The patsy evidence
charles wallace
1. Oswald himself exclaims "I'm just a patsy!" when questioned by the
media about the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
2. Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting but there are questions about
whether all the fingerprints on it are Oswald's.
3. Oswald when confronted by DPD Baker in the second floor lunch room
about 90 seconds after the last shot was calm and he was not out of
breath. If Oswald had just come from the stairway, Truly would have
seen him or the door closing since it was equiped with an automatic door
closer.
4. Oswald had an alibi right before the shots by telling interrogators
that he saw Jarman and Norman go through the (big) room on the first
foor. They went through the large open room on the first floor about
12:23pm going to the western elevator. Oswald said he was out front
with Bill Shelley and Shelley left the front immediately after the
shots.
5. The fifth floor ear witnesses Jarman, Norman and Williams heard no
one walking above them after the shots even though Norman could hear an
empty shell hit the floor after a shot. They heard no one on the wooden
staircase after the shots. Jack Dougherty did not see or hear Oswald on
the stairs even though he was near the fifth floor staircase at the time
of the shots.
6. I see a man's face in the window looking out in Tom Dillard's
close-up photo taken right after the shots.
7. Lillian Mooneyham worked in the courts right across the street. She
saw a man in the window after the shots and she said he was looking out.
I include her FBI statement below.
START>>>>>>>
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date January 10, 1964
LILLIAN MOONEYHAM, Deputy District Court Clerk, 95th Court, Records
Building, advised that she watched the Presidential Motorcade on
November 22, 1963 from the windows of the court house. She, along with
Mrs. ROSE CLARK and JEANETTE E. HOOKER, observed the Presidential
Motorcade proceeding down Main Street from the window of Judge J. FRANK
WILSON'S courtroom, overlooking Main Street. As the motorcade passed
them on Main Street, MOONEYHAM, CLARK and HOOKER ran to Judge HENRY
KING's courtroom window, which faces Houston Street, in time to see the
motorcade turn west from Elm Street on Houston. Mrs MOONEYHAM believes
that BOB REID, Deputy District Court Clerk, Dallas, Texas, was in Judge
KING's courtroom watching the motorcade at the same time as was
MOONEYHAM, CLARK and HOOKER.
Mrs. MOONEYHAM heard a gunshot and observed President KENNEDY slump to
the left of the seat of the car. At the time of the initial shot, Mrs.
MOONEYHAM believed that a firecracker had gone off. Following the first
shot, there was a slight pause and then two more shots were discharged,
the second and third shots sounding closer together. Mrs. MOONEYHAM
observed Mrs. KENNEDY climb up on the back of the car and her eyes were
then diverted toward the left of the Presidential Motorcade on Elm
Street toward a bystander, a man who had fallen to the ground.
Mrs. MOONEYHAM and Mrs. CLARK left Judge KING's courtroom and went to
the office of Judge JULIEN C. HYER on the third floor of the Records
Building, where they continued to observe the happenings from Judge
HYER's window. From Judge HYER's window, Mrs. MOONEYHAM noted a number
of bystanders running toward the cement pavilion which borders Elm
Street between the railroad viaduct and the Texas School Book Depository
(TSBD). Mrs. MOONEYHAM estimated that it was about 4 1/2 to 5 minutes
following the shots fired by the assassin, that she looked up towards
the sixth floor of the TSBD and observed the figure of a man standing in
a sixth floor window behind some cardboard boxes. This man appeared to
Mrs. MOONEYHAM to be looking out of the window, however, the man was not
close up to the window but was standing slightly back from it, so that
Mrs. MOONEYHAM could not make out his features. She stated that she
could give no description of this individual except to say that she is
sure it was a man she observed, because the figure had on trousers. She
could not recall the color of the trousers.
Mrs. MOONEYHAM stated she could not furnish any additional identifying
information regarding the figure she observed in this window.
Mrs. MOONEYHAM stated that following the assassination of President JOHN
FITZGERALD KENNEDY, she observed a re-enactment of the assassination on
two separate occasions on one day, and it was her impression that the
Presidential Motorcade was going slower than the re-enactment motorcade.
She stated that it was her estimation that the Presidential car was
going approximately five or six miles per hour at the time of the
assassination, however, she noted that her estimation was based upon her
observation of the Presidential car as it moved west on Elm away from
the position where she was located.
on 1/8/64 at Dallas, Texas
File # DL 100-10461 By Special Agent GEORGE T. BINNEY Date Dictated
1/9/64
Commission Exhibit No. 2099
END>>>>>>>
Footnote: Mrs. Mooneyham's time estimate should have been closer to two
minutes if the walking distance and other facts are considered.
Case Wide Open: A JFK Murder Investigation
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
charles wallace
The Facial Image
from
June, 1995
What can be said about the facial image shown in news photographer Tom
Dillard's photograph which is partially obscured by the framing? The
face appears in the window set next to the open window in which almost
every researcher or investigative body accepts as being occupied by a
shooter during the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Everyone accepts
that this photograph was taken by Tom Dillard shortly after the
assassination. How soon after is in dispute, but estimates range from a
few seconds to slightly over one minute. Dillard took at least two
photos during this time period. The one that shows the facial image, I
contend was taken slightly over one minute after the assassination. The
movement of a box in the window from its position shown in a photograph
taken 30 seconds after the assassination by Military Intelligence
employee James Powell establishes the time sequence. This sequence is
confirmed by another photograph taken minutes later by Dallas
photographer Jim Murray. Murray's box positions match Dillard's. Shadows
on the building confirm all three photos were taken within minutes of
each other. The timing eliminates Lee H. Oswald as the person seen.
Upon close examination of this figure in the window, it appears that it
is a white male, Caucasian, approximately 35 years old. He has dark hair
and is dressed in dark clothing with no hat. He is standing, and his
height appears to be ( compared with inside building photographs ) five
feet six inches; but, since he is back from the window, he is probably
five feet eight inches or more. Judging from his facial appearance and
approximate height, I estimate his weight to be 150 pounds or more. His
features or facial expression appears to be stern, and he is looking
possibly at the photographer. The shadows on his face are consistent
with the light source and what the window's framing would cast. There is
a light place on the top of his left shoulder that I speculate to be
consistent with the appearance of a Dallas policeman's uniform. DPD
officers have dark uniforms with red shoulder ribbons. There is a bright
spot that could be a button on the uniform. Even though the figure
appears to be wearing a DPD uniform, this fact does not mean he was an
actual policeman. Another light area could be that the top two buttons
of his shirt are undone, and his t-shirt is showing slightly. A
dark/light area at the window sill indicates his body is blocking one's
view of the stacks of boxes in the background. The sill is approximately
fourteen inches above the floor.
A confirmation that the facial image is real, centers on the relative
size of it. This size comparison can be made directly from two other
faces shown in the photograph. On the floor below, the fifth floor,
Bonnie Ray Williams is seen to the left, and to the right is Harold
Norman. These employees of the Texas School Book Depository stayed at
these windows at least a minute or more after the assassination until
they saw the crowd in Dealey Plaza converging on the grassy knoll. Then,
they went to the western windows to observe this crowd. The facial
image, while not clear and distinct, is not cartoonish looking, as if
one were trying to use imagination to see it. It is definitely human
looking and real in appearance.
Another confirmation that the facial image is real is to view other
photographs taken near the same point in time. These photos show no such
face or even dust and dirt on the window of the same magnitude in size
as the facial image shown in Dillard's photograph. This photograph
belongs to the Dallas Morning News newspaper. This Dillard photograph
has been shown in magazines, books, and even the Warren Commission
Report. The facial image can be seen in all of these photographs with
varying degrees of clarity, depending on cropping and photo size.
Ironically the best display of this facial image appears in the book by
Gerald Posner entitled, Case Closed. Yet, its presence signifies a Case
Wide Open.
----------------------------------------------
footnote: The photo by Jack A. Weaver further establishes the photo
sequence. Weaver's box positions match Powell's and the photo shows JFK
turning from Main St. to Houston St.
Bud
charles wallace wrote:
> What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of JFK?
>
> 1. Oswald himself exclaims "I'm just a patsy!" when questioned by the
> media about the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
<snicker> This is evidence Oz was framed?
> 2. Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting but there are questions about
> whether all the fingerprints on it are Oswald's.
How do fingerprints of unestablished origin translate into Oz being
framed?
> 3. Oswald when confronted by DPD Baker in the second floor lunch room
> about 90 seconds after the last shot was calm and he was not out of
> breath. If Oswald had just come from the stairway, Truly would have
> seen him or the door closing since it was equiped with an automatic door
> closer.
Why do you pretend that you have such a precise timing for Oz
entering the lunchroom?
> 4. Oswald had an alibi right before the shots by telling interrogators
> that he saw Jarman and Norman go through the (big) room on the first
> foor.
That`s not an alibi. And perhaps you can quote testimony of Oz
saying he saw these guys walk through any room other than the domino
room.
> They went through the large open room on the first floor about
> 12:23pm going to the western elevator. Oswald said he was out front
> with Bill Shelley and Shelley left the front immediately after the
> shots.
Oz said he was out front with Shelley, yet Shelley never he was out
front with Oz.
> 5. The fifth floor ear witnesses Jarman, Norman and Williams heard no
> one walking above them after the shots even though Norman could hear an
> empty shell hit the floor after a shot. They heard no one on the wooden
> staircase after the shots. Jack Dougherty did not see or hear Oswald on
> the stairs even though he was near the fifth floor staircase at the time
> of the shots.
So you are saying the assassin stayed up on that floor after the
assassination?
> 6. I see a man's face in the window looking out in Tom Dillard's
> close-up photo taken right after the shots.
Of course you do.
> 7. Lillian Mooneyham worked in the courts right across the street. She
> saw a man in the window after the shots and she said he was looking out.
5 minutes after. The slowest getaway I ever heard of.
Anything over a handful of seconds is stupid, when other facts are
charles wallace
You of all people KNOW Oswald was not the shooter. You have
participated in the alibi discussions and know the facts.
Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
out of his rifle. You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
policeman's uniform for cover. You know there are people on the floor
below you and you are familiar with the building. So you stay on the
sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
floor guys might try and see who you are. You wait and they leave the
fifth floor and then you go down the staircase after about 4 or 5
minutes and out the back door.
Regards, Charles
Bud
charles wallace wrote:
> Bud,
> You of all people KNOW Oswald was not the shooter. You have
> participated in the alibi discussions and know the facts.
Yah, I do know the facts, and the fact is that Oz didn`t have the
slightest suggestion of an alibi.
> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
> out of his rifle.
Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
> policeman's uniform for cover.
Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
> You know there are people on the floor
> below you and you are familiar with the building.
Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
building at all times.
> So you stay on the
> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
> floor guys might try and see who you are.
How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
> You wait and they leave the
> fifth floor and then you go down the staircase after about 4 or 5
> minutes and out the back door.
No more television for you Charles. Heres a better one. Oz brings
his rifle wrapped in paper (the long object people saw him bring in),
hides it in the building. After everyone leaves for lunch, he retrieves
it, removes and assembles the rifle, and shoots some people. Flees the
building as quick as he can, confronted only once by a cop who assumes
he is looking for someone who doesn`t belong in the building.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>charles wallace wrote:
>> Bud,
>> You of all people KNOW Oswald was not the shooter. You have
>> participated in the alibi discussions and know the facts.
>
> Yah, I do know the facts, and the fact is that Oz didn`t have the
>slightest suggestion of an alibi.
When you must lie about the evidence to support your position - it's clear to
most people that you need to rethink your position.
>> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
>> out of his rifle.
>
> Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this brilliant
student of the WC.
>> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
>> policeman's uniform for cover.
>
> Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
Stupidity works, too.
>> You know there are people on the floor
>> below you and you are familiar with the building.
>
> Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
>building at all times.
Simple common sense escapes Bud as well...
>> So you stay on the
>> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
>> floor guys might try and see who you are.
>
> How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
>in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
>would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the *biggest*
obstacle to framing LHO
>> You wait and they leave the
>> fifth floor and then you go down the staircase after about 4 or 5
>> minutes and out the back door.
>
> No more television for you Charles. Heres a better one. Oz brings
>his rifle wrapped in paper (the long object people saw him bring in),
>hides it in the building. After everyone leaves for lunch, he retrieves
>it, removes and assembles the rifle, and shoots some people. Flees the
>building as quick as he can, confronted only once by a cop who assumes
>he is looking for someone who doesn`t belong in the building.
Yep... that's the silly theory that the WC attempted to foist on the American
people. And the same silly theory that 90% of them reject.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>
>charles wallace wrote:
>> What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of JFK?
>>
>> 1. Oswald himself exclaims "I'm just a patsy!" when questioned by the
>> media about the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
>
> <snicker> This is evidence Oz was framed?
It's normally a requirement to have an innocent suspect proclaim his innocence.
If he proclaims his guilt, he's either clearly not innocent, or he needs medical
attention.
>> 2. Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting but there are questions about
>> whether all the fingerprints on it are Oswald's.
>
> How do fingerprints of unestablished origin translate into Oz being
>framed?
Think about it, oh wise one...
>> 3. Oswald when confronted by DPD Baker in the second floor lunch room
>> about 90 seconds after the last shot was calm and he was not out of
>> breath. If Oswald had just come from the stairway, Truly would have
>> seen him or the door closing since it was equiped with an automatic door
>> closer.
>
> Why do you pretend that you have such a precise timing for Oz
>entering the lunchroom?
Because there is... ignorant of the evidence, aren't you, Bud?
The WC was able, by selective ommission of evidence, to get LHO where he was
just seconds ahead of Baker - whom they slowed down as much as possible.
The timing *was* extremely precise... but Bud would know this had he bothered to
learn about it.
>> 4. Oswald had an alibi right before the shots by telling interrogators
>> that he saw Jarman and Norman go through the (big) room on the first
>> foor.
>
> That`s not an alibi.
No, of course it isn't... I loaned LHO my crystal ball that morning...
>And perhaps you can quote testimony of Oz
Just as quickly as *you* can. Most intelligent people who are aware of this
case know that there *was* no testimony by LHO.
>saying he saw these guys walk through any room other than the domino
>room.
>
>> They went through the large open room on the first floor about
>> 12:23pm going to the western elevator. Oswald said he was out front
>> with Bill Shelley and Shelley left the front immediately after the
>> shots.
>
> Oz said he was out front with Shelley, yet Shelley never he was out
>front with Oz.
Actually, Shelley reports seeing LHO on the first floor at 11:45-11:50... The WC
was forced to lie about this. Despite Shelley's unrebutted testimony, the WC
decided that LHO had never left the 6th floor, and had never been seen before
the assassination on the 1st floor.
When you have to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", is it really the
truth?
>> 5. The fifth floor ear witnesses Jarman, Norman and Williams heard no
>> one walking above them after the shots even though Norman could hear an
>> empty shell hit the floor after a shot. They heard no one on the wooden
>> staircase after the shots. Jack Dougherty did not see or hear Oswald on
>> the stairs even though he was near the fifth floor staircase at the time
>> of the shots.
>
> So you are saying the assassin stayed up on that floor after the
>assassination?
That *is* what the evidence indicates...
>> 6. I see a man's face in the window looking out in Tom Dillard's
>> close-up photo taken right after the shots.
>
> Of course you do.
>
>> 7. Lillian Mooneyham worked in the courts right across the street. She
>> saw a man in the window after the shots and she said he was looking out.
>
> 5 minutes after. The slowest getaway I ever heard of.
Yep... other eyewitnesses also corroborated this "slow" getaway.
Even 15 seconds at that window would have made the WC theory impossible.
This was *also* the testimony of one of the FBI agents involved. '30%' slower,
as I recall. Sounds like Mrs Mooneyham is speaking the truth, doesn't it?
>> She stated that it was her estimation that the Presidential car was
>> going approximately five or six miles per hour at the time of the
>> assassination, however, she noted that her estimation was based upon her
>> observation of the Presidential car as it moved west on Elm away from
>> the position where she was located.
>>
>> on 1/8/64 at Dallas, Texas
>> File # DL 100-10461 By Special Agent GEORGE T. BINNEY Date Dictated
>> 1/9/64
>> Commission Exhibit No. 2099
>>
>> END>>>>>>>
>>
>> Footnote: Mrs. Mooneyham's time estimate should have been closer to two
>> minutes if the walking distance and other facts are considered.
>
> Anything over a handful of seconds is stupid, when other facts are
>considered.
Virtually any amount of time makes the WC's theory impossible. This is why they
disregarded all eyewitnesses that testified to an assassin remaining at the
window.
The only "fact" Bud is considering, is the WC's theory. He can't *name* any
"facts" that he considered.
aeffects
I believe the Dudster is on a fishing expedition, Ben. Building new
arguments for the future -- hope he's paid handsomely for his efforts,
guys been undressed so many times hereabouts he's lost all shame!
Thanks for working - the WCR -- old HaroldW. was correct, that's all
you need!
Audience has grown...
-gd
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>[Top Post comment]
>
>I believe the Dudster is on a fishing expedition, Ben. Building new
>arguments for the future -- hope he's paid handsomely for his efforts,
>guys been undressed so many times hereabouts he's lost all shame!
>
>Thanks for working - the WCR -- old HaroldW. was correct,
I should have attributed my statement correctly! It was indeed Weisberg who
first stated that all you need is the 26 volumes...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1122636966....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >charles wallace wrote:
> >> Bud,
> >> You of all people KNOW Oswald was not the shooter. You have
> >> participated in the alibi discussions and know the facts.
> >
> > Yah, I do know the facts, and the fact is that Oz didn`t have the
> >slightest suggestion of an alibi.
>
>
> When you must lie about the evidence to support your position - it's clear to
> most people that you need to rethink your position.
Jezz, I got kooks coming out of the woodwork now. I guess you just
need to use the right bait. But, since I`m just a liar, maybe you can
name the person who saw Oz in a place that made committing the
assassination impossible.
> >> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
> >> out of his rifle.
> >
> > Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
>
> The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this brilliant
> student of the WC.
Yah, it does. Oz never expected to get far after the shooting.
Perhaps you can help Charles with a scenario of how Oz was tricked out
of his rifle ("Look Oz, it`s Castro" and then snatch the rifle away
when Oz is distracted? Maybe he lost it playing three card monte).
> >> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
> >> policeman's uniform for cover.
> >
> > Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
>
> Stupidity works, too.
Seems to.
> >> You know there are people on the floor
> >> below you and you are familiar with the building.
> >
> > Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
> >building at all times.
>
> Simple common sense escapes Bud as well...
Well, I`m certainly no match for Charles in that regard. He has the
assassin hanging around for 5 minutes after the shooting. I guess the
assassin knew there wasn`t going to be dozen of people rushing to the
location the shots were fired from.
> >> So you stay on the
> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
> >
> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
>
> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the *biggest*
> obstacle to framing LHO
Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
confronted Oz. They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
suggest happened could happen is because each person is a variable
who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
shells, ect). Who knows who was going to do what, when, where, most of
the people themselves didn`t know. But Oz had the huge advantage of
being able to monitor movements and intentions. Could an outsider?
> >> You wait and they leave the
> >> fifth floor and then you go down the staircase after about 4 or 5
> >> minutes and out the back door.
> >
> > No more television for you Charles. Heres a better one. Oz brings
> >his rifle wrapped in paper (the long object people saw him bring in),
> >hides it in the building. After everyone leaves for lunch, he retrieves
> >it, removes and assembles the rifle, and shoots some people. Flees the
> >building as quick as he can, confronted only once by a cop who assumes
> >he is looking for someone who doesn`t belong in the building.
>
> Yep... that's the silly theory that the WC attempted to foist on the American
> people. And the same silly theory that 90% of them reject.
Even as it is uncertain how much of that theory they know of. Do
they know Oz carried a long, paper covered object into work that day?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1122591980.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >
> >charles wallace wrote:
> >> What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of JFK?
> >>
> >> 1. Oswald himself exclaims "I'm just a patsy!" when questioned by the
> >> media about the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
> >
> > <snicker> This is evidence Oz was framed?
>
> It's normally a requirement to have an innocent suspect proclaim his innocence.
> If he proclaims his guilt, he's either clearly not innocent, or he needs medical
> attention.
This is *evidence* Oz was framed?
> >> 2. Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting but there are questions about
> >> whether all the fingerprints on it are Oswald's.
> >
> > How do fingerprints of unestablished origin translate into Oz being
> >framed?
>
> Think about it, oh wise one...
Splain it to me, kook. It`s your junk thinking, don`t ask me to do
your dirty work.
> >> 3. Oswald when confronted by DPD Baker in the second floor lunch room
> >> about 90 seconds after the last shot was calm and he was not out of
> >> breath. If Oswald had just come from the stairway, Truly would have
> >> seen him or the door closing since it was equiped with an automatic door
> >> closer.
> >
> > Why do you pretend that you have such a precise timing for Oz
> >entering the lunchroom?
>
>
> Because there is... ignorant of the evidence, aren't you, Bud?
Who held the stopwatch, kook?
> The WC was able, by selective ommission of evidence, to get LHO where he was
> just seconds ahead of Baker - whom they slowed down as much as possible.
Exactlly how fast could Oz go down 4 floors of steps? What is the
exact number of seconds?
> The timing *was* extremely precise... but Bud would know this had he bothered to
> learn about it.
Why not just complete the lie, and claim to know exacttly how long
these things took?
> >> 4. Oswald had an alibi right before the shots by telling interrogators
> >> that he saw Jarman and Norman go through the (big) room on the first
> >> foor.
> >
> > That`s not an alibi.
>
>
> No, of course it isn't... I loaned LHO my crystal ball that morning...
You`d be better of with a legal dictionary.
> >And perhaps you can quote testimony of Oz
>
>
> Just as quickly as *you* can. Most intelligent people who are aware of this
> case know that there *was* no testimony by LHO.
Even attributed, there is nothing outside of the domino room, if it
even says that much.
> >saying he saw these guys walk through any room other than the domino
> >room.
> >
> >> They went through the large open room on the first floor about
> >> 12:23pm going to the western elevator. Oswald said he was out front
> >> with Bill Shelley and Shelley left the front immediately after the
> >> shots.
> >
> > Oz said he was out front with Shelley, yet Shelley never he was out
> >front with Oz.
>
> Actually, Shelley reports seeing LHO on the first floor at 11:45-11:50... The WC
> was forced to lie about this. Despite Shelley's unrebutted testimony, the WC
> decided that LHO had never left the 6th floor, and had never been seen before
> the assassination on the 1st floor.
That time frame is about the time the flooring crew left Oz in the
upper floors, so there is contrary testimony. But, of course you throw
out a red herring, who cares if Shelley saw Oz on the first floor? I
suspect he may have made a trip down, to retrieve the bullets from his
jacket. A crafty fellow like Oz would know that if he was confronted
with a rifle with no bullets, he can claim an innoculous reason, or at
least have a level of deniability of murderous intent. But you sidestep
the issue of why Oz lied and said he was out front with Shelley.
> When you have to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", is it really the
> truth?
I wouldn`t trust you to seperate the lies from the truth, you don`t
seem to have the necessary tools.
> >> 5. The fifth floor ear witnesses Jarman, Norman and Williams heard no
> >> one walking above them after the shots even though Norman could hear an
> >> empty shell hit the floor after a shot. They heard no one on the wooden
> >> staircase after the shots. Jack Dougherty did not see or hear Oswald on
> >> the stairs even though he was near the fifth floor staircase at the time
> >> of the shots.
> >
> > So you are saying the assassin stayed up on that floor after the
> >assassination?
>
>
> That *is* what the evidence indicates...
Could still be there today. Lets round up a kook posse and go look.
> >> 6. I see a man's face in the window looking out in Tom Dillard's
> >> close-up photo taken right after the shots.
> >
> > Of course you do.
Do you see a face in the Dillard photo also, Ben?
> >> 7. Lillian Mooneyham worked in the courts right across the street. She
> >> saw a man in the window after the shots and she said he was looking out.
> >
> > 5 minutes after. The slowest getaway I ever heard of.
>
>
> Yep... other eyewitnesses also corroborated this "slow" getaway.
Where are all these descriptions of this gunman who stayed in the
window that long? Seems they could have sketched him. Where are the
people shouting "there he is", where are the people taking this slow
poke of an assassin`s picture?
> Even 15 seconds at that window would have made the WC theory impossible.
Or if he stayed an hour, Tippit might still be alive today.
Sure I can, but they require common sense, so they`d be wasted on
you. Let`s try this... Does the testimony of the people in the Plaza
seem to you like how it would appear if the gunman stayed in the window
a long time? Are there many descriptions of the assassin, many pictures
of the assassin? Why was the assassin hanging around after the
motorcade had vanished, in case it came back? Many people knew the
location the shots came from, wouldn`t news travel through the crowds
as the people who knew the actual location of the shots told others?
This is always the problem, Holmes, you cling to the stupid because you
just can`t tell. Then criticize the WC because they could.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1122636966....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >charles wallace wrote:
>> >> Bud,
>> >> You of all people KNOW Oswald was not the shooter. You have
>> >> participated in the alibi discussions and know the facts.
>> >
>> > Yah, I do know the facts, and the fact is that Oz didn`t have the
>> >slightest suggestion of an alibi.
>>
>>
>> When you must lie about the evidence to support your position - it's
>> clear to most people that you need to rethink your position.
>
> Jezz, I got kooks coming out of the woodwork now. I guess you just
>need to use the right bait. But, since I`m just a liar, maybe you can
>name the person who saw Oz in a place that made committing the
>assassination impossible.
Why should I play with your strawman?
You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi." Since
you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are perfectly aware
that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an alibi, you lied.
It's as simple as that.
>> >> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
>> >> out of his rifle.
>> >
>> > Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
>>
>> The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this
>> brilliant student of the WC.
>
> Yah, it does. Oz never expected to get far after the shooting.
>Perhaps you can help Charles with a scenario of how Oz was tricked out
>of his rifle ("Look Oz, it`s Castro" and then snatch the rifle away
>when Oz is distracted? Maybe he lost it playing three card monte).
I repeat, The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this
brilliant student of the WC.
>> >> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
>> >> policeman's uniform for cover.
>> >
>> > Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
>>
>> Stupidity works, too.
>
> Seems to.
>
>> >> You know there are people on the floor
>> >> below you and you are familiar with the building.
>> >
>> > Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
>> >building at all times.
>>
>> Simple common sense escapes Bud as well...
>
> Well, I`m certainly no match for Charles in that regard. He has the
>assassin hanging around for 5 minutes after the shooting. I guess the
>assassin knew there wasn`t going to be dozen of people rushing to the
>location the shots were fired from.
It isn't Charles that says this - it's the eyewitnesses.
>> >> So you stay on the
>> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
>> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
>> >
>> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
>> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
>> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
>>
>> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the *biggest*
>> obstacle to framing LHO
>
> Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
>confronted Oz.
Are you suggesting that when we accept what the WC says - we are living in
fantasyland?
It's not necessary to put Baker there when he *actually* was there... the WC
timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is just
that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it was.
(Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
>They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
>suggest happened
Oh? And what is that?
>could happen is because each person is a variable
>who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
>things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
>they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
>goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
>planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
>shells, ect).
Then the shooters move to another floor... what's difficult about that?
>Who knows who was going to do what, when, where, most of
>the people themselves didn`t know. But Oz had the huge advantage of
>being able to monitor movements and intentions. Could an outsider?
>
>> >> You wait and they leave the
>> >> fifth floor and then you go down the staircase after about 4 or 5
>> >> minutes and out the back door.
>> >
>> > No more television for you Charles. Heres a better one. Oz brings
>> >his rifle wrapped in paper (the long object people saw him bring in),
>> >hides it in the building. After everyone leaves for lunch, he retrieves
>> >it, removes and assembles the rifle, and shoots some people. Flees the
>> >building as quick as he can, confronted only once by a cop who assumes
>> >he is looking for someone who doesn`t belong in the building.
>>
>> Yep... that's the silly theory that the WC attempted to foist on the
>> American people. And the same silly theory that 90% of them reject.
>
> Even as it is uncertain how much of that theory they know of. Do
>they know Oz carried a long, paper covered object into work that day?
And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, when people learn the details of the crime,
they *don't* automatically become LNT'ers.
Wrong again, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1122591980.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >charles wallace wrote:
>> >> What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of JFK?
>> >>
>> >> 1. Oswald himself exclaims "I'm just a patsy!" when questioned by the
>> >> media about the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
>> >
>> > <snicker> This is evidence Oz was framed?
>>
>> It's normally a requirement to have an innocent suspect proclaim his
>> innocence. If he proclaims his guilt, he's either clearly not innocent,
>> or he needs medical attention.
>
> This is *evidence* Oz was framed?
It's a necessary component. Just how dumb are you?
>> >> 2. Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting but there are questions about
>> >> whether all the fingerprints on it are Oswald's.
>> >
>> > How do fingerprints of unestablished origin translate into Oz being
>> >framed?
>>
>> Think about it, oh wise one...
>
> Splain it to me, kook. It`s your junk thinking, don`t ask me to do
>your dirty work.
