZIER -- No, sir; I don't believe I have because most time I
noticed when Lee had it, I say he put off his shirt and just wear a
T-shirt the biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that
day I really didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether
he did have a shirt on.
tomnln
Of course it makes a difference.
Like is there a difference if YOU are a Commie/Terrorist/Nutsack Eater?
See what I mean/
Here's your chance to address Official Records.
Unless you wanna equate yourself with that other Proven LIAR toad vaughan?
The WCR was "Disallowed as evidence in a U S Court.
Wanna address THAT grizz??
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154469941....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Oswald was also described in various types and colors of jackets on
> Tenth Street too. Does that mixed bag of clothing descriptions get
> Oswald off the hook for the Tippit murder too, Walt?
>
> You're attaching way too much importance to things that (by their very
> nature) lend themselves to major discrepancy and ambiguity -- such as:
> a witness attempting to describe in some detail what a person was
> wearing after only seeing that person for a few fleeting moments.
>
tomnln
Can you prove that Oswald was wearing a T-Shirt ONLY??
I can Prove that Lovelady was wearing a T-Shirt ONLY.
Doncha just Love Official Records??
ps; The WCR was "Disallowed as evidence in a U S Court.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1154470230.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Walt wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>> > Walt wrote:
>> > > > Since you're such a retard, Wilt, here's what I think Oswald was
>> > > > wearing when JFK was killed.
>> > > >
>> > > > A white t-shirt (same ones he was arrested wearing)
>> > > > A dark pair of pants (same ones he was arrested wearing)
>> > >
>> > > EXCELLENT!!!!....... Now... Explain how you can still believe the
>> > > Warren Commission's crap when Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman's
>> > > trousers
>> > > as "A Shade lighter than his "dingy WHITE' shirt.
>> >
>> > Givens said he saw Oz on the sixth floor of the TSBD around 11:55.
>> > Said Oz was wearing green pants and a green shirt. Does this establish
>> > that it wasn`t Oz he was speaking to?
>>
>> DamnedifIknow..... could be Givens was color blind.
>
> You jump right over the ordinary to the extraordinary. How about
> reality, where people don`t recall what a person they saw briefly was
> wearing very well?
>
>> Are you
>> referring to Given's encounter with Oswald when he returned to the
>> sixth floor to retrieve his package of Viceroys?
>
> No, an entirely different encounter between the two men on the 6th
> floor of the TSBD at 11:55.
>
>> Do you know if he went
>> to his hidaway behind the book barricade to retrieve his cigs?
>
> No, I think he would have mentioned Oz`s rifle there if he had.
>
>> Walt
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > > Walt
>> > >
>> > > > A dark belt (same one he was arrested wearing)
>> > > > A pair of under shorts (same one he was arrested wearing)
>> > > > A pair of socks (same one he was arrested wearing)
>> > > > A pair of shoes (same one he was arrested wearing)
>> > > >
>> > > > Not worn, but lying somewhere nearby, was a brownish shirt (same
>> > > > one he
>> > > > was arrested wearing).
>> > > >
>> > > > Now, you claimed that "Captain Fritz and several other officers
>> > > > said
>> > > > that the clothing Oswald took off and placed in the dresser drawer
>> > > > was
>> > > > a reddish brown shirt,
>> > > > and gray trousers."
>> > > >
>> > > > Citation, please?
>> > > >
>> > > > > Walt
>
tomnln
In America, the BURDEN of Proof is on the Accuser.
Doncha just Love Official Records??
ps; Did your Lawyer make Parole Yet?
You said I was gonna hear from your Lawyer 2 week ago,
ps; The WCR was "Disallowed" in a U S Court Room.
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1154472086....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Is that comparable to you Refusing to address the Official Records on my
website?
Doncha Love Official Records??
