On Fri, 3 May 2019 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT),
chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 8:57:55 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 6:25:20 AM UTC-7,
chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:56:20 PM UTC-5,
borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your mind would go exactly to what you *know* those documents indicate about CE1 but are too chickenshit to admit.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> What's your theory as to WHY the Dallas Police and FBI felt compelled to frame Oswald---AFTER HE WAS ALREADY DEAD---for a THIRD murder attempt (the Walker shooting)?
>> >>>
>> >>> What was in it for the Dallas cops and the Feds when they decided to lay another attempted murder charge at Oswald's (dead) feet?
>> >>>
>> >>> Why weren't TWO murder charges enough for the evil authorities?
>> >>
>> >> Every villain needs a backstory.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yet you won't provide one.
>>
>> Critics *HAVE* posted scenarios... you refuse to do so. Why the cowardice
>> Chuckles?
>
> No critic has ever laid out an entire case and provided their
> explanations for what they allege. Ever.
You're lying again, Chuckles.
> If they had, you could post the book titles right here. No case in
> any book, from R2J to the more recent pieces of garbage that you guys
> treat like a Muslim treats the Koran.
Douglas Horne's five volume set.
Get busy refuting it.
I'll be happy to defend it against *ANYTHING* you post.
You lose.
>> > If they wanted to frame Oswald in the first place, they would have used
>> > 6.5mm bullet rather than a 30.06 caliber like what was found at Walker's.
>> >
>> > Begging the Question.
>>
>>
>> NO STUPID, THAT IS NOT "BEGGING THE QUESTION."
>
>Er, yeah it is.
You don't know what "if" means, do you?
>>It was posed hypothetically
>
>
> Whats BEGGED is the premise Oswald didn't shoot at Walker. He
> factually did.
You're factually a liar. No-one was *EVER* convicted in a court of law
for that crime.
And the *ACTUAL* evidence doesn't support your theory.
This explains why you've ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to cite any evidence for
your wacky theories.
>> and demonstrates that had anyone wanted to frame Oswald, THEY WOULD FRAME
>> HIM WITH A 6.5mm ROUND.
>
> Why?
Because no-one would believe that Oswald used a rifle that he not only
did not own, but that there was ZERO EVIDENCE he'd owned, or had any
way to "borrow."
I shouldn't have to explain the obvious... but you're clearly a moron.
> Your Money Order conspirators supposedly deposited the funds for the
> rifle Oswald purchased in February. We just had a big discussion about
> it. I asked you why and you said maybe they were stupid.
Actually, you ran from most of that thread.
And offered no refutation.
> You're mighty stupid, so why couldn't the Walker shooting framers be
> just as stupid as you?
It doesn't bother you that you keep getting spanked with the evidence
from someone you claim is "mighty stupid?"
What would that make you?
> Cite the reasons why if Oswald was going to be framed for shooting
> at Walker that they couldn't have messed up with the type of bullet.
Because the first time the bullet changed from 30.06 to 6.5mm, they
had the "Oswald" rifle in hand, and had test fired many bullets
through it.
Spanked again!
> Couldn't the Walker shooting framers be just as stupid as the Money
> Order framers, who would be, in turn, just as stupid as you?
I think I'll just leave that one unanswered, and let lurkers enjoy the
laugh.
>> As indeed they did.
>>
>> You, just as David, will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post any documentation on
>> the caliber of the Walker bullet that predates 11/22/63.
>>
>> And that fact tells the tale.
Chuckles got spanked again.
>> >>It's as if the Walker shooting was thrown in as an afterthought.
>> >
>> > Only if you ignore the evidence Oswald took a shot at Walker.
>>
>> What evidence?
>
>Fringe Reset.
Cite a post where you **EVER** provided that evidence.
You won't.
>> You'll refuse to cite **ANY** evidence... because you know you'd
>> only get spanked.
>>
>>
>> >> Likely it had something to do with adhering to Point 2 of the Katzenbach memo,
>> >> regarding speculation as to Oswald's motive.
>> >
>> > Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang. Boris pivots to the Katzenbach memo and mangles
>> > what it was meant to convey. Again.
>>
>> It's pretty clear. You've done *NOTHING* to change the plain meaning of
>> the Katzenbach memo.
>
>Thank you. I appreciate that.
First time I've been thanked for pointing out someone's lie.
>> >> Maybe the better question is....is there ANY evidence linking Oswald
>> >> to the shooting? At all?
>> >
>> > Any evidence you'd accept? OF course not. You're a kook.
>>
>>
>> Any evidence you'd have courage enough to cite? Of course not. You're
>> a COWARDLY kook.
>
>This is a fringe reset.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
>> >> A better question still might be...how did Oswald get away with that crime
>> >> scot-free for nine months, and yet on 11/22 he was caught in under an hour
>> >> and a half?
>> >
>> > A better response by you would be to explain all of these lies, anomalies,
>> > hidden facts, etc. in a way better than the historically accepted WCR
>> > explained them.
>> >
>> > But you'll never do it.
>>
>> Already done. And the PROOF of that fact is that you refuse to respond
>> to it.
>
> Never done.
You're provably lying again, Chuckles.
>> This shows that *YOU* know I met the burden you can't meet.
>
> The "burden" was met in 1964.
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Who was the defense attorney?
>> >>>>> You guys have no choice *but* to think everything pointing to LHO is fake/phony. Otherwise, he's guilty.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> He is guilty.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You even think Marina was framing her own husband (via all the "lies" you are convinced she told). Now *that's* wacky.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Marina never lied. Ever. Now...show me you have the balls to repeat that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Fallacy of Absolutism. Hasty Generalization.
>>
>>
>> IOW's, Chuckles is well aware of the FACT that Marina lied time and time
>> again. And that both the WC and the HSCA positively asserted that.
>
> Fallacy of ...
Chuckles is TERRIFIED of admitting that he knows Marina lied time and
time again, and that *EVERYONE* knew it.
>> The only reason they relied on her lies is that without 'em, there was
>> no case.
>
> Really?
You just proved it.
>> Chuckles is afraid to publicly admit that he knows Marina lied over and
>> over again, because he *relies* on her lies to support his faith.
>>
>> > Go home Boris. You're overmatched.
>>
>>
>> Go home, Chuckles. You're overmatched and a coward to boot.
>>
>>
>> >> Say it, David.
>> >>
>> >> Marina never lied. Ever.
>> >>
>> >> You know you want to. So say it.
>>
>> I know a former FBI agent who actually said that.
“Marina Oswald was the straightest shooter God created. Never once did
we find a contradiction in her statements,” - Former FBI agent Dick
Rogge, interview with Colleen Cason - published in local paper in 2017