Why should I bother?
>> >> 3. Oswald when confronted by DPD Baker in the second floor lunch room
>> >> about 90 seconds after the last shot was calm and he was not out of
>> >> breath. If Oswald had just come from the stairway, Truly would have
>> >> seen him or the door closing since it was equiped with an automatic door
>> >> closer.
>> >
>> > Why do you pretend that you have such a precise timing for Oz
>> >entering the lunchroom?
>>
>>
>> Because there is... ignorant of the evidence, aren't you, Bud?
>
> Who held the stopwatch, kook?
On what basis are you disputing the WC's finding?
Can you cite *anything at all*?
>> The WC was able, by selective ommission of evidence, to get LHO where he was
>> just seconds ahead of Baker - whom they slowed down as much as possible.
>
> Exactlly how fast could Oz go down 4 floors of steps? What is the
>exact number of seconds?
How fast did the WC make it? Or how fast could it actually have happened
considering the *facts* involved? Please be specific.
>> The timing *was* extremely precise... but Bud would know this had he
>> bothered to learn about it.
>
> Why not just complete the lie, and claim to know exacttly how long
>these things took?
Don't need to... the WC specifies it.
On what basis are you disputing it?
>> >> 4. Oswald had an alibi right before the shots by telling interrogators
>> >> that he saw Jarman and Norman go through the (big) room on the first
>> >> foor.
>> >
>> > That`s not an alibi.
>>
>>
>> No, of course it isn't... I loaned LHO my crystal ball that morning...
>
> You`d be better of with a legal dictionary.
Lied about LHO and his 'suggestion of an alibi', didn't you?
>> >And perhaps you can quote testimony of Oz
>>
>>
>> Just as quickly as *you* can. Most intelligent people who are aware of this
>> case know that there *was* no testimony by LHO.
>
> Even attributed, there is nothing outside of the domino room, if it
>even says that much.
I have no clue to any meaning here. There was *no* testimony by LHO. Face the
facts.
>> >saying he saw these guys walk through any room other than the domino
>> >room.
>> >
>> >> They went through the large open room on the first floor about
>> >> 12:23pm going to the western elevator. Oswald said he was out front
>> >> with Bill Shelley and Shelley left the front immediately after the
>> >> shots.
>> >
>> > Oz said he was out front with Shelley, yet Shelley never he was out
>> >front with Oz.
>>
>> Actually, Shelley reports seeing LHO on the first floor at 11:45-11:50...
>> The WC was forced to lie about this. Despite Shelley's unrebutted
>> testimony, the WC decided that LHO had never left the 6th floor, and
>> had never been seen before the assassination on the 1st floor.
>
> That time frame is about the time the flooring crew left Oz in the
>upper floors, so there is contrary testimony.
How silly of you! The testimony was that LHO asked them to send the elevator
back up - so that *HE* could go down as well. Then Shelley *SEES* him where he
implied he was going.
There is NO TESTIMONY WHATSOEVER that contradicts Shelley - and you can't quote
what doesn't exist.
>But, of course you throw
>out a red herring, who cares if Shelley saw Oz on the first floor?
The WC, evidently... they felt the need to lie about it... why?
>I
>suspect he may have made a trip down, to retrieve the bullets from his
>jacket. A crafty fellow like Oz would know that if he was confronted
>with a rifle with no bullets, he can claim an innoculous reason, or at
>least have a level of deniability of murderous intent.
You ignore the fact that there had been several rifles in that building within
the last few days. There's no particular reason for them to be *unloaded*.
And you keep bypassing the issue... why did the WC lie about this? For what
conceivable purpose did the WC keep lying about the facts in this case? How
does this support "the truth"?
>But you sidestep
>the issue of why Oz lied and said he was out front with Shelley.
Quote his lie. Be sure to quote his exact words.
>> When you have to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", is it
>> really the truth?
>
> I wouldn`t trust you to seperate the lies from the truth, you don`t
>seem to have the necessary tools.
I've been referring *specifically* to them, as they come up. You haven't
rebutted a single one yet. Feel free to begin rebutting the fact that the WC
lied about it's own evidence.
>> >> 5. The fifth floor ear witnesses Jarman, Norman and Williams heard no
>> >> one walking above them after the shots even though Norman could hear an
>> >> empty shell hit the floor after a shot. They heard no one on the wooden
>> >> staircase after the shots. Jack Dougherty did not see or hear Oswald on
>> >> the stairs even though he was near the fifth floor staircase at the time
>> >> of the shots.
>> >
>> > So you are saying the assassin stayed up on that floor after the
>> >assassination?
>>
>>
>> That *is* what the evidence indicates...
>
> Could still be there today. Lets round up a kook posse and go look.
Evidence hurts, doesn't it?
>> >> 6. I see a man's face in the window looking out in Tom Dillard's
>> >> close-up photo taken right after the shots.
>> >
>> > Of course you do.
>
> Do you see a face in the Dillard photo also, Ben?
>
>> >> 7. Lillian Mooneyham worked in the courts right across the street. She
>> >> saw a man in the window after the shots and she said he was looking out.
>> >
>> > 5 minutes after. The slowest getaway I ever heard of.
>>
>>
>> Yep... other eyewitnesses also corroborated this "slow" getaway.
>
> Where are all these descriptions of this gunman who stayed in the
>window that long? Seems they could have sketched him. Where are the
>people shouting "there he is", where are the people taking this slow
>poke of an assassin`s picture?
Are you suggesting that there were no eyewitnesses to the fact that the assassin
remained at the 6th floor window after the final shot?
If so, be specific. State it.
That's what several eyewitnesses stated. Are you calling them liars?
Come on, Bud, let's get specific. Why do you call these eyewitnesses liars, and
on what evidence do you rely to state that any assassins left the window
immediately?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1122684006.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1122636966....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >charles wallace wrote:
> >> >> Bud,
> >> >> You of all people KNOW Oswald was not the shooter. You have
> >> >> participated in the alibi discussions and know the facts.
> >> >
> >> > Yah, I do know the facts, and the fact is that Oz didn`t have the
> >> >slightest suggestion of an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> When you must lie about the evidence to support your position - it's
> >> clear to most people that you need to rethink your position.
> >
> > Jezz, I got kooks coming out of the woodwork now. I guess you just
> >need to use the right bait. But, since I`m just a liar, maybe you can
> >name the person who saw Oz in a place that made committing the
> >assassination impossible.
>
> Why should I play with your strawman?
No strawman. Look up the legal definition fo "alibi". I believe it
is a witness who saw a possible suspect in a place that makes
committing the crime in question impossible. So, who saw Oz in a place
that makes committing the assassination impossible?
> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi." Since
> you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are perfectly aware
> that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an alibi, you lied.
It`s not an alibi, kook. That is the point, not whether it is "a
rather solid bit of evidence for an alibi", whatever the fuck that
means in Benspeak.
> It's as simple as that.
There may be some newbie lurkers out here, try not expose yourself
as an asshole with everything you say.
> >> >> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
> >> >> out of his rifle.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
> >>
> >> The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this
> >> brilliant student of the WC.
> >
> > Yah, it does. Oz never expected to get far after the shooting.
> >Perhaps you can help Charles with a scenario of how Oz was tricked out
> >of his rifle ("Look Oz, it`s Castro" and then snatch the rifle away
> >when Oz is distracted? Maybe he lost it playing three card monte).
>
>
> I repeat, The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this
> brilliant student of the WC.
<snicker> To a crackpot, Oz`s pocket change is significant,
witnesses picking him out of lineups for murder is not.
> >> >> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
> >> >> policeman's uniform for cover.
> >> >
> >> > Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
> >>
> >> Stupidity works, too.
> >
> > Seems to.
> >
> >> >> You know there are people on the floor
> >> >> below you and you are familiar with the building.
> >> >
> >> > Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
> >> >building at all times.
> >>
> >> Simple common sense escapes Bud as well...
> >
> > Well, I`m certainly no match for Charles in that regard. He has the
> >assassin hanging around for 5 minutes after the shooting. I guess the
> >assassin knew there wasn`t going to be dozen of people rushing to the
> >location the shots were fired from.
>
> It isn't Charles that says this - it's the eyewitnesses.
All of them? Five minutes at that window should have produced dozens
of descriptions of that gunman. Where are those descriptions, Ben?
> >> >> So you stay on the
> >> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
> >> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
> >> >
> >> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
> >> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
> >> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
> >>
> >> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the *biggest*
> >> obstacle to framing LHO
> >
> > Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
> >confronted Oz.
>
> Are you suggesting that when we accept what the WC says - we are living in
> fantasyland?
Did the WC claim to have exact times, Ben?
> It's not necessary to put Baker there when he *actually* was there...
Not only is it not necessary, it`s not possible.
> the WC
> timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is just
> that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it was.
> (Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
Exactlly how many seconds would it take Oz to descend 4 floors of
steps?
> >They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
> >suggest happened
>
> Oh? And what is that?
Well, conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells and a bag
looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in.
> >could happen is because each person is a variable
> >who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
> >things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
> >they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
> >goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
> >planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
> >shells, ect).
>
> Then the shooters move to another floor... what's difficult about that?
Excellent thinking Holmes, roam the building with evidence to plant,
with people going here and there. I suppose they are lugging the rifle
along, they do need people saying there were shots from the building.
You know, you may be right, I do rememeber the guys on the fifth floor
saying someone came in with a rifle and mumbled something like "sorry
guys, didn`t know this area was occupied". You`re slipping Ben, you
really are "outting" yourself as a true blue kook here. The true kook
believes *they* are omnipotent, capable of anything.
> >Who knows who was going to do what, when, where, most of
> >the people themselves didn`t know. But Oz had the huge advantage of
> >being able to monitor movements and intentions. Could an outsider?
> >
> >> >> You wait and they leave the
> >> >> fifth floor and then you go down the staircase after about 4 or 5
> >> >> minutes and out the back door.
> >> >
> >> > No more television for you Charles. Heres a better one. Oz brings
> >> >his rifle wrapped in paper (the long object people saw him bring in),
> >> >hides it in the building. After everyone leaves for lunch, he retrieves
> >> >it, removes and assembles the rifle, and shoots some people. Flees the
> >> >building as quick as he can, confronted only once by a cop who assumes
> >> >he is looking for someone who doesn`t belong in the building.
> >>
> >> Yep... that's the silly theory that the WC attempted to foist on the
> >> American people. And the same silly theory that 90% of them reject.
> >
> > Even as it is uncertain how much of that theory they know of. Do
> >they know Oz carried a long, paper covered object into work that day?
>
>
> And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, when people learn the details of the crime,
> they *don't* automatically become LNT'ers.
>
> Wrong again, aren't you?
No, I`ve repeatedly explained to you that there a different
catagories of conspiracy believer. The vast majority is unknowledgeable
and uninterested. A small sub group of believers see this as a great
mystery, they hungrily devour conspiracy book after conspiracy book,
further cementing their original beliefs.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1122684006.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <1122636966....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >charles wallace wrote:
>> >> >> Bud,
>> >> >> You of all people KNOW Oswald was not the shooter. You have
>> >> >> participated in the alibi discussions and know the facts.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yah, I do know the facts, and the fact is that Oz didn`t have the
>> >> >slightest suggestion of an alibi.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> When you must lie about the evidence to support your position - it's
>> >> clear to most people that you need to rethink your position.
>> >
>> > Jezz, I got kooks coming out of the woodwork now. I guess you just
>> >need to use the right bait. But, since I`m just a liar, maybe you can
>> >name the person who saw Oz in a place that made committing the
>> >assassination impossible.
>>
>> Why should I play with your strawman?
>
> No strawman. Look up the legal definition fo "alibi". I believe it
>is a witness who saw a possible suspect in a place that makes
>committing the crime in question impossible.
Then you believe wrong. Why should I try to defend your mistaken beliefs?
>So, who saw Oz in a place that makes committing the assassination impossible?
So, who saw LHO in a place that makes committing the assassination possible?
At a *TIME* that made it possible?
>> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi."
>> Since you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are
>> perfectly aware that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an
>> alibi, you lied.
>
> It`s not an alibi, kook.
As you've just illustrated above, you don't even know what the word means.
Don't you think that it's just a tad kooky to argue about a word that you don't
even know the legal definition of?
>That is the point,
A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that requires
another person for an alibi?
>not whether it is "a rather solid bit of evidence for
>an alibi", whatever the fuck that means in Benspeak.
I'm perfectly content with the legal definition of the term. And by the legal
definition, LHO certainly had more than a "suggestion" of an alibi. It
certainly can be described as "a rather solid bit of evidence for an alibi".
But since you don't even know what the word means, we'll just have to skip that
discussion...
>> It's as simple as that.
>
> There may be some newbie lurkers out here, try not expose yourself
>as an asshole with everything you say.
Don't you think you should take the time to learn what the legal term "alibi"
means first?
My crystal ball is telling me that you won't be able to provide a citation that
matches your silly definition.
>>>> >> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
>> >> >> out of his rifle.
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
>> >>
>> >> The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this
>> >> brilliant student of the WC.
>> >
>> > Yah, it does. Oz never expected to get far after the shooting.
>> >Perhaps you can help Charles with a scenario of how Oz was tricked out
>> >of his rifle ("Look Oz, it`s Castro" and then snatch the rifle away
>> >when Oz is distracted? Maybe he lost it playing three card monte).
>>
>>
>> I repeat, The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to
>> this brilliant student of the WC.
>
> <snicker> To a crackpot, Oz`s pocket change is significant,
>witnesses picking him out of lineups for murder is not.
Oh, I'm just pointing out that your ignorance of this case is so immense, that
putting pieces together isn't possible for you.
I'm certainly not the first to suggest the interesting coincidence between the
amount of money LHO had on him and the original cost of the rifle. What better
way to get a patsy to bring a rifle to work than to express an interest in
buying it?
The fact that you couldn't figure this out merely illustrates once again your
near total ignorance of the facts in this case.
>> >> >> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
>> >> >> policeman's uniform for cover.
>> >> >
>> >> > Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
>> >>
>> >> Stupidity works, too.
>> >
>> > Seems to.
>> >
>> >> >> You know there are people on the floor
>> >> >> below you and you are familiar with the building.
>> >> >
>> >> > Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
>> >> >building at all times.
>> >>
>> >> Simple common sense escapes Bud as well...
>> >
>> > Well, I`m certainly no match for Charles in that regard. He has the
>> >assassin hanging around for 5 minutes after the shooting. I guess the
>> >assassin knew there wasn`t going to be dozen of people rushing to the
>> >location the shots were fired from.
>>
>> It isn't Charles that says this - it's the eyewitnesses.
>
> All of them? Five minutes at that window should have produced dozens
>of descriptions of that gunman. Where are those descriptions, Ben?
Go ahead, Bud... simply do what you're itching to do... call those eyewitnesses
liars... It was a "conspiracy" of eyewitnesses, right?
>> >> >> So you stay on the
>>>> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
>> >> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
>> >> >
>> >> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
>> >> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
>> >> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
>> >>
>> >> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the *biggest*
>> >> obstacle to framing LHO
>> >
>> > Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
>> >confronted Oz.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that when we accept what the WC says - we are living in
>> fantasyland?
>
> Did the WC claim to have exact times, Ben?
Yep... they were dealing with *seconds*, not minutes. Feel free to announce
here to the world that you dispute what the Warren Commission stated in this
regard.
And then cite the evidence to the contrary.
(My crystal ball is whispering to me again...)
>> It's not necessary to put Baker there when he *actually* was there...
>
> Not only is it not necessary, it`s not possible.
Silly logic, isn't it? Or rather, a complete *absence* of logic. If you are
unable to figure out how to put Baker in that building at the end of the
assassination - it's just one more illustration of your stupidity, nothing more.
>> the WC
>> timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is just
>> that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it was.
>> (Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
>
> Exactlly how many seconds would it take Oz to descend 4 floors of
>steps?
How long did the WC state the time as?
Or how long would it *actually* have taken - considering the actual facts?
Which one is your question?
>> >They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
>> >suggest happened
>>
>> Oh? And what is that?
>
> Well, conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells and a bag
>looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in.
Oh? And can you quote ANY STATEMENT OF MINE WHATSOEVER that would lead even the
stupid to think that I'd ever made any such statement or implication?
And more importantly, why do you feel it necessary to lie in order to support
what you believe is the truth?
>> >could happen is because each person is a variable
>> >who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
>> >things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
>> >they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
>> >goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
>> >planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
>> >shells, ect).
>>
>> Then the shooters move to another floor... what's difficult about that?
>
> Excellent thinking Holmes, roam the building with evidence to plant,
Your thought, not mine. You're a liar to even suggest that I've ever implied or
stated this.
>with people going here and there. I suppose they are lugging the rifle
>along, they do need people saying there were shots from the building.
There *were* shots from the building ... that *is* what the eyewitnesses
reported. And, interestingly, from *both* sides of the building.
>You know, you may be right, I do rememeber the guys on the fifth floor
>saying someone came in with a rifle and mumbled something like "sorry
>guys, didn`t know this area was occupied". You`re slipping Ben, you
>really are "outting" yourself as a true blue kook here. The true kook
>believes *they* are omnipotent, capable of anything.
Liar, aren't you?
>> >Who knows who was going to do what, when, where, most of
>> >the people themselves didn`t know. But Oz had the huge advantage of
>> >being able to monitor movements and intentions. Could an outsider?
>> >
>> >> >> You wait and they leave the
>> >> >> fifth floor and then you go down the staircase after about 4 or 5
>> >> >> minutes and out the back door.
>> >> >
>> >> > No more television for you Charles. Heres a better one. Oz brings
>> >> >his rifle wrapped in paper (the long object people saw him bring in),
>> >> >hides it in the building. After everyone leaves for lunch, he retrieves
>> >> >it, removes and assembles the rifle, and shoots some people. Flees the
>> >> >building as quick as he can, confronted only once by a cop who assumes
>> >> >he is looking for someone who doesn`t belong in the building.
>> >>
>> >> Yep... that's the silly theory that the WC attempted to foist on the
>> >> American people. And the same silly theory that 90% of them reject.
>> >
>> > Even as it is uncertain how much of that theory they know of. Do
>> >they know Oz carried a long, paper covered object into work that day?
>>
>>
>> And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, when people learn the details of
>> the crime, they *don't* automatically become LNT'ers.
>>
>> Wrong again, aren't you?
>
> No, I`ve repeatedly explained to you that there a different
>catagories of conspiracy believer. The vast majority is unknowledgeable
>and uninterested. A small sub group of believers see this as a great
>mystery, they hungrily devour conspiracy book after conspiracy book,
>further cementing their original beliefs.
You keep implying that if only people knew these facts, such as LHO with a long
paper covered object, that they would hold a different opinion. And each time
that I point out that the *FACTS* don't support your silly notion - you back
away from it. Until the next time.
Must really bug you that so few people believe in the silly theory put forth by
the WC.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1122686965....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1122591980.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >charles wallace wrote:
> >> >> What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of JFK?
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. Oswald himself exclaims "I'm just a patsy!" when questioned by the
> >> >> media about the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
> >> >
> >> > <snicker> This is evidence Oz was framed?
> >>
> >> It's normally a requirement to have an innocent suspect proclaim his
> >> innocence. If he proclaims his guilt, he's either clearly not innocent,
> >> or he needs medical attention.
> >
> > This is *evidence* Oz was framed?
>
>
> It's a necessary component. Just how dumb are you?
Thats not the question you should be asking. The question you should
be asking is that if a person claims to be innocent, whether that is
*evidence* they are innocent.
> >> >> 2. Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting but there are questions about
> >> >> whether all the fingerprints on it are Oswald's.
> >> >
> >> > How do fingerprints of unestablished origin translate into Oz being
> >> >framed?
> >>
> >> Think about it, oh wise one...
> >
> > Splain it to me, kook. It`s your junk thinking, don`t ask me to do
> >your dirty work.
>
>
> Why should I bother?
Theres the best answer you`ve given yet.
> >> >> 3. Oswald when confronted by DPD Baker in the second floor lunch room
> >> >> about 90 seconds after the last shot was calm and he was not out of
> >> >> breath. If Oswald had just come from the stairway, Truly would have
> >> >> seen him or the door closing since it was equiped with an automatic door
> >> >> closer.
> >> >
> >> > Why do you pretend that you have such a precise timing for Oz
> >> >entering the lunchroom?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because there is... ignorant of the evidence, aren't you, Bud?
> >
> > Who held the stopwatch, kook?
>
>
> On what basis are you disputing the WC's finding?
Did the WC claim that the timing of this event was established
precisely?
> Can you cite *anything at all*?
What good is a cite, you don`t seem to have the sense to understand
what you read. *If* it was possible to establish exactly when Oz
reached the lunchroom, and *if* it were possible to know exactly when
Baker reached that landing, *then* we could compare the two. The WC
could offer estimates, which may, or may not be accurate. The precision
the kooks want to claim is in the realm of the gods, not <snicker>
pseudo-investigations.
> >> The WC was able, by selective ommission of evidence, to get LHO where he was
> >> just seconds ahead of Baker - whom they slowed down as much as possible.
> >
> > Exactlly how fast could Oz go down 4 floors of steps? What is the
> >exact number of seconds?
>
>
> How fast did the WC make it?
Infinitely less important than how long it took Oz to actually make
the trip.
> Or how fast could it actually have happened
> considering the *facts* involved?
Oh boy, Ben is using that word again. I wonder how he means it this
time...
> Please be specific.
I`m not claiming to know the exact timing of these events, or
whether determining such a thing precisely is even possible. You are.
> >> The timing *was* extremely precise... but Bud would know this had he
> >> bothered to learn about it.
> >
> > Why not just complete the lie, and claim to know exacttly how long
> >these things took?
>
>
> Don't need to... the WC specifies it.
As an estimate?
> On what basis are you disputing it?
Common sense, you would too if you possessed any.
> >> >> 4. Oswald had an alibi right before the shots by telling interrogators
> >> >> that he saw Jarman and Norman go through the (big) room on the first
> >> >> foor.
> >> >
> >> > That`s not an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, of course it isn't... I loaned LHO my crystal ball that morning...
> >
> > You`d be better of with a legal dictionary.
>
>
> Lied about LHO and his 'suggestion of an alibi', didn't you?
Probably overstated. He doesn`t have anything resembling an alibi
would likely be more accurate. Anyone can "suggest" an alibi. You can
get a lawyer to "suggest" an alibi for Hitler.
> >> >And perhaps you can quote testimony of Oz
> >>
> >>
> >> Just as quickly as *you* can. Most intelligent people who are aware of this
> >> case know that there *was* no testimony by LHO.
> >
> > Even attributed, there is nothing outside of the domino room, if it
> >even says that much.
>
>
> I have no clue to any meaning here. There was *no* testimony by LHO. Face the
> facts.
There are statements attributed to Oz made in custody. If Oz said
he saw those 5th floor guys on the 1st floor as they crossed to the
elevators, him saying such a thing does not exist in the reports of
those involved.
> >> >saying he saw these guys walk through any room other than the domino
> >> >room.
> >> >
> >> >> They went through the large open room on the first floor about
> >> >> 12:23pm going to the western elevator. Oswald said he was out front
> >> >> with Bill Shelley and Shelley left the front immediately after the
> >> >> shots.
> >> >
> >> > Oz said he was out front with Shelley, yet Shelley never he was out
> >> >front with Oz.
> >>
> >> Actually, Shelley reports seeing LHO on the first floor at 11:45-11:50...
> >> The WC was forced to lie about this. Despite Shelley's unrebutted
> >> testimony, the WC decided that LHO had never left the 6th floor, and
> >> had never been seen before the assassination on the 1st floor.
> >
> > That time frame is about the time the flooring crew left Oz in the
> >upper floors, so there is contrary testimony.
>
> How silly of you! The testimony was that LHO asked them to send the elevator
> back up - so that *HE* could go down as well. Then Shelley *SEES* him where he
> implied he was going.
So, maybe he did, although I can see why the WC could doubt it. The
WC didn`t think Oz came down based on one uncorroborated witness. Makes
sense, as there were many people on the first floor at that time, and
nobody else saw him.
> There is NO TESTIMONY WHATSOEVER that contradicts Shelley - and you can't quote
> what doesn't exist.
I seem to remember Shelley being mentioned as one of the people who
were on the 5th floor around this time.
> >But, of course you throw
> >out a red herring, who cares if Shelley saw Oz on the first floor?
>
>
> The WC, evidently... they felt the need to lie about it... why?
They were charged with looking at the overall case. They knew not to
take what each and every witness said as golden.
> >I
> >suspect he may have made a trip down, to retrieve the bullets from his
> >jacket. A crafty fellow like Oz would know that if he was confronted
> >with a rifle with no bullets, he can claim an innoculous reason, or at
> >least have a level of deniability of murderous intent.
>
> You ignore the fact that there had been several rifles in that building within
> the last few days. There's no particular reason for them to be *unloaded*.
What did this have to do with what I said? I speculated that Oz may
have been crafty enough to separate the rifle and the bullets, to allow
him some deniability of murderous intent if confronted carrying one or
the other. You see, I see Oz as being crafty, and having murderous
intent.
> And you keep bypassing the issue... why did the WC lie about this? For what
> conceivable purpose did the WC keep lying about the facts in this case? How
> does this support "the truth"?
Not a lie, a judgement call. It may be tough to recall with accuracy
exactly when you saw a particlar person during the course of a mundane
day. They weigh that with no one else seeing Oz during this time on the
first floor, despite Norman, Givens, Doughtery, Acre, Williams, ect,
ect, all wandering to and fro during this time on the first floor. So,
you are declaring a judgement call a lie, because you`ve removed all
the other considerations and context. Should everything every witness
said be taken at face value as accurate information. The WC looked at
the overall picture, and dclred it likely Oz stayed above. I don`t have
a problem whether he came down or stayed up, he still was at that
window at 12:30, shooting.
> >But you sidestep
> >the issue of why Oz lied and said he was out front with Shelley.
>
> Quote his lie. Be sure to quote his exact words.
So much for listening to the witnesses, eh, Ben? Disregard what Oz
told the cops. Disregard what the person closest to Oz had to say early
on. You`d think a person really interested in the truth would be happy
to have these sources of information. But information that indicates
Oz`s guilt is considered "bad" information. Same shit, different day...
> >> When you have to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", is it
> >> really the truth?
> >
> > I wouldn`t trust you to seperate the lies from the truth, you don`t
> >seem to have the necessary tools.
>
>
> I've been referring *specifically* to them, as they come up. You haven't
> rebutted a single one yet. Feel free to begin rebutting the fact that the WC
> lied about it's own evidence.
Why do you think I`m interested in another gripe fest about the WC?
Keep focusing on the fire trucks, I guess thats a good way to tell how
the fire started.
> >> >> 5. The fifth floor ear witnesses Jarman, Norman and Williams heard no
> >> >> one walking above them after the shots even though Norman could hear an
> >> >> empty shell hit the floor after a shot. They heard no one on the wooden
> >> >> staircase after the shots. Jack Dougherty did not see or hear Oswald on
> >> >> the stairs even though he was near the fifth floor staircase at the time
> >> >> of the shots.
> >> >
> >> > So you are saying the assassin stayed up on that floor after the
> >> >assassination?
> >>
> >>
> >> That *is* what the evidence indicates...
> >
> > Could still be there today. Lets round up a kook posse and go look.
>
>
> Evidence hurts, doesn't it?
You have no evidence the assassin ever left, right? So, round up a
posse...
> >> >> 6. I see a man's face in the window looking out in Tom Dillard's
> >> >> close-up photo taken right after the shots.
> >> >
> >> > Of course you do.
> >
> > Do you see a face in the Dillard photo also, Ben?
> >
> >> >> 7. Lillian Mooneyham worked in the courts right across the street. She
> >> >> saw a man in the window after the shots and she said he was looking out.
> >> >
> >> > 5 minutes after. The slowest getaway I ever heard of.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... other eyewitnesses also corroborated this "slow" getaway.
> >
> > Where are all these descriptions of this gunman who stayed in the
> >window that long? Seems they could have sketched him. Where are the
> >people shouting "there he is", where are the people taking this slow
> >poke of an assassin`s picture?
>
>
> Are you suggesting that there were no eyewitnesses to the fact that the assassin
> remained at the 6th floor window after the final shot?
Are you suggesting he stayed in the window for five minute, people
were running back and forth looking for this shooter, and nobody
pointed up at the window and said "There he is!"? And despite his being
at the window so long, we have only a couple descriptions? Is this what
you contend?
> If so, be specific. State it.
If what the witnesses say doesn`t makes sense, is impossible on the
face of it, do you stick with it regardless, or reject it?
What kind of kook does that? Is that the whole menu?
> Come on, Bud, let's get specific. Why do you call these eyewitnesses liars, and
> on what evidence do you rely to state that any assassins left the window
> immediately?
Well, Brennan says the assassin lingered "a moment". But, this is
case where common sense trumps all. Common sense dictates that a gunman
could not have stayed at that window for any length of time. Certain
things would have had to happen that didn`t happen, more descriptions,
more people having their attentions directed to the lingering assassin.