David you're a PHONY.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154466471....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Now that's a real clever answer, Dud...but it doesn't address the
>>>> issue..." <<<
>
> Bud, undoubtedly, doesn't feel it's worth the time and effort to post
> anything more than what he did here when discussing anything with you,
> Walt.
>
> You've demonstrated, quite well, that you cannot examine evidence in
> this case in a reasonable fashion (i.e., using some common sense).
>
> Should I now "DESCRIBE" (Walt's favorite bold-faced word) what "common
> sense" means?
>
David VP
Of course he can't. Just as nobody on Earth can prove exactly what
clothes LHO was wearing on 11/22 at 12:30.
But that's of minimal significance, of course.
Only a true-blue kook would shove aside all of the physical
(ballistics) evidence and the other "He's Guilty" circumstantial
evidence just so said kook can focus solely on the forever-ambiguous
clothing issue.
But...that's why kooks are kooks, and other people....aren't.
tomnln
The WCR was "Disallowed in a U S Court Room as being "Hearsay".
Doncha just Love Official Records??
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154466604.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "No matter how much evidence is presented that shows that their belief
>>>> is not true, they will not give up their belief in a fallacy." <<<
>
> The staggeringly-brazen hunk of hypocrisy above being uttered by a
> CT-Kook-Nut who argued with me for days about the plain-as-day
> testimony of Howard L. Brennan -- with the author of the above
> hypocrisy attempting to change Brennan's words into a "CT" meaning
> (while also attempting the amazing task of literally MOVING a
> Depository window from one end of the building to the other).
>
> Walt needs VB's CS&L ..... badly. There is no doubt of that.
>
> Seek it out when available, Walt.
>
David VP
I'd certainly enjoy seeing this "proof", Tom-boy.
Put up or shut the F up.
Let's see your "proof", sack.
tomnln
Doncha just Love Official Records?
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1154467328.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Walt wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>> > Walt wrote:
>> > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with
>> > > documented
>> > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that
>> > > Lee
>> > > Oswald was not the murder, can still cling to the weak theory
>> > > proposed
>> > > by the Warren Commission.
>> > >
>> > > The Warren Report is riddled with provable lies, half truths, and
>> > > distortions and yet the apologists tenaciously cling to the report
>> > > and
>> > > defend the liars that created it.
>> > >
>> > > The Lner's remind me of the Flat Earth people. No matter how much
>> > > evidence is presented that shows that their belief is not true, they
>> > > will not give up their belief in a fallacy.
>> > >
>> > > Can anybody shine some light on this Mystery?
>> >
>> > I think I can shine it through your ears.
>>
>> Now that's a real clever answer, Dud
>
> I`ve done better.
>
>>......But it doesn't address the
>> issue,
>
> Nor did it attempt to. It addresses the root of the issue, idiots.
>
>> it merely makes it look like you have no solid ground to stand
>> on. You LNer's are on quick sand, and the more you wiggle, and squirm,
>> (away from the facts) the deeper you sink. Why don't grab the hand
>> being offered and pull yourself from the quagmire.
>
> Jack Ruby, my personal hero, plugged your commie punk, writing the
> ending in this sad chapter of American history. Keep demanding sequels,
> I`m sure the conspiracy book writers will be more than happy to oblige.
>
>> Walt
>>
>> Walt
>>
>> >
>> > > Walt
>
tomnln
The DPD said they did NOT have a tape recorder.
Do you Believe THAT??
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154472699....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Actually, untrue...He {Oswald} *was* denied legal counsel." <<<
>
>
> Absolutely false, no matter how many times Ben-Kook wants to spout it.
> .....
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you say anything to him about an attorney the first time
> you talked to him?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an attorney, and I
> told him he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it. I
> told him he could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney he
> wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> All lies by Fritz, right Ben-K.?
>
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1154479317.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1154473654.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David
>> VP
>> says...
>> >
>> >> Actually, untrue...He *was* denied legal counsel.
>> >
>> >Absolutely false,
>>
>>
>> Liar, aren't you?