It`s stupid shit, Ben, what can I tell you. I have that ability to
tell, even if it is eyewitnesses declaring impossible things, they
remain impossible. It`s a deficiency of yours, not the WC`s or mine.
> >Are there many descriptions of the assassin, many pictures
> >of the assassin? Why was the assassin hanging around after the
> >motorcade had vanished, in case it came back? Many people knew the
> >location the shots came from, wouldn`t news travel through the crowds
> >as the people who knew the actual location of the shots told others?
> >This is always the problem, Holmes, you cling to the stupid because you
> >just can`t tell. Then criticize the WC because they could.
It`s still true, even if you ignore it.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1122686965....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <1122591980.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud
>>says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >charles wallace wrote:
>> >> >> What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of JFK?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1. Oswald himself exclaims "I'm just a patsy!" when questioned by the
>> >> >> media about the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
>> >> >
>> >> > <snicker> This is evidence Oz was framed?
>> >>
>> >> It's normally a requirement to have an innocent suspect proclaim his
>> >> innocence. If he proclaims his guilt, he's either clearly not innocent,
>> >> or he needs medical attention.
>> >
>> > This is *evidence* Oz was framed?
>>
>>
>> It's a necessary component. Just how dumb are you?
>
> Thats not the question you should be asking. The question you should
>be asking is that if a person claims to be innocent, whether that is
>*evidence* they are innocent.
Why? Rather silly to speak to *your* strawman, isn't it? No-one that I know of
is claiming that because LHO stated that he was a patsy, that the statement
itself is evidence of innocence.
Just how stupid do you think lurkers are?
>>>> >> 2. Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting but there are questions about
>> >> >> whether all the fingerprints on it are Oswald's.
>> >> >
>> >> > How do fingerprints of unestablished origin translate into Oz being
>> >> >framed?
>> >>
>> >> Think about it, oh wise one...
>> >
>> > Splain it to me, kook. It`s your junk thinking, don`t ask me to do
>> >your dirty work.
>>
>>
>> Why should I bother?
>
> Theres the best answer you`ve given yet.
Most lurkers that have spent any time at all know that I've made my point.
*THEY* aren't dumb enough not to catch it. Most will also understand that
explaining the obvious to you is an exercise in futility.
Yep. Particularly since LHO could *NOT* have made it in the time that they
stated.
They were forced to ignore the assassin's actual route in order to make the time
as fast as possible.
>> Or how fast could it actually have happened
>> considering the *facts* involved?
>
> Oh boy, Ben is using that word again. I wonder how he means it this
>time...
Facts to LNT'ers are like Kryptonite to Superman...
>> Please be specific.
>
> I`m not claiming to know the exact timing of these events, or
>whether determining such a thing precisely is even possible. You are.
The *WARREN COMMISSION* did. You're disputing them. On what basis are you
doing so?
>> >> The timing *was* extremely precise... but Bud would know this had he
>> >> bothered to learn about it.
>> >
>> > Why not just complete the lie, and claim to know exacttly how long
>> >these things took?
>>
>>
>> Don't need to... the WC specifies it.
>
> As an estimate?
On what basis do you dispute the WC?
>> On what basis are you disputing it?
>
> Common sense, you would too if you possessed any.
Oh? Can you detail this "common sense" that you assert disputes the WC?
>> >> >> 4. Oswald had an alibi right before the shots by telling interrogators
>> >> >> that he saw Jarman and Norman go through the (big) room on the first
>> >> >> foor.
>> >> >
>> >> > That`s not an alibi.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, of course it isn't... I loaned LHO my crystal ball that morning...
>> >
>> > You`d be better of with a legal dictionary.
>>
>>
>> Lied about LHO and his 'suggestion of an alibi', didn't you?
>
> Probably overstated.
Nope. An outright lie. And one that you were aware of. You've decided to
change the meaning of "alibi" to cover yourself.
>He doesn`t have anything resembling an alibi
>would likely be more accurate. Anyone can "suggest" an alibi. You can
>get a lawyer to "suggest" an alibi for Hitler.
You simply lied. It's not a difficult or complicated one...
>> >> >And perhaps you can quote testimony of Oz
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Just as quickly as *you* can. Most intelligent people who are aware of this
>> >> case know that there *was* no testimony by LHO.
>> >
>> > Even attributed, there is nothing outside of the domino room, if it
>> >even says that much.
>>
>>
>> I have no clue to any meaning here. There was *no* testimony by LHO.
>> Face the facts.
>
> There are statements attributed to Oz made in custody.
Oh!? Are you seriously suggesting hearsay evidence, Bud?
Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Do you recall what you *previously* said about hearsay evidence?
>If Oz said
>he saw those 5th floor guys on the 1st floor as they crossed to the
>elevators,
Who said that??? Coming up with strawmen, Bud?
>him saying such a thing does not exist in the reports of those involved.
>
>> >> >saying he saw these guys walk through any room other than the domino
>> >> >room.
>> >> >
>> >> >> They went through the large open room on the first floor about
>> >> >> 12:23pm going to the western elevator. Oswald said he was out front
>> >> >> with Bill Shelley and Shelley left the front immediately after the
>> >> >> shots.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oz said he was out front with Shelley, yet Shelley never he was out
>> >> >front with Oz.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, Shelley reports seeing LHO on the first floor at 11:45-11:50...
>> >> The WC was forced to lie about this. Despite Shelley's unrebutted
>> >> testimony, the WC decided that LHO had never left the 6th floor, and
>> >> had never been seen before the assassination on the 1st floor.
>> >
>> > That time frame is about the time the flooring crew left Oz in the
>> >upper floors, so there is contrary testimony.
>>
>> How silly of you! The testimony was that LHO asked them to send the
>> elevator back up - so that *HE* could go down as well. Then Shelley
>> *SEES* him where he implied he was going.
>
> So, maybe he did,
So you've decided it's not "contrary evidence" after all, huh?
>although I can see why the WC could doubt it. The
>WC didn`t think Oz came down based on one uncorroborated witness. Makes
>sense, as there were many people on the first floor at that time, and
>nobody else saw him.
LOL!! Baker saw him far quicker than it was possible for him to come down four
flights of stairs... this gave the WC fits...
And you already know that LHO mystically knew who was in the lunchroom.
>> There is NO TESTIMONY WHATSOEVER that contradicts Shelley - and you
>> can't quote what doesn't exist.
>
> I seem to remember Shelley being mentioned as one of the people who
>were on the 5th floor around this time.
You seem to remember wrong.
But that's not unusual. Try taking the time to *READ* the testimony.
>> >But, of course you throw
>> >out a red herring, who cares if Shelley saw Oz on the first floor?
>>
>>
>> The WC, evidently... they felt the need to lie about it... why?
>
> They were charged with looking at the overall case. They knew not to
>take what each and every witness said as golden.
They lied. Why did they feel the need to lie?
>> >I
>> >suspect he may have made a trip down, to retrieve the bullets from his
>> >jacket. A crafty fellow like Oz would know that if he was confronted
>> >with a rifle with no bullets, he can claim an innoculous reason, or at
>> >least have a level of deniability of murderous intent.
>>
>> You ignore the fact that there had been several rifles in that building
>> within the last few days. There's no particular reason for them to be
>> *unloaded*.
>
> What did this have to do with what I said? I speculated that Oz may
>have been crafty enough to separate the rifle and the bullets, to allow
>him some deniability of murderous intent if confronted carrying one or
>the other. You see, I see Oz as being crafty, and having murderous
>intent.
Sound's like you're having fun constructing imaginary scenes... sounds rather
kooky.
>> And you keep bypassing the issue... why did the WC lie about this? For what
>> conceivable purpose did the WC keep lying about the facts in this case? How
>> does this support "the truth"?
>
> Not a lie, a judgement call.
Nope. A lie. They did it repeatedly. You should know, if you'd bother to
*read* the evidence in this case.
>It may be tough to recall with accuracy
>exactly when you saw a particlar person during the course of a mundane
>day. They weigh that with no one else seeing Oz during this time on the
>first floor, despite Norman, Givens, Doughtery, Acre, Williams, ect,
>ect, all wandering to and fro during this time on the first floor. So,
>you are declaring a judgement call a lie, because you`ve removed all
>the other considerations and context. Should everything every witness
>said be taken at face value as accurate information. The WC looked at
>the overall picture, and dclred it likely Oz stayed above. I don`t have
>a problem whether he came down or stayed up, he still was at that
>window at 12:30, shooting.
Nah... you've just decided, like the WC, to call certain eyewitnesses liars,
because you don't like what they said.
There's *NO* contradictory evidence that LHO was above the 2nd floor from 11:50
to 12:31.
And *that* is a fact you can't refute.
>> >But you sidestep
>> >the issue of why Oz lied and said he was out front with Shelley.
>>
>> Quote his lie. Be sure to quote his exact words.
>
> So much for listening to the witnesses, eh, Ben?
Far from it, I'm asking you to provide those EXACT words.
>Disregard what Oz
>told the cops. Disregard what the person closest to Oz had to say early
>on. You`d think a person really interested in the truth would be happy
>to have these sources of information. But information that indicates
>Oz`s guilt is considered "bad" information. Same shit, different day...
Quote his lie, Bud... it's such a simple thing to do.
>> >> When you have to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", is it
>> >> really the truth?
>> >
>> > I wouldn`t trust you to seperate the lies from the truth, you don`t
>> >seem to have the necessary tools.
>>
>> I've been referring *specifically* to them, as they come up. You haven't
>> rebutted a single one yet. Feel free to begin rebutting the fact that
>> the WC lied about it's own evidence.
>
> Why do you think I`m interested in another gripe fest about the WC?
>Keep focusing on the fire trucks, I guess thats a good way to tell how
>the fire started.
Ah... you seem to think that *you* can "separate the lies from the truth", but
when challenged to do so, QUACK, QUACK...
>> >> >> 5. The fifth floor ear witnesses Jarman, Norman and Williams heard no
>> >> >> one walking above them after the shots even though Norman could hear an
>>>> >> empty shell hit the floor after a shot. They heard no one on the wooden
>> >> >> staircase after the shots. Jack Dougherty did not see or hear Oswald on
>>>> >> the stairs even though he was near the fifth floor staircase at the time
>> >> >> of the shots.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you are saying the assassin stayed up on that floor after the
>> >> >assassination?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That *is* what the evidence indicates...
>> >
>> > Could still be there today. Lets round up a kook posse and go look.
>>
>>
>> Evidence hurts, doesn't it?
>
> You have no evidence the assassin ever left, right? So, round up a
>posse...
Of course there is "evidence" that the assassin left. Are you stupid?
>> >> >> 6. I see a man's face in the window looking out in Tom Dillard's
>> >> >> close-up photo taken right after the shots.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course you do.
>> >
>> > Do you see a face in the Dillard photo also, Ben?
>> >
>> >> >> 7. Lillian Mooneyham worked in the courts right across the street. She
>>>> >> saw a man in the window after the shots and she said he was looking out.
>> >> >
>> >> > 5 minutes after. The slowest getaway I ever heard of.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep... other eyewitnesses also corroborated this "slow" getaway.
>> >
>> > Where are all these descriptions of this gunman who stayed in the
>> >window that long? Seems they could have sketched him. Where are the
>> >people shouting "there he is", where are the people taking this slow
>> >poke of an assassin`s picture?
>>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that there were no eyewitnesses to the fact that
>> the assassin remained at the 6th floor window after the final shot?
>
> Are you suggesting he stayed in the window for five minute, people
>were running back and forth looking for this shooter, and nobody
>pointed up at the window and said "There he is!"? And despite his being
>at the window so long, we have only a couple descriptions? Is this what
>you contend?
Why play with your strawmen? Are you suggesting that there were no eyewitnesses
to the fact that the assassin remained at the 6th floor window after the final
shot?
It can be answered with a simple yes or no.
>> If so, be specific. State it.
>
> If what the witnesses say doesn`t makes sense, is impossible on the
>face of it, do you stick with it regardless, or reject it?
What's not possible about what the eyewitnesses saw and reported?
Yep. You are denying that what they saw happened. Despite the fact that there
are multiple, corroborating eyewitnesses.
Explain it... were they all lying, or did they all conspire to lie about this?
>> Come on, Bud, let's get specific. Why do you call these eyewitnesses
>> liars, and on what evidence do you rely to state that any assassins
>> left the window immediately?
>
> Well, Brennan says the assassin lingered "a moment".
Yep... another corroborating eyewitness.
>But, this is
>case where common sense trumps all. Common sense dictates that a gunman
>could not have stayed at that window for any length of time.
"Common Sense" does no such thing.
>Certain
>things would have had to happen that didn`t happen, more descriptions,
>more people having their attentions directed to the lingering assassin.
Untrue.
>It`s stupid shit, Ben, what can I tell you. I have that ability to
>tell, even if it is eyewitnesses declaring impossible things, they
>remain impossible. It`s a deficiency of yours, not the WC`s or mine.
Stupid, aren't you?
>> >Are there many descriptions of the assassin, many pictures
>> >of the assassin? Why was the assassin hanging around after the
>> >motorcade had vanished, in case it came back? Many people knew the
>> >location the shots came from, wouldn`t news travel through the crowds
>> >as the people who knew the actual location of the shots told others?
>> >This is always the problem, Holmes, you cling to the stupid because you
>> >just can`t tell. Then criticize the WC because they could.
>
> It`s still true, even if you ignore it.
Stupidities, I tend to ignore...
Kook, aren't you?
Bud
> In article <1122928284....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1122684006.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>In article <1122636966....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >charles wallace wrote:
> >> >> >> Bud,
> >> >> >> You of all people KNOW Oswald was not the shooter. You have
> >> >> >> participated in the alibi discussions and know the facts.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yah, I do know the facts, and the fact is that Oz didn`t have the
> >> >> >slightest suggestion of an alibi.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> When you must lie about the evidence to support your position - it's
> >> >> clear to most people that you need to rethink your position.
> >> >
> >> > Jezz, I got kooks coming out of the woodwork now. I guess you just
> >> >need to use the right bait. But, since I`m just a liar, maybe you can
> >> >name the person who saw Oz in a place that made committing the
> >> >assassination impossible.
> >>
> >> Why should I play with your strawman?
> >
> > No strawman. Look up the legal definition fo "alibi". I believe it
> >is a witness who saw a possible suspect in a place that makes
> >committing the crime in question impossible.
>
>
> Then you believe wrong. Why should I try to defend your mistaken beliefs?
Ok, what about your mistaken belief that the term "alibi" applies in
Oz`s case at all?
>
> >So, who saw Oz in a place that makes committing the assassination impossible?
>
>
> So, who saw LHO in a place that makes committing the assassination possible?
>
> At a *TIME* that made it possible?
Trees fall in the woods without anyone seeing them. Are all murders
witnessed (other than the murderer, of course)?
> >> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi."
> >> Since you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are
> >> perfectly aware that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an
> >> alibi, you lied.
> >
> > It`s not an alibi, kook.
>
>
> As you've just illustrated above, you don't even know what the word means.
I looked it up on a couple sites. It`s still not an alibi, kook.
> Don't you think that it's just a tad kooky to argue about a word that you don't
> even know the legal definition of?
I was working off a definition supplied by someone over on the other
assassination board last year. It probably wasn`t the best one. Here
are two short and sweet legal definitions I just located...
The first one is from Legal-Explainations.com..
Alibi- Proof offered by one accused of a crime that they were in a
different place from that where the crime was committed.
You can see how this doesn`t apply to Oz, as you pointed out, there
exists no testimony from Oz, therefore we can have no proof offered.
And this one, from Laborlaw.com...
The alibi, a term in jurisprudence, is a form of legal defense in
which a defendant argues that they were engaged in some other activity
such that they could not possibly have committed the crime in question.
As you can see, this also couldn`t apply in Oz`s case, as he never
invoked a legal defense.
Perhaps you can supply a definition of "alibi" that could apply in
Oz`s case...
> >That is the point,
>
> A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that requires
> another person for an alibi?
No, not as a requirement. It sure does help, though.
> >not whether it is "a rather solid bit of evidence for
> >an alibi", whatever the fuck that means in Benspeak.
>
> I'm perfectly content with the legal definition of the term. And by the legal
> definition, LHO certainly had more than a "suggestion" of an alibi.
Not that I found. Give one that applies to Oz`s case. I am only
aware of one second-hand attributed alibi offered by Oz as having lunch
with the colored guys he worked with. They did not corroborate this
event. As Shelley did not corroborate his being out front.
> It
> certainly can be described as "a rather solid bit of evidence for an alibi".
> But since you don't even know what the word means, we'll just have to skip that
> discussion...
I will await you supplying a legal definition of "alibi" that
applies in Oz`s case. Here is the definition someone supplied over at
the other assassination board, and it also does not apply in Oz`s
case...
"ALIBI"... a "lack of presence" defense. It is a defense that places
the defendant at the relevant time of the crime in a different place
than the scene involved and so removed from the scene as to render it
impossible for him to be the guilty party. The defendant need not prove
that he was elsewhere when the crime happened, he need only notify the
Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi (along with his list of
alibi witnesses). Ultimately, the Prosecutor must
prove beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant was present.
You see the problem, Oz never alerted the Prosecutor that he was
opting to present an alibi.
> >> It's as simple as that.
> >
> > There may be some newbie lurkers out here, try not expose yourself
> >as an asshole with everything you say.
>
>
> Don't you think you should take the time to learn what the legal term "alibi"
> means first?
Just did, it appears I was slightly mistaken on it`s meaning. It
also appears the word doesn`t apply in the manner you`ve been using it
either. It *still* isn`t an alibi, kook.
> My crystal ball is telling me that you won't be able to provide a citation that
> matches your silly definition.
Only looked at the first couple hits. Seems anything can be
*claimed* as an alibi, by the person in question.
> >>>> >> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
> >> >> >> out of his rifle.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
> >> >>
> >> >> The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this
> >> >> brilliant student of the WC.
> >> >
> >> > Yah, it does. Oz never expected to get far after the shooting.
> >> >Perhaps you can help Charles with a scenario of how Oz was tricked out
> >> >of his rifle ("Look Oz, it`s Castro" and then snatch the rifle away
> >> >when Oz is distracted? Maybe he lost it playing three card monte).
> >>
> >>
> >> I repeat, The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to
> >> this brilliant student of the WC.
> >
> > <snicker> To a crackpot, Oz`s pocket change is significant,
> >witnesses picking him out of lineups for murder is not.
>
>
> Oh, I'm just pointing out that your ignorance of this case is so immense, that
> putting pieces together isn't possible for you.
Yah, I`ve seen these crackpot montages.
> I'm certainly not the first to suggest the interesting coincidence between the
> amount of money LHO had on him and the original cost of the rifle. What better
> way to get a patsy to bring a rifle to work than to express an interest in
> buying it?
Well, at least you finally spilled it. It wasn`t much, but then
again, how much does it take to get a kook to jump to conclusions?
> The fact that you couldn't figure this out merely illustrates once again your
> near total ignorance of the facts in this case.
I just looked at the Klein ad, I think the price Oz paid was 19.95
(99?), and after tax, it came to 21-something. Is that what Oz was
carrying 21-something? Remember, he took a bus and a cab. Well, anyway,
this is the stuff that intrigues kooks. But, if Oz did bring in the
rifle, why tell Frazier it was curtain rods? Why lie to the cops about
it, say he never owned a rifle, even after they showed him a picture of
him holding it? As usual, your speculation doesn`t make sense no matter
how you view it, Oz`s actions at no time can be explained as a guy who
sold a rifle, and that rifle was used to kill someone. The normal
reaction in such an instance is to go to the cops and say "Hey, I think
the rifle used to kill that guy is the one a sold to so-and-so earlier,
for exactly the same price I bought it for". Just more stupid shit to
dazzle the idiots.
> >> >> >> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
> >> >> >> policeman's uniform for cover.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
> >> >>
> >> >> Stupidity works, too.
> >> >
> >> > Seems to.
> >> >
> >> >> >> You know there are people on the floor
> >> >> >> below you and you are familiar with the building.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
> >> >> >building at all times.
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple common sense escapes Bud as well...
> >> >
> >> > Well, I`m certainly no match for Charles in that regard. He has the
> >> >assassin hanging around for 5 minutes after the shooting. I guess the
> >> >assassin knew there wasn`t going to be dozen of people rushing to the
> >> >location the shots were fired from.
> >>
> >> It isn't Charles that says this - it's the eyewitnesses.
> >
> > All of them? Five minutes at that window should have produced dozens
> >of descriptions of that gunman. Where are those descriptions, Ben?
>
> Go ahead, Bud... simply do what you're itching to do... call those eyewitnesses
> liars... It was a "conspiracy" of eyewitnesses, right?
Produce the descriptions of the shooter supplied by those witnesses
who watched the shooter for 5 minutes. For *that* (a shooter in the
window for minutes afterwards) to have happened would mean that certain
other things would have had to have happened. Since those other things
didn`t happen (descriptions, photos, shouts of "there he is") didn`t
happen, then "that* (a shooter in the window for minutes afterwards)
could not have happened. Duh.
> >> >> >> So you stay on the
> >>>> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
> >> >> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
> >> >> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
> >> >> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
> >> >>
> >> >> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the *biggest*
> >> >> obstacle to framing LHO
> >> >
> >> > Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
> >> >confronted Oz.
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting that when we accept what the WC says - we are living in
> >> fantasyland?
> >
> > Did the WC claim to have exact times, Ben?
>
>
> Yep... they were dealing with *seconds*, not minutes.
They claimed to have established the exact times, not just
estimates? That just doesn`t seem possible to me.
> Feel free to announce
> here to the world that you dispute what the Warren Commission stated in this
> regard.
>
> And then cite the evidence to the contrary.
When you produce something that motivates me to look into, I will
look into it. What you have is an estimated timeline supplied by the WC
that you are trying to pass off as a carved in stone, super precise
down-to-the-last-second established sequence of events. Try it on your
fellow kooks, they`ll buy it.
> (My crystal ball is whispering to me again...)
>
>
> >> It's not necessary to put Baker there when he *actually* was there...
> >
> > Not only is it not necessary, it`s not possible.
>
>
> Silly logic, isn't it?
Yah, logic like "if nobody timed the event, the event was untimed"
is silly. Putting a precise time, within seconds, on any of these
events is impossible. Yet that seems to be your stance.
> Or rather, a complete *absence* of logic. If you are
> unable to figure out how to put Baker in that building at the end of the
> assassination - it's just one more illustration of your stupidity, nothing >more.
Where`d you get that strawboy from? Exactly what second did Baker
enter the TSBD? Exactly how long did he talk with the people within,
how many seconds? How long did he wait at the elevator, exactly? How
much lead time would Oz need to get to the lunchroom before Truly made
the landing, exactly how many seconds would that have required from the
shooting?
> >> the WC
> >> timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is just
> >> that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it was.
> >> (Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
> >
> > Exactlly how many seconds would it take Oz to descend 4 floors of
> >steps?
>
>
> How long did the WC state the time as?
Whatever it was was an estimate. The actual time is indeterminable.
> Or how long would it *actually* have taken - considering the actual facts?
>
> Which one is your question?
Well, you seem to know that Oz couldn`t make it down to that
lunchroom before the arrival of Baker and Truly. I guess that means you
know the exact time Oz would need to make that trip, down to the
second.
> >> >They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
> >> >suggest happened
> >>
> >> Oh? And what is that?
> >
> > Well, conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells and a bag
> >looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in.
>
>
> Oh? And can you quote ANY STATEMENT OF MINE WHATSOEVER that would lead even the
> stupid to think that I'd ever made any such statement or implication?
"Then the shooters move to another floor... what`s so difficult
about that".
Easy-peasy-japansey. Or did you mean they teleported? If not, they had
to move in a building that had people moving around in it. Or are you a
CT who doesn`t feel the bag and shells were planted? Hard to tell, so
many kooks, so many beliefs.
> And more importantly, why do you feel it necessary to lie in order to support
> what you believe is the truth?
I think "necessary" is too strong a word. I could probably post
without lying if I tried.
> >> >could happen is because each person is a variable
> >> >who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
> >> >things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
> >> >they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
> >> >goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
> >> >planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
> >> >shells, ect).
> >>
> >> Then the shooters move to another floor... what's difficult about that?
> >
> > Excellent thinking Holmes, roam the building with evidence to plant,
>
> Your thought, not mine. You're a liar to even suggest that I've ever implied or
> stated this.
Whatever, you still have them moving around with the rifle, correct?
Claim it isn`t difficult to move around, right, like there is some
surety you won`t bump into someone?
> >with people going here and there. I suppose they are lugging the rifle
> >along, they do need people saying there were shots from the building.
>
> There *were* shots from the building ... that *is* what the eyewitnesses
> reported. And, interestingly, from *both* sides of the building.
Where else, Ben? The sewer, Dal-Tek, the limo, what? Coordinated by
radio, or just throwing a fuselage at random? Don`t get me wrong, I
really respect your position...
> >You know, you may be right, I do rememeber the guys on the fifth floor
> >saying someone came in with a rifle and mumbled something like "sorry
> >guys, didn`t know this area was occupied". You`re slipping Ben, you
> >really are "outting" yourself as a true blue kook here. The true kook
> >believes *they* are omnipotent, capable of anything.
>
> Liar, aren't you?
I call like I see them. And I see this thinking all the time with CT
kooks. I`ll give you and the lurkers a hint. If you are uaware of this
phenomenon, then you are a kook who indulges in it.
I don`t back away, I reiterate my position, which you don`t accept,
until next time, when you challenge it, and I reiterate it again. I
think the only possible fair rendering of information would be in an
adversarial trial setting.
Anything else doesn`t even remotely quack like that duck. Again, most
people thought OJ was guilty, yet he was found innocent. Two points
about that. One, not many of the people watched every minute of the
trial like the jury was compelled to do, so they weren`t drawing an as
informed opinion as the jury. And there was a lot of information that
played on television that was inadmissible in court. The home viewers
even saw things that occurred when the jury was taken out of court, and
legal issues were debated, ect. So, my point is that polls don`t mean
jack shit, you need to have 12 people hear both sides and decide.
These polls you take solace in are just a shadow of the real thing.
You, Ben, have not even heard a prosecution presenting this case, the
WC was nothing like.
The WC was "these are things that indicate to us that Oswald committed
these crimes". Being a free country, people can agree or disagree. But
the number of people that do either is no indication of how this case
would have played out in a court of law. I suspect it would be a slam
dunk for the prosecution, mainly because of the lies Oz told. The
police are going to get up and say Oz told them these things, like not
owning a rifle. I think it would be a hard sell to convince people that
these cops were lying. That leaves them with Oz lying, with no possible
reason than guilt being the explaination. Thats how I see it going, I
can`t envision it going any other way. The shit that gets played here
in newsgroups just wouldn`t play well in a court of law.
> Must really bug you that so few people believe in the silly theory put forth by
> the WC.
I didn`t even read down here. You are hung up on the WC, the polls.
Neither mean a fiddlers fuck to me. Oz`s actions prove Oz was guilty.
period. Nothing the WC did or the polls did had any effect on Oz taking
his rifle to work, and using it to kill JFK. Everything that has
happened after Oz fired his last bullet have been reactions to Oz`s
action.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1122928284....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Wrong again, aren't you?
>
> No, I`ve repeatedly explained to you that there a different
> catagories of conspiracy believer. The vast majority is unknowledgeable
> and uninterested. A small sub group of believers see this as a great
> mystery, they hungrily devour conspiracy book after conspiracy book,
> further cementing their original beliefs.
Wrong Again Bud.
I get my information from the 26 volumes &other Official Records.
Which prompts me to ask you to explain why the authorities
lied & destroyed evidencd?
That in itself gets the case thrown out of any Court on the Land.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:1122928284....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Wrong again, aren't you?
> >
> > No, I`ve repeatedly explained to you that there a different
> > catagories of conspiracy believer. The vast majority is unknowledgeable
> > and uninterested. A small sub group of believers see this as a great
> > mystery, they hungrily devour conspiracy book after conspiracy book,
> > further cementing their original beliefs.
>
> Wrong Again Bud.
>
> I get my information from the 26 volumes &other Official Records.
>
> Which prompts me to ask you to explain why the authorities
> lied & destroyed evidencd?
What evidence is that?
> That in itself gets the case thrown out of any Court on the Land.
Your understanding of the law is appalling.
Bud
> In article <1122932788.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1122686965....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>In article <1122591980.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud
> >>says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >charles wallace wrote:
> >> >> >> What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of JFK?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 1. Oswald himself exclaims "I'm just a patsy!" when questioned by the
> >> >> >> media about the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <snicker> This is evidence Oz was framed?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's normally a requirement to have an innocent suspect proclaim his
> >> >> innocence. If he proclaims his guilt, he's either clearly not innocent,
> >> >> or he needs medical attention.
> >> >
> >> > This is *evidence* Oz was framed?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's a necessary component. Just how dumb are you?
> >
> > Thats not the question you should be asking. The question you should
> >be asking is that if a person claims to be innocent, whether that is
> >*evidence* they are innocent.
>
>
> Why? Rather silly to speak to *your* strawman, isn't it? No-one that I know of
> is claiming that because LHO stated that he was a patsy, that the statement
> itself is evidence of innocence.
No one? Perhaps you should read Charles`s original assertions. He
said "What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of
JFK?" He then goes on to enumerate this evidence, number one being Oz`s
claim of patsyhood. I responded to this, pointing out this is not
*evidence*. You jumped in, clearly not understanding the issue being
discussed. Now you claim my arguement is a strawman, because you failed
to grasp my original point.
> Just how stupid do you think lurkers are?
Don`t project your shortcoming on them.
> >>>> >> 2. Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting but there are questions about
> >> >> >> whether all the fingerprints on it are Oswald's.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How do fingerprints of unestablished origin translate into Oz being
> >> >> >framed?
> >> >>
> >> >> Think about it, oh wise one...
> >> >
> >> > Splain it to me, kook. It`s your junk thinking, don`t ask me to do
> >> >your dirty work.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why should I bother?
> >
> > Theres the best answer you`ve given yet.
>
>
> Most lurkers that have spent any time at all know that I've made my point.
> *THEY* aren't dumb enough not to catch it. Most will also understand that
> explaining the obvious to you is an exercise in futility.
It will also likely open you up to further ridicule.
> >> >> >> 3. Oswald when confronted by DPD Baker in the second floor lunch room
> >> >> >> about 90 seconds after the last shot was calm and he was not out of
> >> >> >> breath. If Oswald had just come from the stairway, Truly would have
> >>>> >> seen him or the door closing since it was equiped with an automatic door
> >> >> >> closer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why do you pretend that you have such a precise timing for Oz
> >> >> >entering the lunchroom?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Because there is... ignorant of the evidence, aren't you, Bud?
> >> >
> >> > Who held the stopwatch, kook?
> >>
> >>
> >> On what basis are you disputing the WC's finding?
> >
> > Did the WC claim that the timing of this event was established
> >precisely?
>
>
> On what basis are you disputing the WC's finding?
If they didn`t claim that the time frame they estimated was a carved
in stone to-the-second accurate accounting, I`m not disputing their
findings. I`m disputing kooks using this information as if it were a
carved in stone to-the-second accurate accounting.
> >> Can you cite *anything at all*?
> >
> > What good is a cite, you don`t seem to have the sense to understand
> >what you read. *If* it was possible to establish exactly when Oz
> >reached the lunchroom, and *if* it were possible to know exactly when
> >Baker reached that landing, *then* we could compare the two. The WC
> >could offer estimates, which may, or may not be accurate. The precision
> >the kooks want to claim is in the realm of the gods, not <snicker>
> >pseudo-investigations.
>
>
> On what basis are you disputing the WC's finding?
"finding"? Now this translates to "estimate" in Benspeak.
> >>>> The WC was able, by selective ommission of evidence, to get LHO where he was
> >> >> just seconds ahead of Baker - whom they slowed down as much as possible.
> >> >
> >> > Exactlly how fast could Oz go down 4 floors of steps? What is the
> >> >exact number of seconds?
> >>
> >>
> >> How fast did the WC make it?
> >
> > Infinitely less important than how long it took Oz to actually make
> >the trip.
>
>
> Yep. Particularly since LHO could *NOT* have made it in the time that they
> stated.
You`ve timed Oz then? The time they stated was an estimate. Look up
that word and you may find where your trouble lies.
> They were forced to ignore the assassin's actual route in order to make the time
> as fast as possible.
Maybe he hid the rifle before the shooting.
> >> Or how fast could it actually have happened
> >> considering the *facts* involved?
> >
> > Oh boy, Ben is using that word again. I wonder how he means it this
> >time...
>
>
> Facts to LNT'ers are like Kryptonite to Superman...
And comic books are like reality to CT.
> >> Please be specific.
> >
> > I`m not claiming to know the exact timing of these events, or
> >whether determining such a thing precisely is even possible. You are.
>
>
> The *WARREN COMMISSION* did.
No, of course the WC never claimed it`s estimates were precise
to-the-second, positively determined, firmly established timing of
events. Kooks desire to read it that way, is all.
> You're disputing them. On what basis are you
> doing so?
I`m not disputing them, unless you can produce where the WC said
their timing was exactly the same as it happened the day of the
assassination. Estimates. best guesses and likelyhood is all they could
produce, as the timing of these events were not timed at the time. Is
this concept sinking in yet?
> >> >> The timing *was* extremely precise... but Bud would know this had he
> >> >> bothered to learn about it.
> >> >
> >> > Why not just complete the lie, and claim to know exacttly how long
> >> >these things took?
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't need to... the WC specifies it.
> >
> > As an estimate?
>
>
> On what basis do you dispute the WC?
No need to dispute it. It isn`t what you want it to be, a difinite
timeline, with all events dertimined to the second.
> >> On what basis are you disputing it?
> >
> > Common sense, you would too if you possessed any.
>
>
> Oh? Can you detail this "common sense" that you assert disputes the WC?
Did the WC claim the times they produced were precisely determined.
If they didn`t, I have nothing to dispute with the estimates they
offered.
> >> >> >> 4. Oswald had an alibi right before the shots by telling interrogators
> >> >> >> that he saw Jarman and Norman go through the (big) room on the first
> >> >> >> foor.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That`s not an alibi.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, of course it isn't... I loaned LHO my crystal ball that morning...
> >> >
> >> > You`d be better of with a legal dictionary.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lied about LHO and his 'suggestion of an alibi', didn't you?
> >
> > Probably overstated.
>
>
> Nope. An outright lie. And one that you were aware of. You've decided to
> change the meaning of "alibi" to cover yourself.
<guffaw> Yah, I changed the legal meaning of the word "alibi", so it
wouldn`t apply to Oz. I did get a better idea of the word upon looking
it up, and I now see that it *really* doesn`t apply in Oz`s case at
all.
> >He doesn`t have anything resembling an alibi
> >would likely be more accurate. Anyone can "suggest" an alibi. You can
> >get a lawyer to "suggest" an alibi for Hitler.
>
>
> You simply lied. It's not a difficult or complicated one...
Or one that applies in this case. Oz need to make the claim of an
alibi. We have no firsthand accounts of Oz claiming this as a legal
defense. Kooks in newgroup claiming to be Oz`s lawyer don`t count.
> >> >> >And perhaps you can quote testimony of Oz
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Just as quickly as *you* can. Most intelligent people who are aware of this
> >> >> case know that there *was* no testimony by LHO.
> >> >
> >> > Even attributed, there is nothing outside of the domino room, if it
> >> >even says that much.
> >>
> >>
> >> I have no clue to any meaning here. There was *no* testimony by LHO.
> >> Face the facts.
> >
> > There are statements attributed to Oz made in custody.
>
>
> Oh!? Are you seriously suggesting hearsay evidence, Bud?
If we have nothing from Oz, then how could he present an alibi?
> Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
>
> Do you recall what you *previously* said about hearsay evidence?
Produce it, and I`ll explain to you why it doesn`t apply in this
case.
> >If Oz said
> >he saw those 5th floor guys on the 1st floor as they crossed to the
> >elevators,
>
> Who said that??? Coming up with strawmen, Bud?
Try reading Charles` original submittal. He envokes the Fritz-alibi
concocted by Don Willis. That is what I am refering to.
> >him saying such a thing does not exist in the reports of those involved.
> >
> >> >> >saying he saw these guys walk through any room other than the domino
> >> >> >room.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> They went through the large open room on the first floor about
> >> >> >> 12:23pm going to the western elevator. Oswald said he was out front
> >> >> >> with Bill Shelley and Shelley left the front immediately after the
> >> >> >> shots.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oz said he was out front with Shelley, yet Shelley never he was out
> >> >> >front with Oz.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, Shelley reports seeing LHO on the first floor at 11:45-11:50...
> >> >> The WC was forced to lie about this. Despite Shelley's unrebutted
> >> >> testimony, the WC decided that LHO had never left the 6th floor, and
> >> >> had never been seen before the assassination on the 1st floor.
> >> >
> >> > That time frame is about the time the flooring crew left Oz in the
> >> >upper floors, so there is contrary testimony.
> >>
> >> How silly of you! The testimony was that LHO asked them to send the
> >> elevator back up - so that *HE* could go down as well. Then Shelley
> >> *SEES* him where he implied he was going.
> >
> > So, maybe he did,
>
>
> So you've decided it's not "contrary evidence" after all, huh?
Contrary testimony, I said. It does run in conflict with other
information. Shelley is mentioned as being on the 6th floor with the
flooring crew by Jarman,
Acre, Lovelady, and Shelley himself. Heres Shelley`s testimony...
BALL: Did you see him from time to time during that day?
SHELLEY: I am sure I did. I do remember seeing him when I came down
to eat about 10 to 12.
BALL: Where had you been working?
SHELLEY: I had been on the 6th floor with the boys laying that floor
that morning.
So, Shelley is with those guys up until the time they broke for
lunch. Shelley isn`t mentioned as a participant in the elevator race,
or as being left upstair at lunch, so it seems likely he left first to
go downstairs. At the time of the other flooring guys coming down, Oz
is still said to be on the upper floors. Now these guys go down the
first floor, and start moving around, some to the bathrooms, some to
the domino room, some just eat in the big room on the first floor. None
of these people see Oz. It seems Shelley went out fairly early , didn`t
even finish eating. Since he had a head start on the others, and all
areas of the first floor seem covered by the people breaking for lunch,
the WC may have concluded that Shelley was mistaken. And since Givens
returned to the 6th floor to retrieve his cigarettes and Oz was still
there, further makes a first floor sighting of Oz unlikely. So the WC
concluded Oz didn`t go down at all. To me, it doesn`t matter, the time
period is over 30 minutes before the assassination, not a critical time
period.
> >although I can see why the WC could doubt it. The
> >WC didn`t think Oz came down based on one uncorroborated witness. Makes
> >sense, as there were many people on the first floor at that time, and
> >nobody else saw him.
>
>
> LOL!! Baker saw him far quicker than it was possible for him to come down four
> flights of stairs... this gave the WC fits...
Maybe since they weren`t kooks and didn`t think they could establish
a to-the-second sequence of events. Their best guess is still a guess,
and untimed events are difficult to get a precise timing for.
> And you already know that LHO mystically knew who was in the lunchroom.
If he heard people coming up the steps, he may have surmised it was
in connection to the murder he just committed. The lunchroom, occupied
or unoccupied, may have seemed a better option. You really don`t have
any common sense, do you?
> >> There is NO TESTIMONY WHATSOEVER that contradicts Shelley - and you
> >> can't quote what doesn't exist.
> >
> > I seem to remember Shelley being mentioned as one of the people who
> >were on the 5th floor around this time.
>
>
> You seem to remember wrong.
>
> But that's not unusual. Try taking the time to *READ* the testimony.
Yah, that was a mistaken, should have read the 6th floor.
Obviously, when I said "one of the people", I was refering to the
flooring crew, I have no idea who was on the fifth floor at 11:50.
> >> >But, of course you throw
> >> >out a red herring, who cares if Shelley saw Oz on the first floor?
> >>
> >>
> >> The WC, evidently... they felt the need to lie about it... why?
> >
> > They were charged with looking at the overall case. They knew not to
> >take what each and every witness said as golden.
>
>
> They lied. Why did they feel the need to lie?
They drew a different conclusion than you, they gave more weight to
other information, which to them indicated that Shelley did not see Oz
on the first floor at that time. I lean to the conclusion that Oz did
stay above, but I don`t see that it matters that much either way. To
the WC, the evidence indicated that Shelley was mistaken. That might be
true, he may have saw Oz above, or not at all. I can`t see Oz spending
any time on the first floor without crossing paths with numerous other
people. Of course I`m just applying common sense, you`ll have
difficulty with the concept I laid out.
> >> >I
> >> >suspect he may have made a trip down, to retrieve the bullets from his
> >> >jacket. A crafty fellow like Oz would know that if he was confronted
> >> >with a rifle with no bullets, he can claim an innoculous reason, or at
> >> >least have a level of deniability of murderous intent.
> >>
> >> You ignore the fact that there had been several rifles in that building
> >> within the last few days. There's no particular reason for them to be
> >> *unloaded*.
> >
> > What did this have to do with what I said? I speculated that Oz may
> >have been crafty enough to separate the rifle and the bullets, to allow
> >him some deniability of murderous intent if confronted carrying one or
> >the other. You see, I see Oz as being crafty, and having murderous
> >intent.
>
>
> Sound's like you're having fun constructing imaginary scenes... sounds rather
> kooky.
I know CT reserve the right to all speculation. I think there is
plenty of evidence to indicate Oz was both crafty and murderous. Ct
tend to ingnore the indications of Oz`s true nature in favor of ones of
their own devising.
> >> And you keep bypassing the issue... why did the WC lie about this? For what
> >> conceivable purpose did the WC keep lying about the facts in this case? How
> >> does this support "the truth"?
> >
> > Not a lie, a judgement call.
>
>
> Nope. A lie. They did it repeatedly. You should know, if you'd bother to
> *read* the evidence in this case.
No, it was a judgement call. Being a kook, you strip all the context
away and declare it what it is not.
> >It may be tough to recall with accuracy
> >exactly when you saw a particlar person during the course of a mundane
> >day. They weigh that with no one else seeing Oz during this time on the
> >first floor, despite Norman, Givens, Doughtery, Acre, Williams, ect,
> >ect, all wandering to and fro during this time on the first floor. So,
> >you are declaring a judgement call a lie, because you`ve removed all
> >the other considerations and context. Should everything every witness
> >said be taken at face value as accurate information. The WC looked at
> >the overall picture, and declared it likely Oz stayed above. I don`t have
> >a problem whether he came down or stayed up, he still was at that
> >window at 12:30, shooting.
>
>
> Nah... you've just decided, like the WC, to call certain eyewitnesses liars,
> because you don't like what they said.
Is that why I said that it doesn`t matter which way this is
considered to have occurred? What you think the evidence indicates, or
what the WC thinks the evidence indicates, it`s still an event (or
nonevent) over a half hour before the killing. Oz could be downstairs,
runn around the building a few dozen times, and still get back to the
sixth floor in time to shoot.
> There's *NO* contradictory evidence that LHO was above the 2nd floor from 11:50
> to 12:31.
>
> And *that* is a fact you can't refute.
I wonder what Ben means by "contradictory"? Is he saying there is no
evidence Oz was the shooter? Who knows?
> >> >But you sidestep
> >> >the issue of why Oz lied and said he was out front with Shelley.
> >>
> >> Quote his lie. Be sure to quote his exact words.
> >
> > So much for listening to the witnesses, eh, Ben?
>
> Far from it, I'm asking you to provide those EXACT words.
I would refer you to the witnesses who heard them.
> >Disregard what Oz
> >told the cops. Disregard what the person closest to Oz had to say early
> >on. You`d think a person really interested in the truth would be happy
> >to have these sources of information. But information that indicates
> >Oz`s guilt is considered "bad" information. Same shit, different day...
>
>
> Quote his lie, Bud... it's such a simple thing to do.
Lies, actually. More than one, and they would have put Oz in a bind
had this gone to court. The cops would likely go on the stand and say
Oz said this and that, and that what he said turned out to be lies. And
either Oz could get on the stand and dispute what these cops related,
or leave them stand. Either way he was screwed.
> >> >> When you have to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", is it
> >> >> really the truth?
> >> >
> >> > I wouldn`t trust you to seperate the lies from the truth, you don`t
> >> >seem to have the necessary tools.
> >>
> >> I've been referring *specifically* to them, as they come up. You haven't
> >> rebutted a single one yet. Feel free to begin rebutting the fact that
> >> the WC lied about it's own evidence.
> >
> > Why do you think I`m interested in another gripe fest about the WC?
> >Keep focusing on the fire trucks, I guess thats a good way to tell how
> >the fire started.
>
>
> Ah... you seem to think that *you* can "separate the lies from the truth", but
> when challenged to do so, QUACK, QUACK...
What I said is that you are an untrustworthy source to seperate the
lies from the truth. Your track record in this regard isn`t very good.
Remember, first you must establish all context and motivation in each
instance, and then, when all other possibilities have been considered
and proven wrong, you get to move on to
whatever remains. You don`t do anything close to this method, you leap
right to calling them liars. With this Shelley business, *prove* the
motivation behind them concluding that Shelley didn`t see Oz on the
first floor. Not assign one, prove it. You saying that they could not
have given a through consideration of all the information available
before deciding what is the likeliest event doesn`t mean anything,
because you are a kook.
> >> >> >> 5. The fifth floor ear witnesses Jarman, Norman and Williams heard no
> >> >> >> one walking above them after the shots even though Norman could hear an
> >>>> >> empty shell hit the floor after a shot. They heard no one on the wooden
> >> >> >> staircase after the shots. Jack Dougherty did not see or hear Oswald on
> >>>> >> the stairs even though he was near the fifth floor staircase at the time
> >> >> >> of the shots.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you are saying the assassin stayed up on that floor after the
> >> >> >assassination?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> That *is* what the evidence indicates...
> >> >
> >> > Could still be there today. Lets round up a kook posse and go look.
> >>
> >>
> >> Evidence hurts, doesn't it?
> >
> > You have no evidence the assassin ever left, right? So, round up a
> >posse...
>
>
> Of course there is "evidence" that the assassin left. Are you stupid?
Is Charles? He said there was no footsteps heard of the assassin
leaving, no sound on the stairs, Doughtery at the fifth floor landing
saw nobody pass. These are all indications the assassin never left.
> >> >> >> 6. I see a man's face in the window looking out in Tom Dillard's
> >> >> >> close-up photo taken right after the shots.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course you do.
> >> >
> >> > Do you see a face in the Dillard photo also, Ben?
> >> >
> >> >> >> 7. Lillian Mooneyham worked in the courts right across the street. She
> >>>> >> saw a man in the window after the shots and she said he was looking out.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 5 minutes after. The slowest getaway I ever heard of.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... other eyewitnesses also corroborated this "slow" getaway.
> >> >
> >> > Where are all these descriptions of this gunman who stayed in the
> >> >window that long? Seems they could have sketched him. Where are the
> >> >people shouting "there he is", where are the people taking this slow
> >> >poke of an assassin`s picture?
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting that there were no eyewitnesses to the fact that
> >> the assassin remained at the 6th floor window after the final shot?
> >
> > Are you suggesting he stayed in the window for five minute, people
> >were running back and forth looking for this shooter, and nobody
> >pointed up at the window and said "There he is!"? And despite his being
> >at the window so long, we have only a couple descriptions? Is this what
> >you contend?
>
>
> Why play with your strawmen? Are you suggesting that there were no eyewitnesses
> to the fact that the assassin remained at the 6th floor window after the final
> shot?
Then where are the great descriptions, 5 minutes is a long time to
get a look at such an interesting figure as an assassin. Where are the
photos, many had cameras. Hell, you could have sketched him in 5
minutes.
> It can be answered with a simple yes or no.
I suppose if I chose to it could.
> >> If so, be specific. State it.
> >
> > If what the witnesses say doesn`t makes sense, is impossible on the
> >face of it, do you stick with it regardless, or reject it?
>
>
> What's not possible about what the eyewitnesses saw and reported?
Would explaining it to you once again help? I think not.
> >> >> Even 15 seconds at that window would have made the WC theory impossible.
> >> >
> >> > Or if he stayed an hour, Tippit might still be alive today.
> >>
> >>
> >> Even 15 seconds at that window would have made the WC theory impossible.
> >
> > Or if he stayed an hour, Tippit might still be alive today.
>
>
>
> Even 15 seconds at that window would have made the WC theory impossible.
Or if Oz stayed at the window an hour, Tippit might still be alive.
That is the whole menu to you? There are no other possibilities?
> Despite the fact that there
> are multiple, corroborating eyewitnesses.
And no contrary staements given by other eyewitnesses?
> Explain it... were they all lying, or did they all conspire to lie about this?
I`d say that some of them were mistaken is proven by the differing
acounts.
> >> Come on, Bud, let's get specific. Why do you call these eyewitnesses
> >> liars, and on what evidence do you rely to state that any assassins
> >> left the window immediately?
> >
> > Well, Brennan says the assassin lingered "a moment".
>
> Yep... another corroborating eyewitness.
That corroborates 5 minutes to you? <snicker>
> >But, this is
> >case where common sense trumps all. Common sense dictates that a gunman
> >could not have stayed at that window for any length of time.
>
>
> "Common Sense" does no such thing.
Get some, you might find it does.
> >Certain
> >things would have had to happen that didn`t happen, more descriptions,
> >more people having their attentions directed to the lingering assassin.
>
>
> Untrue.
>
>
> >It`s stupid shit, Ben, what can I tell you. I have that ability to
> >tell, even if it is eyewitnesses declaring impossible things, they
> >remain impossible. It`s a deficiency of yours, not the WC`s or mine.
>
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
Excellent retort. But how can you expect to weigh witness testimony
with no reasoning skills?
> >> >Are there many descriptions of the assassin, many pictures
> >> >of the assassin? Why was the assassin hanging around after the
> >> >motorcade had vanished, in case it came back? Many people knew the
> >> >location the shots came from, wouldn`t news travel through the crowds
> >> >as the people who knew the actual location of the shots told others?
> >> >This is always the problem, Holmes, you cling to the stupid because you
> >> >just can`t tell. Then criticize the WC because they could.
> >
> > It`s still true, even if you ignore it.
>
>
> Stupidities, I tend to ignore...
Well, I for one read some of what you write.
> Kook, aren't you?
Hey, thats my insult, get your own.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>tomnln wrote:
>> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1122928284....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> Wrong again, aren't you?
>> >
>> > No, I`ve repeatedly explained to you that there a different
>> > catagories of conspiracy believer. The vast majority is unknowledgeable
>> > and uninterested. A small sub group of believers see this as a great
>> > mystery, they hungrily devour conspiracy book after conspiracy book,
>> > further cementing their original beliefs.
>>
>> Wrong Again Bud.
>>
>> I get my information from the 26 volumes &other Official Records.
>>
>> Which prompts me to ask you to explain why the authorities
>> lied & destroyed evidencd?
>
> What evidence is that?
Examples have been pointed out numerous times - are you stupid?
Try explaining the Oak Ridge tests of the cheek cast.
>> That in itself gets the case thrown out of any Court on the Land.
>
> Your understanding of the law is appalling.
Says the man who admits not knowing the definition of "alibi", or the well known
prohibition of spouse testifying against spouse.
Ben Holmes
First, you can't even properly use the term "alibi", then you merely *continue*
to misuse the term.
You lied, it's as simple as that.
>> >So, who saw Oz in a place that makes committing the assassination
>> >impossible?
>>
>>
>> So, who saw LHO in a place that makes committing the assassination possible?
>>
>> At a *TIME* that made it possible?
>
> Trees fall in the woods without anyone seeing them. Are all murders
>witnessed (other than the murderer, of course)?
It was *YOU* who is asking for an eyewitness - why back out?
>> >> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi."
>> >> Since you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are
>> >> perfectly aware that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an
>> >> alibi, you lied.
>> >
>> > It`s not an alibi, kook.
>>
>>
>> As you've just illustrated above, you don't even know what the word means.
>
> I looked it up on a couple sites. It`s still not an alibi, kook.
Come on, Bud, you can admit it.
You were mistaken about the meaning of the word, weren't you?
And you can admit that you lied when you commented that LHO didn't have even a
suggestion of an alibi.
When you can admit it, then the conversation can continue.
>> Don't you think that it's just a tad kooky to argue about a word that
>> you don't even know the legal definition of?
>
> I was working off a definition supplied by someone over on the other
>assassination board last year. It probably wasn`t the best one.
It was *wrong*... come on, Bud, say it with me: "The definition for 'alibi' that
Bud used is incorrect"... say it again, Bud... perhaps repetition will get it
through your head.
>Here are two short and sweet legal definitions I just located...
>
> The first one is from Legal-Explainations.com..
>
> Alibi- Proof offered by one accused of a crime that they were in a
>different place from that where the crime was committed.
Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and persons, that he
*COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he's accused of.
> You can see how this doesn`t apply to Oz, as you pointed out, there
>exists no testimony from Oz, therefore we can have no proof offered.
Stupid, aren't you?
> And this one, from Laborlaw.com...
>
> The alibi, a term in jurisprudence, is a form of legal defense in
>which a defendant argues that they were engaged in some other activity
>such that they could not possibly have committed the crime in question.
Such as eating lunch and describing the only two other people who were there...
that sort of thing?
Of course.
> As you can see, this also couldn`t apply in Oz`s case, as he never
>invoked a legal defense.
Stupid, aren't you?
> Perhaps you can supply a definition of "alibi" that could apply in
>Oz`s case...
You've done quite well. It's too bad that you couldn't have done this homework
before you spout falsehoods.
>> >That is the point,
>>
>> A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that requires
>> another person for an alibi?
>
> No, not as a requirement. It sure does help, though.
Of course you can't. *YOUR* definition was simply wrong.
>> >not whether it is "a rather solid bit of evidence for
>> >an alibi", whatever the fuck that means in Benspeak.
>>
>> I'm perfectly content with the legal definition of the term. And by
>> the legal definition, LHO certainly had more than a "suggestion" of
>> an alibi.
>
> Not that I found. Give one that applies to Oz`s case. I am only
>aware of one second-hand attributed alibi offered by Oz as having lunch
>with the colored guys he worked with. They did not corroborate this
>event. As Shelley did not corroborate his being out front.
Stupid, aren't you?
You can lead a horse to water...
>> It certainly can be described as "a rather solid bit of evidence for
>> an alibi". But since you don't even know what the word means, we'll
>> just have to skip that discussion...
>
> I will await you supplying a legal definition of "alibi" that
>applies in Oz`s case. Here is the definition someone supplied over at
>the other assassination board, and it also does not apply in Oz`s
>case...
>
> "ALIBI"... a "lack of presence" defense. It is a defense that places
>the defendant at the relevant time of the crime in a different place
>than the scene involved and so removed from the scene as to render it
>impossible for him to be the guilty party. The defendant need not prove
>that he was elsewhere when the crime happened, he need only notify the
>Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi (along with his list of
>alibi witnesses). Ultimately, the Prosecutor must
>prove beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant was present.
Yep... LHO did indeed supply an alibi - one that is reasonably strong. And
*no-one* has been able to place him at the scene of the crime at the time of the
crime.
> You see the problem, Oz never alerted the Prosecutor that he was
>opting to present an alibi.
Rather stupid of you, isn't it? You *still* don't understand the concept of
"alibi"...
There is *NO* legal requirement for the defendent to "alert the prosecutor" for
an alibi to exist.
Nor can you *name* the "prosecutor" in LHO's "trial".
>> >> It's as simple as that.
>> >
>> > There may be some newbie lurkers out here, try not expose yourself
>> >as an asshole with everything you say.
>>
>>
>> Don't you think you should take the time to learn what the legal
>> term "alibi" means first?
>
> Just did, it appears I was slightly mistaken on it`s meaning.
"Slightly"???
You were wrong. It's that simple. And you are CONTINUING to misunderstand the
concept, as illustrated above.
>It also appears the word doesn`t apply in the manner you`ve been using it
>either. It *still* isn`t an alibi, kook.
So you believe... but then again, *you* believe that there was a legal necessity
to "alert the prosecutor" before an alibi exists.
>> My crystal ball is telling me that you won't be able to provide a
>> citation that matches your silly definition.
>
> Only looked at the first couple hits. Seems anything can be
>*claimed* as an alibi, by the person in question.
My crystal ball was correct, yet again. You *couldn't* provide any citation for
your silly mistaken belief of what "alibi" means.
>>>>>> >> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
>> >> >> >> out of his rifle.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this
>> >> >> brilliant student of the WC.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yah, it does. Oz never expected to get far after the shooting.
>> >> >Perhaps you can help Charles with a scenario of how Oz was tricked out
>> >> >of his rifle ("Look Oz, it`s Castro" and then snatch the rifle away
>> >> >when Oz is distracted? Maybe he lost it playing three card monte).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I repeat, The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to
>> >> this brilliant student of the WC.
>> >
>> > <snicker> To a crackpot, Oz`s pocket change is significant,
>> >witnesses picking him out of lineups for murder is not.
>>
>>
>> Oh, I'm just pointing out that your ignorance of this case is so
>> immense, that putting pieces together isn't possible for you.
>
> Yah, I`ve seen these crackpot montages.
>
>>I'm certainly not the first to suggest the interesting coincidence between the
>>amount of money LHO had on him and the original cost of the rifle. What better
>> way to get a patsy to bring a rifle to work than to express an interest in
>> buying it?
>
> Well, at least you finally spilled it. It wasn`t much, but then
>again, how much does it take to get a kook to jump to conclusions?
Ignorant, aren't you? You couldn't put the pieces together because you simply
didn't know the facts.