>
> I`m not sure what lengths the police have to go to to allow a
> suspect to procure legal counsel. Interesting question to me. "Deny"
> sounds like he was forbidden, but if Oz was allowed phone calls, what
> would stop him from using them to call lawyers?
>
>> >no matter how many times Ben-Kook chooses to spout
>> >it.
>> >.....
>> >
>> >Mr. BALL -- Did you say anything to him about an attorney the first
>> >time you talked to him?
>> >
>> >Mr. FRITZ -- Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an attorney, and
>> >I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time he wanted it. I
>> >told him he could have an attorney any time he liked, any attorney he
>> >wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it.
>> >
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >
>> >All lies from the lips of Fritz, right Ben-K.?
>>
>>
>> Yep... provable, too.
========================================================================
> If you have something to say, spill it or shut the fuck up.
Clear Indication that Bud's AIDS problen started with his Mouth.
========================================================================
David VP
Why not? Seeing as how it was not their practice (circa 1963) to tape
interviews with suspects.
tomnln
Above is where you can see Official Records.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154493581....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "I say he {Oswald} put off his shirt and just wear a T-shirt the
> biggest part of the time so really what shirt he wore that day I really
> didn't see it or didn't pay enough attention to it whether he did have
> a shirt on." -- WESLEY FRAZIER; TO WC
>
> http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/oswald_lee3.jpg
>
tomnln
to see the
Destruction of Evidence done by the Authorities.
Proof of which can be seen in these official records.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154495048.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Hey grizz.
The WCR was "Disallowed" in a U S Court Room.
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154466871.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Walt wrote:
>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> > Walt wrote:
>> > > It's a mystery to me how anybody who has been presented with
>> > > documented
>> > > evidence that the murder of JFK was a conspiracy and evidence that
>> > > Lee
>> > > Oswald was not the murder
>> >
>> >
>> > It's a mystery to me why some people still cling to Communist ideology
>> > in spite of the fact that Communism proved itself to be a failed
>> > experiment in the last century.
>>
>> C'mon lay off the cheap tricks..... qiut trying to change the subject.
>
>
> This IS the subject. Oswald was a Communist. You are a Communist.
> The position that you are taking is an ideological one. That's all
> that this is about.
>
> Alger Hiss maintained his innocence for a half century up until his
> death but records released by Soviet military intelligence proved that
> he was a spy. Hiss and others maintained Hiss's innocence at the
> expense of integrity in service to what they believed was a greater
> cause.
>
> That's what's happening here. That's what you are doing. That's all
> that this is about.
>
tomnln
THEN, I'll prove it.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154495281.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Then, How come they had a Recording Room???
Do you think they were gonna become Competition for Red Foley at "The Grand
Ole Oprey"??
THEY LIED AGAIN.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154495902.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David VP
Ohhh, of course....Kook Rules apply.
Sorry, I forgot that prerequisite.
Is Sack O' Nuts REALLY Jack White? You decide......
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-667-1154464976.jpg
tomnln
Do you want the proof or NOT??
How come you never address the above Official Records???
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154499225....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David VP
A "recording room"???
You mean an "interrogation room"??
What the fuck are you babbling about?
David VP
Nah. Keep whatever it is you're talking about (beats me anyway) in your
private N-Sack files. I don't give a fuck.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Bud Bud my old Buddy;
>
> Can you prove that Oswald was wearing a T-Shirt ONLY??
>
> I can Prove that Lovelady was wearing a T-Shirt ONLY.
Oh, no. Between that and Walt pointing out that Oz said he didn`t
shoot anyone, our position is just devastated.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> WHY am I NOT Surprised that Bud's Hero would be a HOMOSEXUAL???
And an excellent shot.
Bud
And that syphilis has destroyed your brain.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> pssst pssst
>
> Hey grizz.
>
> The WCR was "Disallowed" in a U S Court Room.
As the Bible would be disallowed as evidence.