>> The fact that you couldn't figure this out merely illustrates once
>> again your near total ignorance of the facts in this case.
>
> I just looked at the Klein ad, I think the price Oz paid was 19.95
>(99?), and after tax, it came to 21-something.
Why don't you bother to research something before you shout your ignorance to
the world?
>Is that what Oz was
>carrying 21-something? Remember, he took a bus and a cab. Well, anyway,
>this is the stuff that intrigues kooks. But, if Oz did bring in the
>rifle, why tell Frazier it was curtain rods? Why lie to the cops about
>it, say he never owned a rifle,
Quote his testimony to this effect.
>even after they showed him a picture of
>him holding it? As usual, your speculation doesn`t make sense no matter
>how you view it, Oz`s actions at no time can be explained as a guy who
>sold a rifle, and that rifle was used to kill someone.
Oh? And your evidence is what???
>The normal
>reaction in such an instance is to go to the cops and say "Hey, I think
>the rifle used to kill that guy
How would he know? Do you seriously think that everyone who owned a rifle
thought that their rifle had been used? If so, why was Frazier's rifle
confiscated by the DPD?
>is the one a sold to so-and-so earlier,
>for exactly the same price I bought it for". Just more stupid shit to
>dazzle the idiots.
The fact that you can't even put together such ideas is due to your near total
ignorance of this case.
>> >> >> >> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
>> >> >> >> policeman's uniform for cover.
>> >> >> >
>>>> >> > Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stupidity works, too.
>> >> >
>> >> > Seems to.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> You know there are people on the floor
>> >> >> >> below you and you are familiar with the building.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
>> >> >> >building at all times.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simple common sense escapes Bud as well...
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I`m certainly no match for Charles in that regard. He has the
>> >> >assassin hanging around for 5 minutes after the shooting. I guess the
>> >> >assassin knew there wasn`t going to be dozen of people rushing to the
>> >> >location the shots were fired from.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't Charles that says this - it's the eyewitnesses.
>> >
>> > All of them? Five minutes at that window should have produced dozens
>> >of descriptions of that gunman. Where are those descriptions, Ben?
>>
>> Go ahead, Bud... simply do what you're itching to do... call those
>> eyewitnesses liars... It was a "conspiracy" of eyewitnesses, right?
>
> Produce the descriptions of the shooter supplied by those witnesses
>who watched the shooter for 5 minutes.
Why? None of them matched LHO...
>For *that* (a shooter in the
>window for minutes afterwards) to have happened would mean that certain
>other things would have had to have happened.
They did. They are known in the legal community as "eyewitnesses".
>Since those other things
>didn`t happen (descriptions, photos, shouts of "there he is") didn`t
>happen, then "that* (a shooter in the window for minutes afterwards)
>could not have happened. Duh.
Oh? Can you cite the testimony or evidence for Brennen doing what you assert
must have happened?
It's *BEYOND DISPUTE* that Brennan claimed to have seen the assassin... did he
point and shout "there he is"?
Mistaken yet again, aren't you?
>> >> >> >> So you stay on the
>>>>>> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
>> >> >> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
>>>> >> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
>> >> >> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
>> >> >>
>>>> >> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the *biggest*
>> >> >> obstacle to framing LHO
>> >> >
>> >> > Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
>> >> >confronted Oz.
>> >>
>> >> Are you suggesting that when we accept what the WC says - we are living in
>> >> fantasyland?
>> >
>> > Did the WC claim to have exact times, Ben?
>>
>>
>> Yep... they were dealing with *seconds*, not minutes.
>
> They claimed to have established the exact times, not just
>estimates? That just doesn`t seem possible to me.
That's a new one! LNT'er CALLS WARREN COMMISSION LIARS!! Spread the news!
>> Feel free to announce
>> here to the world that you dispute what the Warren Commission stated in this
>> regard.
>>
>> And then cite the evidence to the contrary.
>
> When you produce something that motivates me to look into, I will
>look into it. What you have is an estimated timeline supplied by the WC
>that you are trying to pass off as a carved in stone, super precise
>down-to-the-last-second established sequence of events. Try it on your
>fellow kooks, they`ll buy it.
Yep... unable to cite. Coward, aren't you?
>> (My crystal ball is whispering to me again...)
And correct, yet again...
>> >> It's not necessary to put Baker there when he *actually* was there...
>> >
>> > Not only is it not necessary, it`s not possible.
>>
>>
>> Silly logic, isn't it?
>
> Yah, logic like "if nobody timed the event, the event was untimed"
>is silly. Putting a precise time, within seconds, on any of these
>events is impossible. Yet that seems to be your stance.
>
>> Or rather, a complete *absence* of logic. If you are
>> unable to figure out how to put Baker in that building at the end of the
>> assassination - it's just one more illustration of your stupidity,
>> nothing more.
>
> Where`d you get that strawboy from? Exactly what second did Baker
>enter the TSBD? Exactly how long did he talk with the people within,
>how many seconds? How long did he wait at the elevator, exactly? How
>much lead time would Oz need to get to the lunchroom before Truly made
>the landing, exactly how many seconds would that have required from the
>shooting?
If you won't take a look at the evidence, what makes you think that I'll take
the time to hold your hand?
>> >> the WC
>>>> timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is just
>> >> that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it was.
>> >> (Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
>> >
>> > Exactlly how many seconds would it take Oz to descend 4 floors of
>> >steps?
>>
>>
>> How long did the WC state the time as?
>
> Whatever it was was an estimate. The actual time is indeterminable.
Yet another example of your ignorance. How was this "estimate" figured out?
>> Or how long would it *actually* have taken - considering the actual facts?
>>
>> Which one is your question?
>
> Well, you seem to know that Oz couldn`t make it down to that
>lunchroom before the arrival of Baker and Truly. I guess that means you
>know the exact time Oz would need to make that trip, down to the
>second.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
>> >> >suggest happened
>> >>
>> >> Oh? And what is that?
>> >
>> > Well, conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells and a bag
>> >looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in.
>>
>>
>> Oh? And can you quote ANY STATEMENT OF MINE WHATSOEVER that would
>> lead even the stupid to think that I'd ever made any such statement
>> or implication?
>
> "Then the shooters move to another floor... what`s so difficult
>about that".
My! You *ARE* stupid, aren't you? And a liar, to boot.
>Easy-peasy-japansey. Or did you mean they teleported? If not, they had
>to move in a building that had people moving around in it. Or are you a
>CT who doesn`t feel the bag and shells were planted? Hard to tell, so
>many kooks, so many beliefs.
I go by the evidence. One shell was planted. Two shots were fired from the SN
window.
>> And more importantly, why do you feel it necessary to lie in order to
>> support what you believe is the truth?
>
> I think "necessary" is too strong a word. I could probably post
>without lying if I tried.
Scared of the truth, aren't you?
>> >> >could happen is because each person is a variable
>> >> >who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
>> >> >things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
>> >> >they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
>> >> >goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
>> >> >planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
>> >> >shells, ect).
>> >>
>> >> Then the shooters move to another floor... what's difficult about that?
>> >
>> > Excellent thinking Holmes, roam the building with evidence to plant,
>>
>> Your thought, not mine. You're a liar to even suggest that I've ever
>> implied or stated this.
>
> Whatever, you still have them moving around with the rifle, correct?
Why? Do you imagine that the rifle could not have been previously placed in the
building?
>Claim it isn`t difficult to move around, right, like there is some
>surety you won`t bump into someone?
Who cares? With work crews there laying floors, who's to know who's who?
>> >with people going here and there. I suppose they are lugging the rifle
>> >along, they do need people saying there were shots from the building.
>>
>> There *were* shots from the building ... that *is* what the eyewitnesses
>> reported. And, interestingly, from *both* sides of the building.
>
> Where else, Ben? The sewer, Dal-Tek, the limo, what? Coordinated by
>radio, or just throwing a fuselage at random? Don`t get me wrong, I
>really respect your position...
Afraid of the evidence, aren't you?
And, more to the point, unable to *rebute* the evidence.
>> >You know, you may be right, I do rememeber the guys on the fifth floor
>> >saying someone came in with a rifle and mumbled something like "sorry
>> >guys, didn`t know this area was occupied". You`re slipping Ben, you
>> >really are "outting" yourself as a true blue kook here. The true kook
>> >believes *they* are omnipotent, capable of anything.
>>
>> Liar, aren't you?
>
> I call like I see them. And I see this thinking all the time with CT
>kooks. I`ll give you and the lurkers a hint. If you are uaware of this
>phenomenon, then you are a kook who indulges in it.
When you find it necessary to lie about my position in order to attack it, it's
known as the classic "strawman" argument.
Since by *YOUR* account, LHO did exactly what you assert could not have been
done, your stupidity is illustrated. *NO-ONE* saw him with a rifle, *NO-ONE*
saw him on the 6th floor.
And yet, you're willing to assert that LHO is guilty of murdering two people.
>Anything else doesn`t even remotely quack like that duck. Again, most
>people thought OJ was guilty, yet he was found innocent. Two points
>about that. One, not many of the people watched every minute of the
>trial like the jury was compelled to do, so they weren`t drawing an as
>informed opinion as the jury. And there was a lot of information that
>played on television that was inadmissible in court. The home viewers
>even saw things that occurred when the jury was taken out of court, and
>legal issues were debated, ect. So, my point is that polls don`t mean
>jack shit, you need to have 12 people hear both sides and decide.
>These polls you take solace in are just a shadow of the real thing.
You see? Once again, you imply that if only people *knew* the facts, they'd all
be LNT'ers...
But, as anyone can see, I know far more of the facts in this case than you do,
and *I'm* not a LNT'er.
>You, Ben, have not even heard a prosecution presenting this case, the
>WC was nothing like.
Actually, it was. It dealt with this case *exactly* as a prosecution. You can
even see in the WCR, where they presented their summary argument *before* they
presented their findings.
>The WC was "these are things that indicate to us that Oswald committed
>these crimes".
As you are surely aware, they never *looked* at any other suspect.
>Being a free country, people can agree or disagree. But
>the number of people that do either is no indication of how this case
>would have played out in a court of law. I suspect it would be a slam
>dunk for the prosecution, mainly because of the lies Oz told. The
>police are going to get up and say Oz told them these things, like not
>owning a rifle.
LOL!! LHO couldn't be allowed to live to present his side.
So he was murdered in the middle of a crowd of policemen.
>I think it would be a hard sell to convince people that
>these cops were lying.
Not hard at all. In fact, we know that some of them were.
>That leaves them with Oz lying, with no possible
>reason than guilt being the explaination.
Interestingly, voice stress analysis of his "I'm just a patsy" shows him to be
telling the truth. Rather shocked the examiner...
>Thats how I see it going, I
>can`t envision it going any other way.
Lack of knowledge... nothing more.
>The shit that gets played here
>in newsgroups just wouldn`t play well in a court of law.
Such as hearsay? Or testimony by the defendent's wife under duress?
>> Must really bug you that so few people believe in the silly theory
>> put forth by the WC.
>
> I didn`t even read down here.
And yet, you somehow manage to respond... psychic, are you?
>You are hung up on the WC,
They *did* compile the evidence, such as it is. You'd prefer to simply assert
that LHO did it, without bothering to *read* the evidence, right?
>the polls.
Minority, aren't you?
>Neither mean a fiddlers fuck to me.
That the polls mean nothing matters not at all... but that you believe that the
WC doesn't matter, along with the evidence they put into the 26 volumes, speaks
loudly about your character.
>Oz`s actions prove Oz was guilty.
Oh? And which action was that?
Bud
You just ducked my direct question. In what way does the legal term
"alibi" apply in Oz`s case at all?
> >> >So, who saw Oz in a place that makes committing the assassination
> >> >impossible?
> >>
> >>
> >> So, who saw LHO in a place that makes committing the assassination possible?
> >>
> >> At a *TIME* that made it possible?
> >
> > Trees fall in the woods without anyone seeing them. Are all murders
> >witnessed (other than the murderer, of course)?
>
>
> It was *YOU* who is asking for an eyewitness - why back out?
No need to, In what way could Oz have an alibi that didn`t include a
eyewitness placing him in a place and time that would make his guilt in
the assassination impossible?
> >> >> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi."
> >> >> Since you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are
> >> >> perfectly aware that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an
> >> >> alibi, you lied.
> >> >
> >> > It`s not an alibi, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> As you've just illustrated above, you don't even know what the word means.
> >
> > I looked it up on a couple sites. It`s still not an alibi, kook.
>
>
> Come on, Bud, you can admit it.
I always can. You seem to have great difficulty.
> You were mistaken about the meaning of the word, weren't you?
I got no problem with that. I was working from memory of a
definition I had read on the other board about a year ago. And it
*still* doesn`t apply to Oz, kook.
> And you can admit that you lied when you commented that LHO didn't have even a
> suggestion of an alibi.
Of course I admitted no such thing, but how else could your brain
process such information? By definition, Oz didn`t have an alibi
because he never claimed one.
> When you can admit it, then the conversation can continue.
Fuck you and your conditions. My spanking must be leaving welts for
you to look for such a cowardly way out.
> >> Don't you think that it's just a tad kooky to argue about a word that
> >> you don't even know the legal definition of?
> >
> > I was working off a definition supplied by someone over on the other
> >assassination board last year. It probably wasn`t the best one.
>
>
> It was *wrong*... come on, Bud, say it with me: "The definition for 'alibi' that
> Bud used is incorrect"... say it again, Bud... perhaps repetition will get it
> through your head.
It was largely incorrect. A person who sees a person suspected of a
crime in a place that makes the committing of that crime impossible is
an "alibi witness". It doesn`t seem they are always necessary for an
alibi, but I`d think they are what is used in the vast bulk of cases.
Maybe video tape sometimes, or evidence presented that the person was
out of the country when a crime was committed might be used in an alibi
defense. But in Oz`s case, I think he`d need a witness putting him in a
place were it made it impossible for him to be the assassin before he`d
have anything resembling an alibi.
> >Here are two short and sweet legal definitions I just located...
> >
> > The first one is from Legal-Explainations.com..
> >
> > Alibi- Proof offered by one accused of a crime that they were in a
> >different place from that where the crime was committed.
>
> Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and persons, that he
> *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he's accused of.
>
>
> > You can see how this doesn`t apply to Oz, as you pointed out, there
> >exists no testimony from Oz, therefore we can have no proof offered.
>
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
<chuckle> Is that it. Is that your refutation? It is my claim that
the legal term "alibi" does not apply in this case. Seems a simple
concept to refute if it is as stupid as you claim.
> > And this one, from Laborlaw.com...
> >
> > The alibi, a term in jurisprudence, is a form of legal defense in
> >which a defendant argues that they were engaged in some other activity
> >such that they could not possibly have committed the crime in question.
>
> Such as eating lunch and describing the only two other people who were there...
> that sort of thing?
Whoa, you said we have nothing from Oz. What exactly did he say,
right? And, you have no idea whether he would have stuck to that story
as an attempt at a legal defense. It is not, by legal definition, an
alibi. Kook.
> Of course.
>
> > As you can see, this also couldn`t apply in Oz`s case, as he never
> >invoked a legal defense.
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
It`s not rebuttal unless you adress what I said. What I did was
apply the legal definition of "alibi" to Oz`s case. In what way did I
misuse the term?
> > Perhaps you can supply a definition of "alibi" that could apply in
> >Oz`s case...
>
>
> You've done quite well. It's too bad that you couldn't have done this homework
> before you spout falsehoods.
Always stuck in the past, aren`t you? Why not get up to speed and
explain how the legal definition of "alibi" applies in Oz`s case?
> >> >That is the point,
> >>
> >> A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that requires
> >> another person for an alibi?
> >
> > No, not as a requirement. It sure does help, though.
>
>
> Of course you can't. *YOUR* definition was simply wrong.
But I was correct in saying Oz did not have an alibi.
> >> >not whether it is "a rather solid bit of evidence for
> >> >an alibi", whatever the fuck that means in Benspeak.
> >>
> >> I'm perfectly content with the legal definition of the term. And by
> >> the legal definition, LHO certainly had more than a "suggestion" of
> >> an alibi.
> >
> > Not that I found. Give one that applies to Oz`s case. I am only
> >aware of one second-hand attributed alibi offered by Oz as having lunch
> >with the colored guys he worked with. They did not corroborate this
> >event. As Shelley did not corroborate his being out front.
>
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> You can lead a horse to water...
Is this as much as you can muster? Calling points you can`t counter
"stupid"? What will the lurkers think?
> >> It certainly can be described as "a rather solid bit of evidence for
> >> an alibi". But since you don't even know what the word means, we'll
> >> just have to skip that discussion...
> >
> > I will await you supplying a legal definition of "alibi" that
> >applies in Oz`s case. Here is the definition someone supplied over at
> >the other assassination board, and it also does not apply in Oz`s
> >case...
> >
> > "ALIBI"... a "lack of presence" defense. It is a defense that places
> >the defendant at the relevant time of the crime in a different place
> >than the scene involved and so removed from the scene as to render it
> >impossible for him to be the guilty party. The defendant need not prove
> >that he was elsewhere when the crime happened, he need only notify the
> >Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi (along with his list of
> >alibi witnesses). Ultimately, the Prosecutor must
> >prove beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant was present.
>
> Yep... LHO did indeed supply an alibi -
What was it? Who did he supply it to? Why not just spill it instead
of having me ask, that way I could refute it now instead of next post?
> one that is reasonably strong. And
> *no-one* has been able to place him at the scene of the crime at the time of the
> crime.
That has nothing to do with an alibi either.
> > You see the problem, Oz never alerted the Prosecutor that he was
> >opting to present an alibi.
>
>
> Rather stupid of you, isn't it? You *still* don't understand the concept of
> "alibi"...
You don`t, even after I supplied three definitions. You are stuck
parroting "stupid" instead of rebutting the points I made.
> There is *NO* legal requirement for the defendent to "alert the prosecutor" for
> an alibi to exist.
>
> Nor can you *name* the "prosecutor" in LHO's "trial".
Ah, you catch the drift. An "alibi" is the term for a legal defense,
to be used strictly in a court of law. So, what was missing to have the
term "alibi" apply? When Oz sat with his lawyer, and decided what his
courtroom strategy would be, none of those things you consider "alibis"
may have been offered as part of Oz`s defense. Oz offered no "alibi",
in the legal sense. You`ll see kooks in newsgroups try and foist them
on him all the time. That doesn`t mean Oz would have used any of them.
> >> >> It's as simple as that.
> >> >
> >> > There may be some newbie lurkers out here, try not expose yourself
> >> >as an asshole with everything you say.
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't you think you should take the time to learn what the legal
> >> term "alibi" means first?
> >
> > Just did, it appears I was slightly mistaken on it`s meaning.
>
>
> "Slightly"???
>
> You were wrong. It's that simple. And you are CONTINUING to misunderstand the
> concept, as illustrated above.
As do you, by ignoring my points shows you to be unable to refute my
reading of the definitions.
> >It also appears the word doesn`t apply in the manner you`ve been using it
> >either. It *still* isn`t an alibi, kook.
>
> So you believe... but then again, *you* believe that there was a legal necessity
> to "alert the prosecutor" before an alibi exists.
Yah, I believe that is true that when a defendant wishes to invoke
an alibi, he would have to alert the prosecutor of that intent, so that
the prosecutor could look into the merits of it. To give an example
that others will get and you will totally miss, lets say a guy commits
a murder. Later, he overhears a conversation of an auto accident
between a cab and a fire truck that occured at the same time as the
murder he committed, but many miles away. If taken to court for the
murder, he couldn`t just withhold this "alibi", and spring it on the
prosecutor on the stand ("I can`t be the murderer, I was at that
accident"), because it wouldn`t give the prosecutor a chance to
investigate the merits of the claim. But, if you wish to skip these
hypotheticals, present what you believe to be Oz presenting an alibi,
and we can discuss that.
> >> My crystal ball is telling me that you won't be able to provide a
> >> citation that matches your silly definition.
> >
> > Only looked at the first couple hits. Seems anything can be
> >*claimed* as an alibi, by the person in question.
>
>
> My crystal ball was correct, yet again. You *couldn't* provide any citation for
> your silly mistaken belief of what "alibi" means.
You`ve yet to offer an alibi that Oz claimed for himself.
> >>>>>> >> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked Oswald
> >> >> >> >> out of his rifle.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Maybe for a bag of magic beans.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to this
> >> >> >> brilliant student of the WC.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yah, it does. Oz never expected to get far after the shooting.
> >> >> >Perhaps you can help Charles with a scenario of how Oz was tricked out
> >> >> >of his rifle ("Look Oz, it`s Castro" and then snatch the rifle away
> >> >> >when Oz is distracted? Maybe he lost it playing three card monte).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I repeat, The amount of money he had with him doesn't suggest anything to
> >> >> this brilliant student of the WC.
> >> >
> >> > <snicker> To a crackpot, Oz`s pocket change is significant,
> >> >witnesses picking him out of lineups for murder is not.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, I'm just pointing out that your ignorance of this case is so
> >> immense, that putting pieces together isn't possible for you.
> >
> > Yah, I`ve seen these crackpot montages.
> >
> >>I'm certainly not the first to suggest the interesting coincidence between the
> >>amount of money LHO had on him and the original cost of the rifle. What better
> >> way to get a patsy to bring a rifle to work than to express an interest in
> >> buying it?
> >
> > Well, at least you finally spilled it. It wasn`t much, but then
> >again, how much does it take to get a kook to jump to conclusions?
>
>
> Ignorant, aren't you? You couldn't put the pieces together because you simply
> didn't know the facts.
Kooks take Oz`s pocket money and run with it, so what? What is
established? Wouldn`t an exact amount of money found on Oz when
arrested that matched the exact price of the rifle suppose that Oz
carried no money with him to work that day if he sold the rifle for the
same amount he bought it for? Darn, theres that pesky common sense of
mine clouding the issues...
> >> The fact that you couldn't figure this out merely illustrates once
> >> again your near total ignorance of the facts in this case.
> >
> > I just looked at the Klein ad, I think the price Oz paid was 19.95
> >(99?), and after tax, it came to 21-something.
>
>
> Why don't you bother to research something before you shout your ignorance to
> the world?
It`s your kooky shit. You present it, or cryptically hint that there
is deeper meaning, or whatever the fuck you want. This is the kind of
things kooks bandy about, that does nothing but impress other kooks.
> >Is that what Oz was
> >carrying 21-something? Remember, he took a bus and a cab. Well, anyway,
> >this is the stuff that intrigues kooks. But, if Oz did bring in the
> >rifle, why tell Frazier it was curtain rods? Why lie to the cops about
> >it, say he never owned a rifle,
>
>
> Quote his testimony to this effect.
Read what the witnesses to his statements said. Or ignore the
witnesses, while claiming you don`t.
> >even after they showed him a picture of
> >him holding it? As usual, your speculation doesn`t make sense no matter
> >how you view it, Oz`s actions at no time can be explained as a guy who
> >sold a rifle, and that rifle was used to kill someone.
>
> Oh? And your evidence is what???
That you for that illustration of your lack of common sense and
reasoning ability.
> >The normal
> >reaction in such an instance is to go to the cops and say "Hey, I think
> >the rifle used to kill that guy
>
> How would he know?
I think he knew because he was the shooter. But you seem, in your
usual dribs and drabs manner to suggest that Oz sold his rifle to
person unknown, and said person used it to commit this crime. Maybe I
am rushing this fairy tale, but I`ve sat through this before, and it
usually leads to Oz knowing he was set up, and that is why he acts so
strangely (even to the point of killing cops) after the assassination.
If you want to suggest Oz sold the rifle and had no clue he sold the
weapon that was used in the assassination, than walk me through Oz`s
actions post assassination up until the time of his arrest. Ignorance
of his connection to the crime does not seem to fit his later actions.
And we are going far afield with supposition, there is zero evidence Oz
sold his rifle to anyone.
> Do you seriously think that everyone who owned a rifle
> thought that their rifle had been used? If so, why was Frazier's rifle
> confiscated by the DPD?
Why did the Dallas police say?
> >is the one a sold to so-and-so earlier,
> >for exactly the same price I bought it for". Just more stupid shit to
> >dazzle the idiots.
>
> The fact that you can't even put together such ideas is due to your near total
> ignorance of this case.
The fact that kooks have spent the last 40 years doing nothing but
shows something much more telling.
> >> >> >> >> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
> >> >> >> >> policeman's uniform for cover.
> >> >> >> >
> >>>> >> > Or a book. There were books all over, nobody would notice one more.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Stupidity works, too.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Seems to.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> You know there are people on the floor
> >> >> >> >> below you and you are familiar with the building.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Stellar thinking, the assassin knew where everyone was in the
> >> >> >> >building at all times.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Simple common sense escapes Bud as well...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, I`m certainly no match for Charles in that regard. He has the
> >> >> >assassin hanging around for 5 minutes after the shooting. I guess the
> >> >> >assassin knew there wasn`t going to be dozen of people rushing to the
> >> >> >location the shots were fired from.
> >> >>
> >> >> It isn't Charles that says this - it's the eyewitnesses.
> >> >
> >> > All of them? Five minutes at that window should have produced dozens
> >> >of descriptions of that gunman. Where are those descriptions, Ben?
> >>
> >> Go ahead, Bud... simply do what you're itching to do... call those
> >> eyewitnesses liars... It was a "conspiracy" of eyewitnesses, right?
> >
> > Produce the descriptions of the shooter supplied by those witnesses
> >who watched the shooter for 5 minutes.
>
> Why? None of them matched LHO...
They must have been very detailed, with a 5 minute observation, and
the knowledge this was the assassin. Why don`t I see these non-Oswald
looking descriptions touted by the kook squad?
> >For *that* (a shooter in the
> >window for minutes afterwards) to have happened would mean that certain
> >other things would have had to have happened.
>
> They did. They are known in the legal community as "eyewitnesses".
The peopel just stood and stared at the assassin for five whole
minutes? I think I could have gone from the street to the 6th floor in
that amount of time. But these folks stood and gaped like guppies? No
pictures taken? No detailed descriptions? Nobody shouting "there is the
killer" to the cops running to and fro looking for just such a person?
My God, your common sense must still be in it`s original wrapper.
> >Since those other things
> >didn`t happen (descriptions, photos, shouts of "there he is") didn`t
> >happen, then "that* (a shooter in the window for minutes afterwards)
> >could not have happened. Duh.
>
> Oh? Can you cite the testimony or evidence for Brennen doing what you assert
> must have happened?
Brennan doesn`t put the gunman up in the window for 5 minutes after
the last shot. Or even one. Only "a moment".
> It's *BEYOND DISPUTE* that Brennan claimed to have seen the assassin... did he
> point and shout "there he is"?
Brennan might have done such a thing, had the gunman lingered more
than "a moment". Being a prudent man, he dove for cover first.
> Mistaken yet again, aren't you?
How long do you think Brennan put the gunman in the window after
the shooting?
> >> >> >> >> So you stay on the
> >>>>>> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the fifth
> >> >> >> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
> >>>> >> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
> >> >> >> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the *biggest*
> >> >> >> obstacle to framing LHO
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
> >> >> >confronted Oz.
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you suggesting that when we accept what the WC says - we are living in
> >> >> fantasyland?
> >> >
> >> > Did the WC claim to have exact times, Ben?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... they were dealing with *seconds*, not minutes.
> >
> > They claimed to have established the exact times, not just
> >estimates? That just doesn`t seem possible to me.
>
>
> That's a new one! LNT'er CALLS WARREN COMMISSION LIARS!! Spread the news!
I seriously doubt the WC ever made the claim that they had
established exact timing, and not just estimates.
> >> Feel free to announce
> >> here to the world that you dispute what the Warren Commission stated in this
> >> regard.
> >>
> >> And then cite the evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > When you produce something that motivates me to look into, I will
> >look into it. What you have is an estimated timeline supplied by the WC
> >that you are trying to pass off as a carved in stone, super precise
> >down-to-the-last-second established sequence of events. Try it on your
> >fellow kooks, they`ll buy it.
>
>
> Yep... unable to cite. Coward, aren't you?
I`ve seen nothing supplied by you from the WC claiming they had
established an exact, to-the-second sequence of events.
> >> (My crystal ball is whispering to me again...)
>
>
> And correct, yet again...
Keep telling yourself that.
> >> >> It's not necessary to put Baker there when he *actually* was there...
> >> >
> >> > Not only is it not necessary, it`s not possible.
> >>
> >>
> >> Silly logic, isn't it?
> >
> > Yah, logic like "if nobody timed the event, the event was untimed"
> >is silly. Putting a precise time, within seconds, on any of these
> >events is impossible. Yet that seems to be your stance.
> >
> >> Or rather, a complete *absence* of logic. If you are
> >> unable to figure out how to put Baker in that building at the end of the
> >> assassination - it's just one more illustration of your stupidity,
> >> nothing more.
> >
> > Where`d you get that strawboy from? Exactly what second did Baker
> >enter the TSBD? Exactly how long did he talk with the people within,
> >how many seconds? How long did he wait at the elevator, exactly? How
> >much lead time would Oz need to get to the lunchroom before Truly made
> >the landing, exactly how many seconds would that have required from the
> >shooting?
>
>
> If you won't take a look at the evidence, what makes you think that I'll take
> the time to hold your hand?
Thats what I thought. You kooks insinuate that it is possible to
tell exactly how long it would take Oz to come down, and Baker to go
up. And you can do nothing of the sort. You try and pass it off as some
failing of the WC. Let me try common sense on you one more time, for
what it`s worth. Untimed events cannot be timed precisely.
> >> >> the WC
> >>>> timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is just
> >> >> that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it was.
> >> >> (Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
> >> >
> >> > Exactlly how many seconds would it take Oz to descend 4 floors of
> >> >steps?
> >>
> >>
> >> How long did the WC state the time as?
> >
> > Whatever it was was an estimate. The actual time is indeterminable.
>
>
> Yet another example of your ignorance. How was this "estimate" figured out?
If the original event wasn`t timed with a stopwatch, the times can
be nothing other than estimates. Will you dispute this?
> >> Or how long would it *actually* have taken - considering the actual facts?
> >>
> >> Which one is your question?
> >
> > Well, you seem to know that Oz couldn`t make it down to that
> >lunchroom before the arrival of Baker and Truly. I guess that means you
> >know the exact time Oz would need to make that trip, down to the
> >second.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
I told you these silly timing games only impress other kooks. You
don`t have precise times. You pretend you do.
> >> >> >They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
> >> >> >suggest happened
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh? And what is that?
> >> >
> >> > Well, conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells and a bag
> >> >looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh? And can you quote ANY STATEMENT OF MINE WHATSOEVER that would
> >> lead even the stupid to think that I'd ever made any such statement
> >> or implication?
> >
> > "Then the shooters move to another floor... what`s so difficult
> >about that".
>
>
> My! You *ARE* stupid, aren't you? And a liar, to boot.
You said it, not me. And you are right, it was a stupid thing to
say.
> >Easy-peasy-japansey. Or did you mean they teleported? If not, they had
> >to move in a building that had people moving around in it. Or are you a
> >CT who doesn`t feel the bag and shells were planted? Hard to tell, so
> >many kooks, so many beliefs.
>
>
> I go by the evidence. One shell was planted. Two shots were fired from the SN
> window.
And if that window was occupied, they`d just move to an unoccupied
one, right? Just wander around looking for an openning, whats so hard
about that?
> >> And more importantly, why do you feel it necessary to lie in order to
> >> support what you believe is the truth?
> >
> > I think "necessary" is too strong a word. I could probably post
> >without lying if I tried.
>
>
> Scared of the truth, aren't you?
<chuckle>
> >> >> >could happen is because each person is a variable
> >> >> >who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
> >> >> >things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
> >> >> >they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
> >> >> >goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
> >> >> >planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
> >> >> >shells, ect).
> >> >>
> >> >> Then the shooters move to another floor... what's difficult about that?
> >> >
> >> > Excellent thinking Holmes, roam the building with evidence to plant,
> >>
> >> Your thought, not mine. You're a liar to even suggest that I've ever
> >> implied or stated this.
> >
> > Whatever, you still have them moving around with the rifle, correct?
>
> Why? Do you imagine that the rifle could not have been previously placed in the
> building?
You insinuated they could move around with no problem searching for
a window to shoot from. Nothing to do with how the rifle entered.
> >Claim it isn`t difficult to move around, right, like there is some
> >surety you won`t bump into someone?
>
> Who cares? With work crews there laying floors, who's to know who's who?
Bing-bing-bing-bing. Crackpot alert. Conspirators now just mingle,
unbeknownst to the workers.
> >> >with people going here and there. I suppose they are lugging the rifle
> >> >along, they do need people saying there were shots from the building.
> >>
> >> There *were* shots from the building ... that *is* what the eyewitnesses
> >> reported. And, interestingly, from *both* sides of the building.
> >
> > Where else, Ben? The sewer, Dal-Tek, the limo, what? Coordinated by
> >radio, or just throwing a fuselage at random? Don`t get me wrong, I
> >really respect your position...
>
>
> Afraid of the evidence, aren't you?
>
>
> And, more to the point, unable to *rebute* the evidence.
I`d first need to know your beliefs. What shot came from what
location at what time (z-film frame)?
> >> >You know, you may be right, I do rememeber the guys on the fifth floor
> >> >saying someone came in with a rifle and mumbled something like "sorry
> >> >guys, didn`t know this area was occupied". You`re slipping Ben, you
> >> >really are "outting" yourself as a true blue kook here. The true kook
> >> >believes *they* are omnipotent, capable of anything.
> >>
> >> Liar, aren't you?
> >
> > I call like I see them. And I see this thinking all the time with CT
> >kooks. I`ll give you and the lurkers a hint. If you are uaware of this
> >phenomenon, then you are a kook who indulges in it.
>
>
> When you find it necessary to lie about my position in order to attack it, it's
> known as the classic "strawman" argument.
>
> Since by *YOUR* account, LHO did exactly what you assert could not have been
> done, your stupidity is illustrated. *NO-ONE* saw him with a rifle, *NO-ONE*
> saw him on the 6th floor.
Yah, they did. Some even identified him as the person they saw.
Oh, yah, that`s obvious. I don`t need a court of law to tell me the
sun is hot.
> >Anything else doesn`t even remotely quack like that duck. Again, most
> >people thought OJ was guilty, yet he was found innocent. Two points
> >about that. One, not many of the people watched every minute of the
> >trial like the jury was compelled to do, so they weren`t drawing an as
> >informed opinion as the jury. And there was a lot of information that
> >played on television that was inadmissible in court. The home viewers
> >even saw things that occurred when the jury was taken out of court, and
> >legal issues were debated, ect. So, my point is that polls don`t mean
> >jack shit, you need to have 12 people hear both sides and decide.
> >These polls you take solace in are just a shadow of the real thing.
>
> You see? Once again, you imply that if only people *knew* the facts, they'd all
> be LNT'ers...
I think a trial-type consideration of the facts of the case would
throw out the vast bulk of gobbilygook spouted by CT here. I think a
trial would definately favor an LN finding, by weeding out the crap you
kooks bandy about. What the WC considered was trial type format, the
stuff of kooks would largely be disallowed. Even you`re favorite piece
of evidence, the AP x-ray would be near useless for presenting what you
think it shows. How do you get your speculation about what this
evidence means to the jury`s ears? I think most of the CT`s favorite
talking points would be inadmissable, which might help Oz some.
> But, as anyone can see, I know far more of the facts in this case than you do,
> and *I'm* not a LNT'er.
Your lack of reasoning skills make any knowlege you have useless.
> >You, Ben, have not even heard a prosecution presenting this case, the
> >WC was nothing like.
>
> Actually, it was. It dealt with this case *exactly* as a prosecution. You can
> even see in the WCR, where they presented their summary argument *before* they
> presented their findings.
That was nothing like trial presentation would be. No real trial
strategy. This case, had it went to trial might have been won at jury
selection. A lot more dynamics to a trial than the WC investigation
was.
> >The WC was "these are things that indicate to us that Oswald committed
> >these crimes".
>
>
> As you are surely aware, they never *looked* at any other suspect.
It wasn`t quantity, it was quality. Oz had evidence that indicated
his guilt because Oz was guilty.
> >Being a free country, people can agree or disagree. But
> >the number of people that do either is no indication of how this case
> >would have played out in a court of law. I suspect it would be a slam
> >dunk for the prosecution, mainly because of the lies Oz told. The
> >police are going to get up and say Oz told them these things, like not
> >owning a rifle.
>
> LOL!! LHO couldn't be allowed to live to present his side.
Apparenly Ruby felt that way.
> So he was murdered in the middle of a crowd of policemen.
He sure as hell was.
> >I think it would be a hard sell to convince people that
> >these cops were lying.
>
> Not hard at all. In fact, we know that some of them were.
Well, easy enough to say. Forty plus years ago I`d think you`d need
some strongly compelling reason to disregard the testimony of the cops
that interrogated Oz. I think it would be easier for them to see Oz`s
motivations for lying than the cops.
> >That leaves them with Oz lying, with no possible
> >reason than guilt being the explaination.
>
>
> Interestingly, voice stress analysis of his "I'm just a patsy" shows him to be
> telling the truth. Rather shocked the examiner...
Well, thats the kind of thing you put stock in when you have nothing
better.
Like jiggle analysis. I`m curious as to what they compared his voice
to, though.
I think you need a sample of the subject telling the truth, where did
Oz do this?
> >Thats how I see it going, I
> >can`t envision it going any other way.
>
> Lack of knowledge... nothing more.
I guess I just don`t read enough crackpot conspiracy books.
> >The shit that gets played here
> >in newsgroups just wouldn`t play well in a court of law.
>
>
> Such as hearsay? Or testimony by the defendent's wife under duress?
If you have something to say, say it. I made some comments about the
legal status of Marina`s testimony which you left uncommented on. Why
bring it up here?
And I can see a defense attorney being concerned that a wife blurted
damaging information about his client, but I can`t imagine someone
looking for the truth in this matter being so concerned. I would think
you would welcome the insight from the person closest a person not many
were close to.
> >> Must really bug you that so few people believe in the silly theory
> >> put forth by the WC.
> >
> > I didn`t even read down here.
>
> And yet, you somehow manage to respond... psychic, are you?
My previous comments did pertain to these unread passages you wrote,
so I guess I am.
> >You are hung up on the WC,
>
>
> They *did* compile the evidence, such as it is.
Read only what the Dallas police compiled. Less is more.
> You'd prefer to simply assert
> that LHO did it, without bothering to *read* the evidence, right?
I haven`t seen anyone explain Oz`s actions in any manner other than
guilt. To say that he just happened to bring a long paper package into
work is weak. To say he just happened to leave work right after the
assassination is weak. Why did Oz have the cab driver drive past the
boardinghouse before getting out? Lots of things like these leave only
one inescapable conclusion. Oz sold the rifle before the assassination,
was never a communist, and had an evil twin who killed Tippit.
> >the polls.
>
> Minority, aren't you?
Aren`t we all, in one way or another? Being in the minority that is
correct on an issue isn`t a source of concern to me.
> >Neither mean a fiddlers fuck to me.
>
>
> That the polls mean nothing matters not at all... but that you believe that the
> WC doesn't matter, along with the evidence they put into the 26 volumes, speaks
> loudly about your character.
Now it`s a character issue. Whatever Ben. The WC is your punching
bag in this case, beat the crap out of that cow. What Oz did makes Oz
look guilty.
> >Oz`s actions prove Oz was guilty.
>
>
> Oh? And which action was that?
Actions. Plural. Walk me through his actions post assassination to
his arrest. Make some sense out of them for me.
Ben Holmes
Who cares? You *still* don't understand the legal definition of the term, so
any question related to it is meaningless.
You *lied* about the topic. You're ducking and weaseling right now, and I'm
merely going to keep the subject on-topic.
>In what way does the legal term
>"alibi" apply in Oz`s case at all?
Another illustration of your ignorance of the meaning of the term.
>> >> >So, who saw Oz in a place that makes committing the assassination
>> >> >impossible?
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> So, who saw LHO in a place that makes committing the assassination possible?
>> >>
>> >> At a *TIME* that made it possible?
>> >
>> > Trees fall in the woods without anyone seeing them. Are all murders
>> >witnessed (other than the murderer, of course)?
>>
>>
>> It was *YOU* who is asking for an eyewitness - why back out?
>
> No need to, In what way could Oz have an alibi that didn`t include a
>eyewitness placing him in a place and time that would make his guilt in
>the assassination impossible?
Only a rather severe misunderstanding of the term "alibi" could allow you to ask
such a question.
Once again, try doing some basic research. You're looking more and more stupid
here.
Alibi's don't require an eyewitness... try repeating that a dozen times or so.
>>>> >> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi."
>> >> >> Since you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are
>> >> >> perfectly aware that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an
>> >> >> alibi, you lied.
>> >> >
>> >> > It`s not an alibi, kook.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As you've just illustrated above, you don't even know what the word means.
>> >
>> > I looked it up on a couple sites. It`s still not an alibi, kook.
>>
>>
>> Come on, Bud, you can admit it.
>
> I always can. You seem to have great difficulty.
Then do so. Let all the lurkers know that you *lied* in your assertion
concerning LHO and the "suggestion" of an alibi.
>> You were mistaken about the meaning of the word, weren't you?
>
> I got no problem with that. I was working from memory of a
>definition I had read on the other board about a year ago. And it
>*still* doesn`t apply to Oz, kook.
Sure it does. You evidently *still* haven't figured it out.
>> And you can admit that you lied when you commented that LHO didn't
>> have even a suggestion of an alibi.
>
> Of course I admitted no such thing, but how else could your brain
>process such information? By definition, Oz didn`t have an alibi
>because he never claimed one.
Your continued ignorance concerning the term is amusing... Stupid, aren't you?
>> When you can admit it, then the conversation can continue.
>
> Fuck you and your conditions. My spanking must be leaving welts for
>you to look for such a cowardly way out.
What "spanking"?
You are ignorant of the facts, you deny what's right in front of your face, and
you make rather stupid mistakes in legal terminology.
>> >> Don't you think that it's just a tad kooky to argue about a word that
>> >> you don't even know the legal definition of?
>> >
>> > I was working off a definition supplied by someone over on the other
>> >assassination board last year. It probably wasn`t the best one.
>>
>>
>> It was *wrong*... come on, Bud, say it with me: "The definition for
>> 'alibi' that Bud used is incorrect"... say it again, Bud... perhaps
>> repetition will get it through your head.
>
> It was largely incorrect.
Good. The first step towards rehabilitation is the admission that you need
help.
>A person who sees a person suspected of a
>crime in a place that makes the committing of that crime impossible is
>an "alibi witness". It doesn`t seem they are always necessary for an
>alibi, but I`d think they are what is used in the vast bulk of cases.
>Maybe video tape sometimes, or evidence presented that the person was
>out of the country when a crime was committed might be used in an alibi
>defense. But in Oz`s case, I think he`d need a witness putting him in a
>place were it made it impossible for him to be the assassin before he`d
>have anything resembling an alibi.
Why would LHO have to have something that no-one else has ever been required to
have?
Say it with me, Bud: "Eyewitnesses are not a necessary component to an alibi".
Repeat until it sinks in.
>> >Here are two short and sweet legal definitions I just located...
>> >
>> > The first one is from Legal-Explainations.com..
>> >
>> > Alibi- Proof offered by one accused of a crime that they were in a
>> >different place from that where the crime was committed.
>>
>> Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and persons,
>> that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he's
>> accused of.
WHAT!!!? No rebuttal, oh stupid one?
>> > You can see how this doesn`t apply to Oz, as you pointed out, there
>> >exists no testimony from Oz, therefore we can have no proof offered.
>>
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> <chuckle> Is that it. Is that your refutation? It is my claim that
>the legal term "alibi" does not apply in this case.
You *still* haven't figured out what the term means...
>Seems a simple
>concept to refute if it is as stupid as you claim.
Your continued ignorance of the meaning of the word *is* the refutation.
>> > And this one, from Laborlaw.com...
>> >
>> > The alibi, a term in jurisprudence, is a form of legal defense in
>> >which a defendant argues that they were engaged in some other activity
>> >such that they could not possibly have committed the crime in question.
>>
>> Such as eating lunch and describing the only two other people who were
>> there... that sort of thing?
>
> Whoa, you said we have nothing from Oz. What exactly did he say,
>right? And, you have no idea whether he would have stuck to that story
>as an attempt at a legal defense.
He described something that he would be required to be psychic to know - he
doesn't have to "stick" to that "story".
Getting desperate, Bud?
>It is not, by legal definition, an
>alibi. Kook.
Still don't understand the term, do you?
>> Of course.
>>
>> > As you can see, this also couldn`t apply in Oz`s case, as he never
>> >invoked a legal defense.
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> It`s not rebuttal unless you adress what I said. What I did was
>apply the legal definition of "alibi" to Oz`s case. In what way did I
>misuse the term?
You still don't understand what "alibi" means. That's all the rebuttal needed.
>> > Perhaps you can supply a definition of "alibi" that could apply in
>> >Oz`s case...
>>
>>
>> You've done quite well. It's too bad that you couldn't have done this
>> homework before you spout falsehoods.
>
> Always stuck in the past, aren`t you? Why not get up to speed and
>explain how the legal definition of "alibi" applies in Oz`s case?
Why not attempt to assert why it doesn't? It's *YOUR* claim, after all, that
LHO didn't have a "suggestion" of an alibi.
>> >> >That is the point,
>> >>
>>>> A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that requires
>> >> another person for an alibi?
>> >
>> > No, not as a requirement. It sure does help, though.
>>
>>
>> Of course you can't. *YOUR* definition was simply wrong.
>
> But I was correct in saying Oz did not have an alibi.
That is not what you said. Why bother to lie, Bud?
>> >> >not whether it is "a rather solid bit of evidence for
>> >> >an alibi", whatever the fuck that means in Benspeak.
>> >>
>> >> I'm perfectly content with the legal definition of the term. And by
>> >> the legal definition, LHO certainly had more than a "suggestion" of
>> >> an alibi.
>> >
>> > Not that I found. Give one that applies to Oz`s case. I am only
>> >aware of one second-hand attributed alibi offered by Oz as having lunch
>> >with the colored guys he worked with. They did not corroborate this
>> >event. As Shelley did not corroborate his being out front.
>>
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> You can lead a horse to water...
>
> Is this as much as you can muster? Calling points you can`t counter
>"stupid"? What will the lurkers think?
Many of the lurkers probably know enough about this case to be enjoying a good
laugh at your expense right now, Bud.
>> >> It certainly can be described as "a rather solid bit of evidence for
>> >> an alibi". But since you don't even know what the word means, we'll
>> >> just have to skip that discussion...
>> >
>> > I will await you supplying a legal definition of "alibi" that
>> >applies in Oz`s case. Here is the definition someone supplied over at
>> >the other assassination board, and it also does not apply in Oz`s
>> >case...
>> >
>> > "ALIBI"... a "lack of presence" defense. It is a defense that places
>> >the defendant at the relevant time of the crime in a different place
>> >than the scene involved and so removed from the scene as to render it
>> >impossible for him to be the guilty party. The defendant need not prove
>> >that he was elsewhere when the crime happened, he need only notify the
>> >Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi (along with his list of
>> >alibi witnesses). Ultimately, the Prosecutor must
>> >prove beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant was present.
>>
>> Yep... LHO did indeed supply an alibi -
>
> What was it? Who did he supply it to? Why not just spill it instead
>of having me ask, that way I could refute it now instead of next post?
Already have... you didn't answer then, why would you ask me to keep repeating
it?
Try rereading this post...
But first, spend a little time acquainting yourself with the meaning of the term
"alibi".
Try to understand what would constitute one.
>> one that is reasonably strong. And
>> *no-one* has been able to place him at the scene of the crime at the
>> time of the crime.
>
> That has nothing to do with an alibi either.
Of course not. It has EVERYTHING to do with your statement that this is in
response to.
Is this the best you can do, Bud?
>> > You see the problem, Oz never alerted the Prosecutor that he was
>> >opting to present an alibi.
>>
>>
>> Rather stupid of you, isn't it? You *still* don't understand the concept of
>> "alibi"...
>
> You don`t, even after I supplied three definitions. You are stuck
>parroting "stupid" instead of rebutting the points I made.
None of your definitions requires an eyewitness, none of your definitions
requires the assertion of the defendent for an alibi to exist.
LHO did *indeed* have a "suggestion" of an alibi, and nothing you can say will
get you out of that lie.
>> There is *NO* legal requirement for the defendent to "alert the
>> prosecutor" for an alibi to exist.
>>
>> Nor can you *name* the "prosecutor" in LHO's "trial".
>
> Ah, you catch the drift. An "alibi" is the term for a legal defense,
>to be used strictly in a court of law.
No, it is not. I find the term in ordinary dictionaries, it's widely used and
understood.
>So, what was missing to have the
>term "alibi" apply? When Oz sat with his lawyer, and decided what his
>courtroom strategy would be, none of those things you consider "alibis"
>may have been offered as part of Oz`s defense. Oz offered no "alibi",
>in the legal sense.
Yep... he absolutely did. Stupid, aren't you?
>You`ll see kooks in newsgroups try and foist them
>on him all the time. That doesn`t mean Oz would have used any of them.
An alibi does not need to be asserted by the defendent to exist. When are you
going to stop looking so stupid?
>> >> >> It's as simple as that.
>> >> >
>> >> > There may be some newbie lurkers out here, try not expose yourself
>> >> >as an asshole with everything you say.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Don't you think you should take the time to learn what the legal
>> >> term "alibi" means first?
>> >
>> > Just did, it appears I was slightly mistaken on it`s meaning.
>>
>>
>> "Slightly"???
>>
>> You were wrong. It's that simple. And you are CONTINUING to
>> misunderstand the concept, as illustrated above.
>
> As do you, by ignoring my points shows you to be unable to refute my
>reading of the definitions.
LOL!! I've been doing nothing else!
>> >It also appears the word doesn`t apply in the manner you`ve been using it
>> >either. It *still* isn`t an alibi, kook.
>>
>> So you believe... but then again, *you* believe that there was a legal
>> necessity to "alert the prosecutor" before an alibi exists.
>
> Yah, I believe that is true that when a defendant wishes to invoke
>an alibi, he would have to alert the prosecutor of that intent, so that
>the prosecutor could look into the merits of it.
Then once again, you are wrong. An alibi can exist independently of this set of
circumstances.
I defy you to produce any authoritative citation that requires the defendent to
notify the prosecutor before an "alibi" exists
>To give an example
>that others will get and you will totally miss, lets say a guy commits
>a murder. Later, he overhears a conversation of an auto accident
>between a cab and a fire truck that occured at the same time as the
>murder he committed, but many miles away. If taken to court for the
>murder, he couldn`t just withhold this "alibi", and spring it on the
>prosecutor on the stand ("I can`t be the murderer, I was at that
>accident"), because it wouldn`t give the prosecutor a chance to
>investigate the merits of the claim.
Actually, that's *exactly* what he can do. You seem to be rather mixed up - the
*prosecutor* must share his evidence and eyewitness list to the defense, the
defense is under *NO* legal requirement to do the same. Try looking up "full
disclosure"
Once again, you've illustrated your mind-boggling ignorance of the American
jurisprudence system.
>But, if you wish to skip these
>hypotheticals,
Oh, NO!! Give some more examples that illustrate your stupidity, Bud!
>present what you believe to be Oz presenting an alibi,
>and we can discuss that.
Already given.
>> >> My crystal ball is telling me that you won't be able to provide a
>> >> citation that matches your silly definition.
>> >
>> > Only looked at the first couple hits. Seems anything can be
>> >*claimed* as an alibi, by the person in question.
>>
>>
>> My crystal ball was correct, yet again. You *couldn't* provide any
>> citation for your silly mistaken belief of what "alibi" means.
>
> You`ve yet to offer an alibi that Oz claimed for himself.
Done several times.
My crystal ball was correct, yet again.
>>>>>>>> >> Lets say for discussion that you are the shooter and have tricked
No, you just asserted a fact - a fact that can be checked. You didn't bother to
check, and once again, you're wrong.
Why don't you bother to research something before you shout your ignorance to
the world?
>You present it, or cryptically hint that there
>is deeper meaning, or whatever the fuck you want. This is the kind of
>things kooks bandy about, that does nothing but impress other kooks.
Ignorant, aren't you?
>> >Is that what Oz was
>> >carrying 21-something? Remember, he took a bus and a cab. Well, anyway,
>> >this is the stuff that intrigues kooks. But, if Oz did bring in the
>> >rifle, why tell Frazier it was curtain rods? Why lie to the cops about
>> >it, say he never owned a rifle,
>>
>>
>> Quote his testimony to this effect.
>
> Read what the witnesses to his statements said. Or ignore the
>witnesses, while claiming you don`t.
Yep... I thought you wouldn't be able to.
>> >even after they showed him a picture of
>> >him holding it? As usual, your speculation doesn`t make sense no matter
>> >how you view it, Oz`s actions at no time can be explained as a guy who
>> >sold a rifle, and that rifle was used to kill someone.
>>
>> Oh? And your evidence is what???
>
> That you for that illustration of your lack of common sense and
>reasoning ability.
Oh? Common sense and reasoning ability forbid LHO from selling a rifle?
Does this work with other people too? What's going to happen when the gun show
hears about this?
>> >The normal
>> >reaction in such an instance is to go to the cops and say "Hey, I think
>> >the rifle used to kill that guy
>>
>> How would he know?
>
> I think he knew because he was the shooter.
ROTFLMAO!!! So the guilty person goes up to a cop, and announces that the
weapon he just used to murder someone "might have been used to kill someone"!
Your logic is amazingly silly!!
>But you seem, in your
>usual dribs and drabs manner to suggest that Oz sold his rifle to
>person unknown, and said person used it to commit this crime.
That the facts will support a scenario such as this is beyond your ken - you
don't even know how much LHO paid for the rifle, or how much money he had with
him that day.
>Maybe I
>am rushing this fairy tale, but I`ve sat through this before, and it
>usually leads to Oz knowing he was set up, and that is why he acts so
>strangely (even to the point of killing cops) after the assassination.
Actually, he acted quite normal. So normal, that a cop with a gun to his
stomach didn't notice any abnormal or guilty behavior. So abnormal that he
offered his cab to another person.
>If you want to suggest Oz sold the rifle and had no clue he sold the
>weapon that was used in the assassination, than walk me through Oz`s
>actions post assassination up until the time of his arrest.
Read the eyewitness testimony.
>Ignorance
>of his connection to the crime does not seem to fit his later actions.
Only when you are presupposing "actions" that never actually happened.
>And we are going far afield with supposition, there is zero evidence Oz
>sold his rifle to anyone.
Incorrect. There *IS* evidence that he sold his rifle. It's not strong
evidence, in fact, it's quite weak. But it is *NOT* zero.
Why lie?
>> Do you seriously think that everyone who owned a rifle
>> thought that their rifle had been used? If so, why was Frazier's rifle
>> confiscated by the DPD?
>
> Why did the Dallas police say?
Yep.... I thought so... QUACK, QUACK..
>> >is the one a sold to so-and-so earlier,
>> >for exactly the same price I bought it for". Just more stupid shit to
>> >dazzle the idiots.
>>
>> The fact that you can't even put together such ideas is due to your
>> near total ignorance of this case.
>
> The fact that kooks have spent the last 40 years doing nothing but
>shows something much more telling.
Yep... you'd rather be ignorant that knowledgeable - then ding those who think
otherwise.
Stupid, aren't you?
>> >> >> >> >> You don't want to get caught so you are dressed in a
They have been. You're too illiterate to have kept up.
>> >For *that* (a shooter in the
>> >window for minutes afterwards) to have happened would mean that certain
>> >other things would have had to have happened.
>>
>> They did. They are known in the legal community as "eyewitnesses".
>
> The peopel just stood and stared at the assassin for five whole
>minutes?
You just stood there and watched your mother undress???
>I think I could have gone from the street to the 6th floor in
>that amount of time. But these folks stood and gaped like guppies? No
>pictures taken? No detailed descriptions? Nobody shouting "there is the
>killer" to the cops running to and fro looking for just such a person?
>My God, your common sense must still be in it`s original wrapper.
Your stupidity is showing again. I can't seem to recall you answering this
point with Brennan.
Why not, Bud? Cat got your tongue?
>> >Since those other things
>> >didn`t happen (descriptions, photos, shouts of "there he is") didn`t
>> >happen, then "that* (a shooter in the window for minutes afterwards)
>> >could not have happened. Duh.
>>
>> Oh? Can you cite the testimony or evidence for Brennen doing what
>> you assert must have happened?
>
> Brennan doesn`t put the gunman up in the window for 5 minutes after
>the last shot. Or even one. Only "a moment".
"I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion.
Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did
not seem to be in any hurry."
So Brennan *DOES NOT CONTRADICT* other eyewitnesses that also reported the
assassin/s lingering after the last shot.
>> It's *BEYOND DISPUTE* that Brennan claimed to have seen the assassin...
>> did he point and shout "there he is"?
>
> Brennan might have done such a thing, had the gunman lingered more
>than "a moment". Being a prudent man, he dove for cover first.
Your answer then, is "no". Rather contradicts what you said others would do,
doesn't it?
>> Mistaken yet again, aren't you?
>
> How long do you think Brennan put the gunman in the window after
>the shooting?
Probably longer than was possible for the WC scenario.
>> >> >> >> >> So you stay on the
>>>>>>>> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the
>>fifth
>> >> >> >> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
>>>>>> >> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
>> >> >> >> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
>> >> >> >>
>>>>>> >> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the
>>*biggest*
>> >> >> >> obstacle to framing LHO
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
>> >> >> >confronted Oz.
>> >> >>
>>>> >> Are you suggesting that when we accept what the WC says - we are living in
>> >> >> fantasyland?
>> >> >
>> >> > Did the WC claim to have exact times, Ben?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep... they were dealing with *seconds*, not minutes.
>> >
>> > They claimed to have established the exact times, not just
>> >estimates? That just doesn`t seem possible to me.
>>
>>
>> That's a new one! LNT'er CALLS WARREN COMMISSION LIARS!! Spread the news!
>
> I seriously doubt the WC ever made the claim that they had
>established exact timing, and not just estimates.
You don't know *what* the WC said on this issue. Like many others, you are
completely ignorant.
>> >> Feel free to announce
>>>> here to the world that you dispute what the Warren Commission stated in this
>> >> regard.
>> >>
>> >> And then cite the evidence to the contrary.
>> >
>> > When you produce something that motivates me to look into, I will
>> >look into it. What you have is an estimated timeline supplied by the WC
>> >that you are trying to pass off as a carved in stone, super precise
>> >down-to-the-last-second established sequence of events. Try it on your
>> >fellow kooks, they`ll buy it.
>>
>>
>> Yep... unable to cite. Coward, aren't you?
>
> I`ve seen nothing supplied by you from the WC claiming they had
>established an exact, to-the-second sequence of events.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> (My crystal ball is whispering to me again...)
>>
>>
>> And correct, yet again...
>
> Keep telling yourself that.
Don't need to... everyone can see for themselves.
>> >> >> It's not necessary to put Baker there when he *actually* was there...
>> >> >
>> >> > Not only is it not necessary, it`s not possible.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Silly logic, isn't it?
>> >
>> > Yah, logic like "if nobody timed the event, the event was untimed"
>> >is silly. Putting a precise time, within seconds, on any of these
>> >events is impossible. Yet that seems to be your stance.
>> >
>> >> Or rather, a complete *absence* of logic. If you are
>> >> unable to figure out how to put Baker in that building at the end of the
>> >> assassination - it's just one more illustration of your stupidity,
>> >> nothing more.
>> >
>> > Where`d you get that strawboy from? Exactly what second did Baker
>> >enter the TSBD? Exactly how long did he talk with the people within,
>> >how many seconds? How long did he wait at the elevator, exactly? How
>> >much lead time would Oz need to get to the lunchroom before Truly made
>> >the landing, exactly how many seconds would that have required from the
>> >shooting?
>>
>>
>> If you won't take a look at the evidence, what makes you think that
>> I'll take the time to hold your hand?
>
> Thats what I thought. You kooks insinuate that it is possible to
>tell exactly how long it would take Oz to come down, and Baker to go
>up.
If you want to call the WC kooks, feel free.
>And you can do nothing of the sort. You try and pass it off as some
>failing of the WC. Let me try common sense on you one more time, for
>what it`s worth. Untimed events cannot be timed precisely.
Ignorant, aren't you?
>> >> >> the WC
>>>>>> timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is
>>just
>>>> >> that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it was.
>> >> >> (Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
>> >> >
>> >> > Exactlly how many seconds would it take Oz to descend 4 floors of
>> >> >steps?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How long did the WC state the time as?
>> >
>> > Whatever it was was an estimate. The actual time is indeterminable.
>>
>>
>> Yet another example of your ignorance. How was this "estimate" figured out?
>
> If the original event wasn`t timed with a stopwatch, the times can
>be nothing other than estimates. Will you dispute this?
Yep... another illustration of your near total ignorance on this case.
It explains why you're a LNT'er...
>> >> Or how long would it *actually* have taken - considering the actual facts?
>> >>
>> >> Which one is your question?
>> >
>> > Well, you seem to know that Oz couldn`t make it down to that
>> >lunchroom before the arrival of Baker and Truly. I guess that means you
>> >know the exact time Oz would need to make that trip, down to the
>> >second.
>>
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
> I told you these silly timing games only impress other kooks. You
>don`t have precise times. You pretend you do.
I've never stated that *I* had any time at all... the *WARREN COMMISSION*
asserted the times. Coward that you are, you dispute them, but don't have the
balls to make it plain.
>> >> >> >They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
>> >> >> >suggest happened
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh? And what is that?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells and a bag
>> >> >looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Oh? And can you quote ANY STATEMENT OF MINE WHATSOEVER that would
>> >> lead even the stupid to think that I'd ever made any such statement
>> >> or implication?
>> >
>> > "Then the shooters move to another floor... what`s so difficult
>> >about that".
>>
>>
>> My! You *ARE* stupid, aren't you? And a liar, to boot.
>
> You said it, not me. And you are right, it was a stupid thing to
>say.
Even the *stupidest* LNT'er wannabe can see that you were unable to quote me
saying what you attempted to imply I'd said.
When you must lie to support the "truth", it must not really be the truth...
>> >Easy-peasy-japansey. Or did you mean they teleported? If not, they had
>> >to move in a building that had people moving around in it. Or are you a
>> >CT who doesn`t feel the bag and shells were planted? Hard to tell, so
>> >many kooks, so many beliefs.
>>
>>
>> I go by the evidence. One shell was planted. Two shots were fired
>> from the SN window.
>
> And if that window was occupied, they`d just move to an unoccupied
>one, right? Just wander around looking for an openning, whats so hard
>about that?
The last time I said that, you twisted it into something completely different...
liar, aren't you?
>> >> And more importantly, why do you feel it necessary to lie in order to
>> >> support what you believe is the truth?
>> >
>> > I think "necessary" is too strong a word. I could probably post
>> >without lying if I tried.
>>
>>
>> Scared of the truth, aren't you?
>
> <chuckle>
>
>> >> >> >could happen is because each person is a variable
>> >> >> >who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
>>>> >> >things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
>>>> >> >they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
>> >> >> >goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
>> >> >> >planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
>> >> >> >shells, ect).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then the shooters move to another floor... what's difficult about that?
>> >> >
>> >> > Excellent thinking Holmes, roam the building with evidence to plant,
>> >>
>> >> Your thought, not mine. You're a liar to even suggest that I've ever
>> >> implied or stated this.
>> >
>> > Whatever, you still have them moving around with the rifle, correct?
>>
>> Why? Do you imagine that the rifle could not have been previously
>> placed in the building?
>
> You insinuated they could move around with no problem searching for
>a window to shoot from. Nothing to do with how the rifle entered.
Your stupidity is showing again...
>> >Claim it isn`t difficult to move around, right, like there is some
>> >surety you won`t bump into someone?
>>
>> Who cares? With work crews there laying floors, who's to know who's who?
>
> Bing-bing-bing-bing. Crackpot alert. Conspirators now just mingle,
>unbeknownst to the workers.
They *proveably* did. The fingerprint at the SN, for example, that's never been
identified.
So - who's the crackpot?
>> >> >with people going here and there. I suppose they are lugging the rifle
>> >> >along, they do need people saying there were shots from the building.
>> >>
>> >> There *were* shots from the building ... that *is* what the eyewitnesses
>> >> reported. And, interestingly, from *both* sides of the building.
>> >
>> > Where else, Ben? The sewer, Dal-Tek, the limo, what? Coordinated by
>> >radio, or just throwing a fuselage at random? Don`t get me wrong, I
>> >really respect your position...
>>
>>
>> Afraid of the evidence, aren't you?
>>
>>
>> And, more to the point, unable to *rebute* the evidence.
>
> I`d first need to know your beliefs. What shot came from what
>location at what time (z-film frame)?
Nah... all you need to know is the 26 volumes.
And I've giving evidence in these posts all the time that you are unable to
rebute.
>> >> >You know, you may be right, I do rememeber the guys on the fifth floor
>> >> >saying someone came in with a rifle and mumbled something like "sorry
>> >> >guys, didn`t know this area was occupied". You`re slipping Ben, you
>> >> >really are "outting" yourself as a true blue kook here. The true kook
>> >> >believes *they* are omnipotent, capable of anything.
>> >>
>> >> Liar, aren't you?
>> >
>> > I call like I see them. And I see this thinking all the time with CT
>> >kooks. I`ll give you and the lurkers a hint. If you are uaware of this
>> >phenomenon, then you are a kook who indulges in it.
>>
>>
>> When you find it necessary to lie about my position in order to attack
>> it, it's known as the classic "strawman" argument.
>>
>> Since by *YOUR* account, LHO did exactly what you assert could not have
>> been done, your stupidity is illustrated. *NO-ONE* saw him with a rifle,
>> *NO-ONE* saw him on the 6th floor.
>
> Yah, they did. Some even identified him as the person they saw.
Nope. *NO-ONE* identified him as LHO. Brennan, as you well know, *REFUSED* to
identify him.
Lied again, didn't you?
Ah... so you simply lied when you asserted that "I think the only possible fair
rendering of information would be in an adversarial trial setting."
And it's pointless to point out that in the one case where adversarial process
took place, the evidence for conspiracy dramatically increased.
>> >Anything else doesn`t even remotely quack like that duck. Again, most
>> >people thought OJ was guilty, yet he was found innocent. Two points
>> >about that. One, not many of the people watched every minute of the
>> >trial like the jury was compelled to do, so they weren`t drawing an as
>> >informed opinion as the jury. And there was a lot of information that
>> >played on television that was inadmissible in court. The home viewers
>> >even saw things that occurred when the jury was taken out of court, and
>> >legal issues were debated, ect. So, my point is that polls don`t mean
>> >jack shit, you need to have 12 people hear both sides and decide.
>> >These polls you take solace in are just a shadow of the real thing.
>>
>> You see? Once again, you imply that if only people *knew* the facts,
>> they'd all be LNT'ers...
>
> I think a trial-type consideration of the facts of the case would
>throw out the vast bulk of gobbilygook spouted by CT here.
"gobbilygook" that you can never seem to refute when *I* list it here. Why is
that, Bud?
>I think a
>trial would definately favor an LN finding, by weeding out the crap you
>kooks bandy about.
Actually, a trial would *drastically* cut down on what evidence there is on the
LN'ers side. That you don't understand this shows your grasp of the evidence.
>What the WC considered was trial type format,
Completely untrue... of course.
>the
>stuff of kooks would largely be disallowed. Even you`re favorite piece
>of evidence, the AP x-ray would be near useless for presenting what you
>think it shows. How do you get your speculation about what this
>evidence means to the jury`s ears? I think most of the CT`s favorite
>talking points would be inadmissable, which might help Oz some.
The AP X-ray is proof of *government* tampering with the evidence, since no-one
else had control over those X-rays.
You refer to what I "think it shows", yet you can't refute the facts when I
present them... coward, aren't you?
>> But, as anyone can see, I know far more of the facts in this case than
>> you do, and *I'm* not a LNT'er.
>
> Your lack of reasoning skills make any knowlege you have useless.
Quod erat demonstrandum...
>> >You, Ben, have not even heard a prosecution presenting this case, the
>> >WC was nothing like.
>>
>> Actually, it was. It dealt with this case *exactly* as a prosecution.
>> You can even see in the WCR, where they presented their summary argument
>> *before* they presented their findings.
>
> That was nothing like trial presentation would be.
That's *EXACTLY* what a trial presentation is.
>No real trial
>strategy.
Nothing but.
>This case, had it went to trial might have been won at jury
>selection. A lot more dynamics to a trial than the WC investigation
>was.
Blind, aren't you?
>> >The WC was "these are things that indicate to us that Oswald committed
>> >these crimes".
>>
>>
>> As you are surely aware, they never *looked* at any other suspect.
>
> It wasn`t quantity, it was quality. Oz had evidence that indicated
>his guilt because Oz was guilty.
Of *course* he was... that's why the WC felt it necessary to bury, hide, and get
rid of any contrary evidence.
But when you need to lie to support the truth, you'd better take another look at
what you think is the "truth".
Real truth doesn't need lies to support it.
>> >Being a free country, people can agree or disagree. But
>> >the number of people that do either is no indication of how this case
>> >would have played out in a court of law. I suspect it would be a slam
>> >dunk for the prosecution, mainly because of the lies Oz told. The
>> >police are going to get up and say Oz told them these things, like not
>> >owning a rifle.
>>
>> LOL!! LHO couldn't be allowed to live to present his side.
>
> Apparenly Ruby felt that way.
No, those who ordered him felt that way...
>> So he was murdered in the middle of a crowd of policemen.
>
> He sure as hell was.
>
>> >I think it would be a hard sell to convince people that
>> >these cops were lying.
>>
>> Not hard at all. In fact, we know that some of them were.
>
> Well, easy enough to say. Forty plus years ago I`d think you`d need
>some strongly compelling reason to disregard the testimony of the cops
>that interrogated Oz.
Forty years ago people still believed that the FBI was lily white.
>I think it would be easier for them to see Oz`s
>motivations for lying than the cops.
You think it would be easier for *WHO* to see Oz's motivations for lying?
Presumably you're talking about the DPD. Blind, aren't you?
>> >That leaves them with Oz lying, with no possible
>> >reason than guilt being the explaination.
>>
>>
>> Interestingly, voice stress analysis of his "I'm just a patsy" shows
>> him to be telling the truth. Rather shocked the examiner...
>
> Well, thats the kind of thing you put stock in when you have nothing
>better.
No, I have *MUCH* better. So much better in fact, that you run away from it
when I mention it.
Things such as the tests done at Oak Ridge.
Or the AP X-ray.
Or the eyewitness accounts.
>Like jiggle analysis. I`m curious as to what they compared his voice
>to, though.
>I think you need a sample of the subject telling the truth, where did
>Oz do this?
Once again, you illustrate your near total ignorance of the topic.
>> >Thats how I see it going, I
>> >can`t envision it going any other way.
>>
>> Lack of knowledge... nothing more.
>
> I guess I just don`t read enough crackpot conspiracy books.
I've very rarely ever referred you to anything other than the 26 volumes.
But those frighten you too much to read.
>> >The shit that gets played here
>> >in newsgroups just wouldn`t play well in a court of law.
>>
>>
>> Such as hearsay? Or testimony by the defendent's wife under duress?
>
> If you have something to say, say it. I made some comments about the
>legal status of Marina`s testimony which you left uncommented on.
No, I TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE FLAT WRONG!
Try to avoid telling lies, Bud - there's too many of them to count already.
>Why bring it up here?
Because you couldn't rebute it. Why else? It's a *fact* that you have to deal
with.
>And I can see a defense attorney being concerned that a wife blurted
>damaging information about his client,
Why would he be concerned? Most defense attorneys would *welcome* such an
event. For it would not be allowed, the judge would probably be forced to grant
a retrial, and defendents are not found guilty in retrials at the rate that they
are in original trials... witnesses lose their memory, details get stale.
>but I can`t imagine someone
>looking for the truth in this matter being so concerned.
But you *AREN'T* looking for the truth, are you? If you were, you'd tell
everyone here how her testimony was taken.
>I would think you would welcome the insight from the person closest
>a person not many were close to.
LOL!!! Tell us about the bathroom door lock, Bud.
>> >> Must really bug you that so few people believe in the silly theory
>> >> put forth by the WC.
>> >
>> > I didn`t even read down here.
>>
>> And yet, you somehow manage to respond... psychic, are you?
>
> My previous comments did pertain to these unread passages you wrote,
>so I guess I am.
>
>> >You are hung up on the WC,
>>
>>
>> They *did* compile the evidence, such as it is.
>
> Read only what the Dallas police compiled. Less is more.
Facts to a LNT'er are like Kryptonite to Superman...
>> You'd prefer to simply assert
>> that LHO did it, without bothering to *read* the evidence, right?
>
> I haven`t seen anyone explain Oz`s actions in any manner other than
>guilt.
For if someone does, you merely close your eyes.
I've done so right in *THIS* post. Tell everyone here how a man who just
finished shooting the President just 90 seconds before, and ran down four
flights of stairs, manages to look totally unconcerned, guilt-free, and not
breathing heavily when a pistol is stuck in his stomach, and a cop is staring
him in the face...
>To say that he just happened to bring a long paper package into
>work is weak.
People do that every day of the week, moron.
>To say he just happened to leave work right after the
>assassination is weak.
You mean like the others?
>Why did Oz have the cab driver drive past the
>boardinghouse before getting out?
Didn't happen.
>Lots of things like these leave only
>one inescapable conclusion. Oz sold the rifle before the assassination,
>was never a communist, and had an evil twin who killed Tippit.
When you are forced to lie to support the "truth", you need to look at your
"truth" a little more...
>> >the polls.
>>
>> Minority, aren't you?
>
> Aren`t we all, in one way or another? Being in the minority that is
>correct on an issue isn`t a source of concern to me.
It was enough to make a big issue of it.
>> >Neither mean a fiddlers fuck to me.
>>
>>
>> That the polls mean nothing matters not at all... but that you believe
>> that the WC doesn't matter, along with the evidence they put into the
>> 26 volumes, speaks loudly about your character.
>
> Now it`s a character issue. Whatever Ben. The WC is your punching
>bag in this case, beat the crap out of that cow. What Oz did makes Oz
>look guilty.
When you don't know what Oz did, it makes *YOU* look ignorant.
>> >Oz`s actions prove Oz was guilty.
>>
>>
>> Oh? And which action was that?
>
> Actions. Plural. Walk me through his actions post assassination to
>his arrest. Make some sense out of them for me.
Oh? And which actionS were those?
Bud
<guffaw> I wrote a definition for "alibi" off the top of my head.It
may not have ben the exact definition, but I`d imagine it was what
about 99% of the sicessful alibi defenses involved, another person
seeing the suspect in a place that makes committing the crime in
question impossible. I don`t suppose just *saying* that you were
somewhere else works very much for alibis. Be that as it may, in my
very next post, I moved off that definition, and supplied 3 verbatum
legal definitions. I challenged you to apply any of these, or any you
could find, which would apply to Oz in this case. You know you can`t,
so you want to keep attention focused on an issue that is resolved.
Extremely cowardly.
> You *lied* about the topic. You're ducking and weaseling right now, and I'm
> merely going to keep the subject on-topic.
You just can`t apply the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case, know you
can`t, and
are trying a bit of misdirection to draw attention from the fact that
you can`t.
> >In what way does the legal term
> >"alibi" apply in Oz`s case at all?
>
>
> Another illustration of your ignorance of the meaning of the term.
Another cowardly duck. Show me wrong, explain how the term applies.
Instead of continueing to claim the term applies, show how it does.
Show where Oz used one.
> >> >> >So, who saw Oz in a place that makes committing the assassination
> >> >> >impossible?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> So, who saw LHO in a place that makes committing the assassination possible?
> >> >>
> >> >> At a *TIME* that made it possible?
> >> >
> >> > Trees fall in the woods without anyone seeing them. Are all murders
> >> >witnessed (other than the murderer, of course)?
> >>
> >>
> >> It was *YOU* who is asking for an eyewitness - why back out?
> >
> > No need to, In what way could Oz have an alibi that didn`t include a
> >eyewitness placing him in a place and time that would make his guilt in
> >the assassination impossible?
>
>
> Only a rather severe misunderstanding of the term "alibi" could allow you to ask
> such a question.
<chuckle> Only a wide yellow streak would lead you to sidestep it.
Don`t criticise the questions, dazzle me by answering them.
> Once again, try doing some basic research. You're looking more and more stupid
> here.
>
> Alibi's don't require an eyewitness... try repeating that a dozen times or so.
Again, claiming I`m wrong doesn`t mean a whole lot. Show me to be
wrong. Apply the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case. I`ve challenged you
to do this several times now. Instead of claiming to be the only person
in this discussion that knows what the term means, prove it.
> >>>> >> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi."
> >> >> >> Since you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are
> >> >> >> perfectly aware that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an
> >> >> >> alibi, you lied.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It`s not an alibi, kook.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As you've just illustrated above, you don't even know what the word means.
> >> >
> >> > I looked it up on a couple sites. It`s still not an alibi, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> Come on, Bud, you can admit it.
> >
> > I always can. You seem to have great difficulty.
>
>
> Then do so. Let all the lurkers know that you *lied* in your assertion
> concerning LHO and the "suggestion" of an alibi.
Instead of claiming I lied, why don`t you just produce this
suggestion of an alibi? The fact is, Oz could have claimed to have been
standing next to Truly out front as an alibi. It may have been an
unsucessful alibi, but he did have the right to present that as a legal
defense. And the other fact is, the legal term "alibi" doesn`t apply in
this case, because it didn`t get to the point where it would apply. Ben
knows this, so he is going into this diversionary mode
instead of adressing how the term applies in Oz`s case.
> >> You were mistaken about the meaning of the word, weren't you?
> >
> > I got no problem with that. I was working from memory of a
> >definition I had read on the other board about a year ago. And it
> >*still* doesn`t apply to Oz, kook.
>
> Sure it does. You evidently *still* haven't figured it out.
Correct me, Perry Mason. Tell us all how the legal term applies in
Oz`s case.
I say it doesn`t, and have explained why. You seem to claim it does,
hard to tell when you re so frightened you can only say claim i`m
wrong. Apply this legal defense to Oz`s case, coward.
> >> And you can admit that you lied when you commented that LHO didn't
> >> have even a suggestion of an alibi.
> >
> > Of course I admitted no such thing, but how else could your brain
> >process such information? By definition, Oz didn`t have an alibi
> >because he never claimed one.
>
>
> Your continued ignorance concerning the term is amusing... Stupid, aren't you?
Well, you certainly aren`t offering anything to make me appear that
way. I can get devastating rebuttal like "you`re stupid" in any
schoolyard.
> >> When you can admit it, then the conversation can continue.
> >
> > Fuck you and your conditions. My spanking must be leaving welts for
> >you to look for such a cowardly way out.
>
>
> What "spanking"?
Try sitting.
> You are ignorant of the facts, you deny what's right in front of your face, and
> you make rather stupid mistakes in legal terminology.
I supplied 3 legal definitions. I applied them to Oz`s case, and
pointed out why they don`t apply. Your turn.
> >> >> Don't you think that it's just a tad kooky to argue about a word that
> >> >> you don't even know the legal definition of?
> >> >
> >> > I was working off a definition supplied by someone over on the other
> >> >assassination board last year. It probably wasn`t the best one.
> >>
> >>
> >> It was *wrong*... come on, Bud, say it with me: "The definition for
> >> 'alibi' that Bud used is incorrect"... say it again, Bud... perhaps
> >> repetition will get it through your head.
> >
> > It was largely incorrect.
>
> Good. The first step towards rehabilitation is the admission that you need
> help.
Well, lets put all put all the cards on the table, let the lurkers
see through the smokescreen you are creating. I originally said ""I
believe it is a witness who saw a possible suspect in a place that
makes committing the crime impossible". Now, since that was of the top
of my head, and my belief, it can`t be a lie (and consequentlly anyone
calling it a lie a liar). In the next post you challenged me to look up
the word. I did, and I found my definition in error (and haven`t since
pressed my original definition as correct), and also discovered that
the term didn`t apply in Oz`s case at all. In an attempt to keep all
focus on my mistaken belief, instead of addressing how the term does
apply to the case in hand, Ben has now opted to go into this song and
dance diversionary tactic. I guess I just have to wait until he tires
of this dance and the fear subsides, so we can continue.
> >A person who sees a person suspected of a
> >crime in a place that makes the committing of that crime impossible is
> >an "alibi witness". It doesn`t seem they are always necessary for an
> >alibi, but I`d think they are what is used in the vast bulk of cases.
> >Maybe video tape sometimes, or evidence presented that the person was
> >out of the country when a crime was committed might be used in an alibi
> >defense. But in Oz`s case, I think he`d need a witness putting him in a
> >place were it made it impossible for him to be the assassin before he`d
> >have anything resembling an alibi.
>
>
> Why would LHO have to have something that no-one else has ever been required to
> have?
I was mentioning generally what I expect sucessful alibis to have,
some kind of corroboration. Oz never presented an alibi as a defense.
You know it, so you refuse to discuss it. Pretty yellow.
> Say it with me, Bud: "Eyewitnesses are not a necessary component to an alibi".
>
> Repeat until it sinks in.
Yes, see I moved off of that a while ago, are you ready to proceed
yet? Corroboration of another person is extremely useful in
establishing an alibi. Without it, or some other corroborating evidence
to establish a person`s whereabouts at a particular time is extremely
difficult. Oswald could claim to have been anywhere on the planet as an
alibi. For it to be sucessful, he would probably need a little more
than just saying he was elsewhere.
> >> >Here are two short and sweet legal definitions I just located...
> >> >
> >> > The first one is from Legal-Explainations.com..
> >> >
> >> > Alibi- Proof offered by one accused of a crime that they were in a
> >> >different place from that where the crime was committed.
> >>
> >> Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and persons,
> >> that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he's
> >> accused of.
>
>
> WHAT!!!? No rebuttal, oh stupid one?
Missed it, or I would have. I addressed it elsewhere anyway, here or
the other post under this topic. For starters, let me say that anyone
can claim anything as an alibi. The fact is that Oz claimed no alibi,
not in the legal sense. As far as your example, how does decribing a
scene prove a person was
at a scene? I was watching the Phillies game on TV, I can describe the
place, persons, timing of events, who hit what when. My sister went
crabbing last weekend, she told me who went, what they did at different
times. In neither place would I have much hope of establishing my
presense without someone at either place saying they saw me there. Yes,
I could claim either place as a legal defense if I was accused of a
crime during these times. But in order for it to have a chance of
succeeding, I better have a person saying I was there.
> >> > You can see how this doesn`t apply to Oz, as you pointed out, there
> >> >exists no testimony from Oz, therefore we can have no proof offered.
> >>
> >>
> >> Stupid, aren't you?
> >
> > <chuckle> Is that it. Is that your refutation? It is my claim that
> >the legal term "alibi" does not apply in this case.
>
> You *still* haven't figured out what the term means...
Instead of claiming it applies in Oz`s case, show how it does. Stop
the wimpy dance or stop responding, you make yourself look foolish with
all these evasions. Maybe you don`t mind looking foolish...
> >Seems a simple
> >concept to refute if it is as stupid as you claim.
>
> Your continued ignorance of the meaning of the word *is* the refutation.
Sure is easy to make claims. Applying the term to Oz`s would be
actual refutation. You can`t, so you skirt the issue entirely, then
blame me for your cowardice.
> >> > And this one, from Laborlaw.com...
> >> >
> >> > The alibi, a term in jurisprudence, is a form of legal defense in
> >> >which a defendant argues that they were engaged in some other activity
> >> >such that they could not possibly have committed the crime in question.
> >>
> >> Such as eating lunch and describing the only two other people who were
> >> there... that sort of thing?
> >
> > Whoa, you said we have nothing from Oz. What exactly did he say,
> >right? And, you have no idea whether he would have stuck to that story
> >as an attempt at a legal defense.
>
> He described something that he would be required to be psychic to know - he
> doesn't have to "stick" to that "story".
Did he present this as a legal defense? Would he have used that come
trial? You haven`t a clue, he may have claimed to be out front as an
alibi. Maybe claimed to be Billy Lovelady in that picture. You don`t
know what legal alibi Oz would choose, because it had not reached the
point where one would need to be chosen. It is meaningless that you and
the other kooks chose alibis for Oz.
> Getting desperate, Bud?
Not at all, I`m more than willing to present reasons why the legal
term "alibi" doesn`t apply in Oz`s case. You havn`t touched why it does
apply. Since you have only skirted the issue, and not addressed it,
explains why I`ve buried you in this discussion.
> >It is not, by legal definition, an
> >alibi. Kook.
>
>
> Still don't understand the term, do you?
So you`ve claimed a dozen times. And offered nothing but claims to
back it up. Your next claim to be the lurkers understand. I understand
also. You won`t touch it because you don`t have a leg to stand on.
> >> Of course.
> >>
> >> > As you can see, this also couldn`t apply in Oz`s case, as he never
> >> >invoked a legal defense.
> >>
> >> Stupid, aren't you?
> >
> > It`s not rebuttal unless you adress what I said. What I did was
> >apply the legal definition of "alibi" to Oz`s case. In what way did I
> >misuse the term?
>
>
> You still don't understand what "alibi" means. That's all the rebuttal needed.
Well, that seems to be all you got, anyway. I bring the lega
definitions of "alibi", and show how they don`t apply in Oz`s case, you
cry "wrong, wrong, wrong". It smacks of weakness to me, I think I will
press my advantage.
> >> > Perhaps you can supply a definition of "alibi" that could apply in
> >> >Oz`s case...
> >>
> >>
> >> You've done quite well. It's too bad that you couldn't have done this
> >> homework before you spout falsehoods.
> >
> > Always stuck in the past, aren`t you? Why not get up to speed and
> >explain how the legal definition of "alibi" applies in Oz`s case?
>
>
> Why not attempt to assert why it doesn't? It's *YOUR* claim, after all, that
> LHO didn't have a "suggestion" of an alibi.
What was it, then? Oz made no legal alibi, therefore he had no
alibi. Kooks would like to give him one, but that isn`t how it works.
> >> >> >That is the point,
> >> >>
> >>>> A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that requires
> >> >> another person for an alibi?
> >> >
> >> > No, not as a requirement. It sure does help, though.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you can't. *YOUR* definition was simply wrong.
> >
> > But I was correct in saying Oz did not have an alibi.
>
>
> That is not what you said. Why bother to lie, Bud?
You`re now claiming I never said that Oz didn`t have an alibi?
> >> >> >not whether it is "a rather solid bit of evidence for
> >> >> >an alibi", whatever the fuck that means in Benspeak.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm perfectly content with the legal definition of the term. And by
> >> >> the legal definition, LHO certainly had more than a "suggestion" of
> >> >> an alibi.
> >> >
> >> > Not that I found. Give one that applies to Oz`s case. I am only
> >> >aware of one second-hand attributed alibi offered by Oz as having lunch
> >> >with the colored guys he worked with. They did not corroborate this
> >> >event. As Shelley did not corroborate his being out front.
> >>
> >>
> >> Stupid, aren't you?
> >>
> >> You can lead a horse to water...
> >
> > Is this as much as you can muster? Calling points you can`t counter
> >"stupid"? What will the lurkers think?
>
>
> Many of the lurkers probably know enough about this case to be enjoying a good
> laugh at your expense right now, Bud.
I`m sure they`re enjoying the chicken dance you`re performing,
> >> >> It certainly can be described as "a rather solid bit of evidence for
> >> >> an alibi". But since you don't even know what the word means, we'll
> >> >> just have to skip that discussion...
> >> >
> >> > I will await you supplying a legal definition of "alibi" that
> >> >applies in Oz`s case. Here is the definition someone supplied over at
> >> >the other assassination board, and it also does not apply in Oz`s
> >> >case...
> >> >
> >> > "ALIBI"... a "lack of presence" defense. It is a defense that places
> >> >the defendant at the relevant time of the crime in a different place
> >> >than the scene involved and so removed from the scene as to render it
> >> >impossible for him to be the guilty party. The defendant need not prove
> >> >that he was elsewhere when the crime happened, he need only notify the
> >> >Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi (along with his list of
> >> >alibi witnesses). Ultimately, the Prosecutor must
> >> >prove beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant was present.
> >>
> >> Yep... LHO did indeed supply an alibi -
> >
> > What was it? Who did he supply it to? Why not just spill it instead
> >of having me ask, that way I could refute it now instead of next post?
>
>
> Already have... you didn't answer then, why would you ask me to keep repeating
> it?
Great, Ben has now entered phase two of cowardly evasion. Claimed
to have answered, and I just haven`t pieced it together from his hints
and innuendo.
> Try rereading this post...
Now it`s an Easter egg hunt. Truth is, Oz offered no legal alibi.
Truth is, you know it. Truth is you will continue to duck it instead of
addressing it. I`m sure the lurjers can compare. You have a problem
with definition of "alibi" I ofered off the top of my head, I address
it, discuss it, amend it if necessary. You`re whipped, so you claim the
high ground, and say all questions are beneath you. It`s still evasion,
even if it`s on the high ground.
> But first, spend a little time acquainting yourself with the meaning of the term
> "alibi".
>
> Try to understand what would constitute one.
<heehee> Wahl, you wouldn`t want to be caught discussing issues like
a mere mortal, would you? Just stick to making claims, you won`t expose
as many of your weaknesses that way.
> >> one that is reasonably strong. And
> >> *no-one* has been able to place him at the scene of the crime at the
> >> time of the crime.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with an alibi either.
>
>
> Of course not. It has EVERYTHING to do with your statement that this is in
> response to.
>
>
> Is this the best you can do, Bud?
Whats that, applying the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case. Yes, I can
do that. I have done that. You haven`t done anything to refute it, mere
label it "wrong".
Excellent, I like.
> >> > You see the problem, Oz never alerted the Prosecutor that he was
> >> >opting to present an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Rather stupid of you, isn't it? You *still* don't understand the concept of
> >> "alibi"...
> >
> > You don`t, even after I supplied three definitions. You are stuck
> >parroting "stupid" instead of rebutting the points I made.
>
>
> None of your definitions requires an eyewitness, none of your definitions
> requires the assertion of the defendent for an alibi to exist.
And of course you are stuck cowardly attacking a point I moved off
of a number of posts ago, that eyewitnesses are required. Now you are
stuck with the Marsh-like tactic of bogging down the conversation
because you realize the term "alibi" doesn`t apply in Oz`s case because
of the reasons I`ve outlined. BTW, the definition I produce say that it
is the accused who decided on an alibi defense, and what that will
include. They don`t say "kooks".
> LHO did *indeed* have a "suggestion" of an alibi, and nothing you can say will
> get you out of that lie.
He presented no alibi that he expressed an intention to use in
court. If he did, say what it was, coward.
> >> There is *NO* legal requirement for the defendent to "alert the
> >> prosecutor" for an alibi to exist.
> >>
> >> Nor can you *name* the "prosecutor" in LHO's "trial".
> >
> > Ah, you catch the drift. An "alibi" is the term for a legal defense,
> >to be used strictly in a court of law.
>
> No, it is not. I find the term in ordinary dictionaries, it's widely used and
> understood.
For those who don`t know what just happened, Ben now wants to move
off of how this term is used in legal matters on to a more general
usage of the word.
> >So, what was missing to have the
> >term "alibi" apply? When Oz sat with his lawyer, and decided what his
> >courtroom strategy would be, none of those things you consider "alibis"
> >may have been offered as part of Oz`s defense. Oz offered no "alibi",
> >in the legal sense.
>
> Yep... he absolutely did. Stupid, aren't you?
>
>
> >You`ll see kooks in newsgroups try and foist them
> >on him all the time. That doesn`t mean Oz would have used any of them.
>
>
> An alibi does not need to be asserted by the defendent to exist.
If you are going to use your absense at the scene of the crime as a
legal defense you do.
> When are you
> going to stop looking so stupid?
Who selects "alibis"? Anyone? Had this gone to trial, could I phone
in what alibi Oz would use in court? I think it is selected some way,
possibly by the person being charged with the crime, not kooks in
newsgroups.
This is getting long (and repetitious), I`m snipping here, maybe
continue later, maybe not.
<SNIP>
Bud
<SNIP>
Picked up from an earlier response, around here somewhere.
> >So, what was missing to have the
> >term "alibi" apply? When Oz sat with his lawyer, and decided what his
> >courtroom strategy would be, none of those things you consider "alibis"
> >may have been offered as part of Oz`s defense. Oz offered no "alibi",
> >in the legal sense.
>
> Yep... he absolutely did. Stupid, aren't you?
You declare we have nothing from Oz`s own mouth, how can we have an
alibi given by him? State here what you think the alibi is that Oz
gave. You won`t, being a coward, and knowing it isn`t an alibi.
> >You`ll see kooks in newsgroups try and foist them
> >on him all the time. That doesn`t mean Oz would have used any of them.
>
>
> An alibi does not need to be asserted by the defendent to exist. When are you
> going to stop looking so stupid?
Oz could claim to have been in Paris when this went to trial. He
could steadfastly maintain that all through the trial. Who chooses what
a person`s alibi will be? Is it something just magically and
psychically known? Someone must give voice to this concept, I`m pretty
sure it isn`t kooks in newsgroups.
> >> >> >> It's as simple as that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There may be some newbie lurkers out here, try not expose yourself
> >> >> >as an asshole with everything you say.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you think you should take the time to learn what the legal
> >> >> term "alibi" means first?
> >> >
> >> > Just did, it appears I was slightly mistaken on it`s meaning.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Slightly"???
> >>
> >> You were wrong. It's that simple. And you are CONTINUING to
> >> misunderstand the concept, as illustrated above.
> >
> > As do you, by ignoring my points shows you to be unable to refute my
> >reading of the definitions.
>
>
> LOL!! I've been doing nothing else!
Yah, right. Tell you what, I produced three legal definitions of
"alibi", and
explained why none of them apply in Oz`s case. Why don`t you produce
one legal definition of the term "alibi" and apply it to what you think
Oz`s alibi was, and show how it appies. My crystal ball is telling me
you won`t, though.
> >> >It also appears the word doesn`t apply in the manner you`ve been using it
> >> >either. It *still* isn`t an alibi, kook.
> >>
> >> So you believe... but then again, *you* believe that there was a legal
> >> necessity to "alert the prosecutor" before an alibi exists.
> >
> > Yah, I believe that is true that when a defendant wishes to invoke
> >an alibi, he would have to alert the prosecutor of that intent, so that
> >the prosecutor could look into the merits of it.
>
> Then once again, you are wrong. An alibi can exist independently of this set of
> circumstances.
>
> I defy you to produce any authoritative citation that requires the defendent to
> notify the prosecutor before an "alibi" exists
Well, I`ve tried my hand at it, and you claim I failed miserably.
Instead of just continuing to contest my application of the term, why
not try a hand at it yourself? Produce a definition of alibi, produce
Oz`s alibi, and show how one applies to the other. The simple fact is,
we don`t know what Oz`s alibi would have been, although you claim to
know it, despite also claiming we have nothing from Oz.
> >To give an example
> >that others will get and you will totally miss, lets say a guy commits
> >a murder. Later, he overhears a conversation of an auto accident
> >between a cab and a fire truck that occured at the same time as the
> >murder he committed, but many miles away. If taken to court for the
> >murder, he couldn`t just withhold this "alibi", and spring it on the
> >prosecutor on the stand ("I can`t be the murderer, I was at that
> >accident"), because it wouldn`t give the prosecutor a chance to
> >investigate the merits of the claim.
>
> Actually, that's *exactly* what he can do. You seem to be rather mixed up - the
> *prosecutor* must share his evidence and eyewitness list to the defense, the
> defense is under *NO* legal requirement to do the same. Try looking up "full
> disclosure"
You think the defense is under no obligation to make the court aware
of the legal defenses they intend to employ? You think the defense can
wait until the closing arguments, produce someone who is the spitting
image of the suspect and say "by the way, this is the person who really
did the crime", or "by the way, here is a picture of the suspect in
Paris, holding a Paris newspaper of that day, so he couldn`t have been
the perpitrator."? There are rules the defense must play by also, it
isn`t only the prosecution that must.
> Once again, you've illustrated your mind-boggling ignorance of the American
> jurisprudence system.
When you are finished with all this misdirection, perhaps you can
find the time to produce the alibi Oz was going to use.
> >But, if you wish to skip these
> >hypotheticals,
>
> Oh, NO!! Give some more examples that illustrate your stupidity, Bud!
I`ve been asking you to get down to brass tacks for some time now.
What did Oz claim as an alibi?
> >present what you believe to be Oz presenting an alibi,
> >and we can discuss that.
>
> Already given.
By you, but not by Oz. The opinions of kooks in newgroups of what
Oz would have used as an alibi is fairly meaningless.
> >> >> My crystal ball is telling me that you won't be able to provide a
> >> >> citation that matches your silly definition.
> >> >
> >> > Only looked at the first couple hits. Seems anything can be
> >> >*claimed* as an alibi, by the person in question.
> >>
> >>
> >> My crystal ball was correct, yet again. You *couldn't* provide any
> >> citation for your silly mistaken belief of what "alibi" means.
> >
> > You`ve yet to offer an alibi that Oz claimed for himself.
>
> Done several times.
Humor me, do it again here. Shake the fear that grips you, be a man,
and state the alibi Oz claimed right here.
> My crystal ball was correct, yet again.
Yet we have nothing from Oz himself claiming an alibi. You point
out yourself our lack of any firsthand statements by him. Did Oz convey
this alibi to you by telepathy?
Tell me Ben, exactly how much money did Oz have on him when he left
for work that morning? You can`t even establish the necessary step one,
yet you proceed down that path anyway. CT are never ones to let the
lack of key information get in the way of speculation.
> >> >> The fact that you couldn't figure this out merely illustrates once
> >> >> again your near total ignorance of the facts in this case.
> >> >
> >> > I just looked at the Klein ad, I think the price Oz paid was 19.95
> >> >(99?), and after tax, it came to 21-something.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why don't you bother to research something before you shout your
> >> ignorance to the world?
> >
> > It`s your kooky shit.
>
>
> No, you just asserted a fact - a fact that can be checked.
Yah, the fact I asserted was that I think the price Oz paid was
either 19.99 or 19.95 for the rifle, and after taxes, the total was
21-something. And guess what, it remains a fact as it is still what I
believe.
> You didn't bother to
> check, and once again, you're wrong.
So you say.
> Why don't you bother to research something before you shout your ignorance to
> the world?
I told you, because it`s your kooky shit. As far as i`m concerned,
nothing has been shown to connect the price of the rifle to the amount
of money Oz was carrying that day.
> >You present it, or cryptically hint that there
> >is deeper meaning, or whatever the fuck you want. This is the kind of
> >things kooks bandy about, that does nothing but impress other kooks.
>
>
> Ignorant, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> >Is that what Oz was
> >> >carrying 21-something? Remember, he took a bus and a cab. Well, anyway,
> >> >this is the stuff that intrigues kooks. But, if Oz did bring in the
> >> >rifle, why tell Frazier it was curtain rods? Why lie to the cops about
> >> >it, say he never owned a rifle,
> >>
> >>
> >> Quote his testimony to this effect.
> >
> > Read what the witnesses to his statements said. Or ignore the
> >witnesses, while claiming you don`t.
>
>
> Yep... I thought you wouldn't be able to.
Why do you ignore the witnesses to Oz`s statements?
> >> >even after they showed him a picture of
> >> >him holding it? As usual, your speculation doesn`t make sense no matter
> >> >how you view it, Oz`s actions at no time can be explained as a guy who
> >> >sold a rifle, and that rifle was used to kill someone.
> >>
> >> Oh? And your evidence is what???
> >
> > Thank you for that illustration of your lack of common sense and
> >reasoning ability.
>
>
> Oh? Common sense and reasoning ability forbid LHO from selling a rifle?
Or a goat. And we have no evidence Oz sold a goat that day either.
You can imagine that Oz sold the rifle because Oz had money in his
pocket when arrested, and money is sometimes acquired when you sell
something. Stellar.
> Does this work with other people too? What's going to happen when the gun show
> hears about this?
What about when people who carry money find out they sold rifles?
> >> >The normal
> >> >reaction in such an instance is to go to the cops and say "Hey, I think
> >> >the rifle used to kill that guy
> >>
> >> How would he know?
> >
> > I think he knew because he was the shooter.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! So the guilty person goes up to a cop, and announces that the
> weapon he just used to murder someone "might have been used to kill someone"!
No, Oz didn`t do that at all, he fled the scene of the crime.
> Your logic is amazingly silly!!
I like it.
> >But you seem, in your
> >usual dribs and drabs manner to suggest that Oz sold his rifle to
> >person unknown, and said person used it to commit this crime.
>
> That the facts will support a scenario such as this is beyond your ken - you
> don't even know how much LHO paid for the rifle, or how much money he had with
> him that day.
Nor am I aware of any connection either of these things have to
whether he shot JFK. Are you?
> >Maybe I
> >am rushing this fairy tale, but I`ve sat through this before, and it
> >usually leads to Oz knowing he was set up, and that is why he acts so
> >strangely (even to the point of killing cops) after the assassination.
>
> Actually, he acted quite normal. So normal, that a cop with a gun to his
> stomach didn't notice any abnormal or guilty behavior.
Wouldn`t it be nice to be able to tell a murderer by looking at
him.
> So abnormal that he
> offered his cab to another person.
The cab driver Whaley told Oz to tell the woman to wait for the next
cab. It wasn`t Oz who offered it.
> >If you want to suggest Oz sold the rifle and had no clue he sold the
> >weapon that was used in the assassination, than walk me through Oz`s
> >actions post assassination up until the time of his arrest.
>
> Read the eyewitness testimony.
I did. Thats how I determined he was guilty. Witnesses say he shot a
cop. Witnesses say he tried to kill them.
> >Ignorance
> >of his connection to the crime does not seem to fit his later actions.
>
> Only when you are presupposing "actions" that never actually happened.
Typical CT denial. Who was this guy all the witnesses say was doing
all these things?
> >And we are going far afield with supposition, there is zero evidence Oz
> >sold his rifle to anyone.
>
> Incorrect. There *IS* evidence that he sold his rifle. It's not strong
> evidence, in fact, it's quite weak. But it is *NOT* zero.
>
> Why lie?
Didn`t. It is zip. It is zilch. It is nada. It is zero. It wouldn`t
even be able to be suggested in a court of law. Not only that, but it
is devoid of reasoning and common sense, a much better standard for
such things, when one has these things to apply.
> >> Do you seriously think that everyone who owned a rifle
> >> thought that their rifle had been used? If so, why was Frazier's rifle
> >> confiscated by the DPD?
> >
> > Why did the Dallas police say?
>
> Yep.... I thought so... QUACK, QUACK..
They didn`t say what motivted them? I can only guess, you can
suppose, I suppose.
> >> >is the one a sold to so-and-so earlier,
> >> >for exactly the same price I bought it for". Just more stupid shit to
> >> >dazzle the idiots.
> >>
> >> The fact that you can't even put together such ideas is due to your
> >> near total ignorance of this case.
> >
> > The fact that kooks have spent the last 40 years doing nothing but
> >shows something much more telling.
>
>
> Yep... you'd rather be ignorant that knowledgeable - then ding those who think
> otherwise.
I ding your thinking because your thinking is fucked up.
> Stupid, aren't you?
So you keep saying. Doesn`t say much for you, though.
Hmmm, seems kooks would be touting these non-Oz descriptions if
they existed. I`ve been around here a few years now, don`t remember a
kook ever bringing them up. Until some kook does, I`ll continue to
assume no such thing exists.
> >> >For *that* (a shooter in the
> >> >window for minutes afterwards) to have happened would mean that certain
> >> >other things would have had to have happened.
> >>
> >> They did. They are known in the legal community as "eyewitnesses".
> >
> > The people just stood and stared at the assassin for five whole
> >minutes?
>
> You just stood there and watched your mother undress???
I`m gonna give myself 5 points for provoking that reaction.
> >I think I could have gone from the street to the 6th floor in
> >that amount of time. But these folks stood and gaped like guppies? No
> >pictures taken? No detailed descriptions? Nobody shouting "there is the
> >killer" to the cops running to and fro looking for just such a person?
> >My God, your common sense must still be in it`s original wrapper.
>
> Your stupidity is showing again. I can't seem to recall you answering this
> point with Brennan.
I did. Brennan said the assassin lingered a moment, then was gone.
Brennan dove to the ground. The assasin was no longer in the window to
shout "there he is". Had the assassin lingered for any amount of time,
he may have. Bruce Almighty, you have no sense to call your own, do
you?
> Why not, Bud? Cat got your tongue?
Your lack of reasoning ability is leaving me speechless.
> >> >Since those other things
> >> >didn`t happen (descriptions, photos, shouts of "there he is") didn`t
> >> >happen, then "that* (a shooter in the window for minutes afterwards)
> >> >could not have happened. Duh.
> >>
> >> Oh? Can you cite the testimony or evidence for Brennen doing what
> >> you assert must have happened?
> >
> > Brennan doesn`t put the gunman up in the window for 5 minutes after
> >the last shot. Or even one. Only "a moment".
>
>
> "I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion.
> Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did
> not seem to be in any hurry."
>
> So Brennan *DOES NOT CONTRADICT* other eyewitnesses that also reported the
> assassin/s lingering after the last shot.
What kind of time are we talking for the assassin`s post shooting
actions? That is the issue, right?
> >> It's *BEYOND DISPUTE* that Brennan claimed to have seen the assassin...
> >> did he point and shout "there he is"?
> >
> > Brennan might have done such a thing, had the gunman lingered more
> >than "a moment". Being a prudent man, he dove for cover first.
>
> Your answer then, is "no". Rather contradicts what you said others would do,
> doesn't it?
No, what Brennan said is evidence the gunman wasn`t in the window
very long.
> >> Mistaken yet again, aren't you?
> >
> > How long do you think Brennan put the gunman in the window after
> >the shooting?
>
> Probably longer than was possible for the WC scenario.
How does that translate into seconds? That is how time is generally
measured, in incriments of time. How many seconds did Oz put the gunman
in that window for, exactly? You see, if you can precisely determine
this to the second, and Oz`s descent to the second, and Baker`s ascent
to the second, you can support the claims you make. Or, you can make
the claims without the necessary support, it`s up to you. And kooks
will give your unsupported claims great weight, no doubt.
> >> >> >> >> >> So you stay on the
> >>>>>>>> >> sixth floor for awhile because to go down the wooden staircase the
> >>fifth
> >> >> >> >> >> floor guys might try and see who you are.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > How would you know that when you shoot from that window, everyone
> >>>>>> >> >in the Plaza wouldn`t be aware of the location the shots came from? How
> >> >> >> >> >would you know the building wouldn`t be flooded with people?
> >> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> It was "flooded" almost *too* quickly... in fact, Baker was the
> >>*biggest*
> >> >> >> >> obstacle to framing LHO
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Only because CT make pretend they know exactlly when Baker
> >> >> >> >confronted Oz.
> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> Are you suggesting that when we accept what the WC says - we are living in
> >> >> >> fantasyland?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Did the WC claim to have exact times, Ben?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... they were dealing with *seconds*, not minutes.
> >> >
> >> > They claimed to have established the exact times, not just
> >> >estimates? That just doesn`t seem possible to me.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's a new one! LNT'er CALLS WARREN COMMISSION LIARS!! Spread the news!
> >
> > I seriously doubt the WC ever made the claim that they had
> >established exact timing, and not just estimates.
>
>
> You don't know *what* the WC said on this issue. Like many others, you are
> completely ignorant.
I have no reason to believe the WC claimed to have established
to-the-second timing for these events. I rarely feel compelled to
look up absurdities when asserted by kooks.
> >> >> Feel free to announce
> >>>> here to the world that you dispute what the Warren Commission stated in this
> >> >> regard.
> >> >>
> >> >> And then cite the evidence to the contrary.
> >> >
> >> > When you produce something that motivates me to look into, I will
> >> >look into it. What you have is an estimated timeline supplied by the WC
> >> >that you are trying to pass off as a carved in stone, super precise
> >> >down-to-the-last-second established sequence of events. Try it on your
> >> >fellow kooks, they`ll buy it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... unable to cite. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > I`ve seen nothing supplied by you from the WC claiming they had
> >established an exact, to-the-second sequence of events.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
When you present something worth disputing, I`ll be glad to dispute
it. You assert that an exact timeline exists. You don`t produce an
exact timeline. My position has been that without precise timing at the
time these events took place, exact timing of these events is
impossible. Do you have anything to produce that impugns that position?
> >> >> (My crystal ball is whispering to me again...)
> >>
> >>
> >> And correct, yet again...
> >
> > Keep telling yourself that.
>
>
> Don't need to... everyone can see for themselves.
I wouldn`t assume that.
> >> >> >> It's not necessary to put Baker there when he *actually* was there...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not only is it not necessary, it`s not possible.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Silly logic, isn't it?
> >> >
> >> > Yah, logic like "if nobody timed the event, the event was untimed"
> >> >is silly. Putting a precise time, within seconds, on any of these
> >> >events is impossible. Yet that seems to be your stance.
> >> >
> >> >> Or rather, a complete *absence* of logic. If you are
> >> >> unable to figure out how to put Baker in that building at the end of the
> >> >> assassination - it's just one more illustration of your stupidity,
> >> >> nothing more.
> >> >
> >> > Where`d you get that strawboy from? Exactly what second did Baker
> >> >enter the TSBD? Exactly how long did he talk with the people within,
> >> >how many seconds? How long did he wait at the elevator, exactly? How
> >> >much lead time would Oz need to get to the lunchroom before Truly made
> >> >the landing, exactly how many seconds would that have required from the
> >> >shooting?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you won't take a look at the evidence, what makes you think that
> >> I'll take the time to hold your hand?
> >
> > Thats what I thought. You kooks insinuate that it is possible to
> >tell exactly how long it would take Oz to come down, and Baker to go
> >up.
>
> If you want to call the WC kooks, feel free.
The WC doesn`t post here. I have seen this idea advanced by kooks
here, though.
> >And you can do nothing of the sort. You try and pass it off as some
> >failing of the WC. Let me try common sense on you one more time, for
> >what it`s worth. Untimed events cannot be timed precisely.
>
> Ignorant, aren't you?
I know they use devices in the Oylmpics to determine precise times.
I suppose they could be determined in some other manner, they could get
despositions from the crowds and determine to the second how fast a
swimmer sawm or a runner ran. I just don`t see that as being an
effective or accurate method.
> >> >> >> the WC
> >>>>>> timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is
> >>just
> >>>> >> that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it was.
> >> >> >> (Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Exactlly how many seconds would it take Oz to descend 4 floors of
> >> >> >steps?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How long did the WC state the time as?
> >> >
> >> > Whatever it was was an estimate. The actual time is indeterminable.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yet another example of your ignorance. How was this "estimate" figured out?
> >
> > If the original event wasn`t timed with a stopwatch, the times can
> >be nothing other than estimates. Will you dispute this?
>
>
> Yep...
This one word is Ben`s full rebuttal to the point I just made. Let
me totally devastate that rebuttal. "Nope".
> another illustration of your near total ignorance on this case.
>
> It explains why you're a LNT'er...
Oh, make no mistake, I am demonstrating why I am a LN, and why you
are a CT, and what the difference is. It is in the reasoning
department. Why do you think you have stopped lengthy rebuttal? It is
because ever time you do, it shows your total lack of reasoning
ability, and I point this deficiency out.
> >> >> Or how long would it *actually* have taken - considering the actual facts?
> >> >>
> >> >> Which one is your question?
> >> >
> >> > Well, you seem to know that Oz couldn`t make it down to that
> >> >lunchroom before the arrival of Baker and Truly. I guess that means you
> >> >know the exact time Oz would need to make that trip, down to the
> >> >second.
> >>
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > I told you these silly timing games only impress other kooks. You
> >don`t have precise times. You pretend you do.
>
>
> I've never stated that *I* had any time at all...
Yet *you* here, not the WC, have been claiming things about this
timing. What was or was not possible, what could or could not occur.
> the *WARREN COMMISSION*
> asserted the times. Coward that you are, you dispute them, but don't have the
> balls to make it plain.
I was never disputing the WC findings. You just claim their findings
support your suppositions. Who cares what you say?
> >> >> >> >They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
> >> >> >> >suggest happened
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Oh? And what is that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells and a bag
> >> >> >looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh? And can you quote ANY STATEMENT OF MINE WHATSOEVER that would
> >> >> lead even the stupid to think that I'd ever made any such statement
> >> >> or implication?
> >> >
> >> > "Then the shooters move to another floor... what`s so difficult
> >> >about that".
> >>
> >>
> >> My! You *ARE* stupid, aren't you? And a liar, to boot.
> >
> > You said it, not me. And you are right, it was a stupid thing to
> >say.
>
>
> Even the *stupidest* LNT'er wannabe can see that you were unable to quote me
> saying what you attempted to imply I'd said.
I just quoted you above. Are you saying you didn`t say this?
> When you must lie to support the "truth", it must not really be the truth...
You waxing about truth and lies is like Stevie Wonder judging a
beauty contest.
> >> >Easy-peasy-japansey. Or did you mean they teleported? If not, they had
> >> >to move in a building that had people moving around in it. Or are you a
> >> >CT who doesn`t feel the bag and shells were planted? Hard to tell, so
> >> >many kooks, so many beliefs.
> >>
> >>
> >> I go by the evidence. One shell was planted. Two shots were fired
> >> from the SN window.
> >
> > And if that window was occupied, they`d just move to an unoccupied
> >one, right? Just wander around looking for an openning, whats so hard
> >about that?
>
> The last time I said that, you twisted it into something completely different...
> liar, aren't you?
"Then the shooters just move to another floor... what`s so difficult
about that?"
> >> >> And more importantly, why do you feel it necessary to lie in order to
> >> >> support what you believe is the truth?
> >> >
> >> > I think "necessary" is too strong a word. I could probably post
> >> >without lying if I tried.
> >>
> >>
> >> Scared of the truth, aren't you?
> >
> > <chuckle>
> >
> >> >> >> >could happen is because each person is a variable
> >> >> >> >who`s actions couldn`t be predicted. You and the other kooks plug in
> >>>> >> >things knowing how people reacted. There is only millions of other ways
> >>>> >> >they could have, ways unknown by any planners. If the floor laying crew
> >> >> >> >goes back to the 6th floor (as Jarman thought they were going to), any
> >> >> >> >planning of planted evidence on that floor is out the window (the bag,
> >> >> >> >shells, ect).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then the shooters move to another floor... what's difficult about that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Excellent thinking Holmes, roam the building with evidence to plant,
> >> >>
> >> >> Your thought, not mine. You're a liar to even suggest that I've ever
> >> >> implied or stated this.
> >> >
> >> > Whatever, you still have them moving around with the rifle, correct?
> >>
> >> Why? Do you imagine that the rifle could not have been previously
> >> placed in the building?
> >
> > You insinuated they could move around with no problem searching for
> >a window to shoot from. Nothing to do with how the rifle entered.
>
>
> Your stupidity is showing again...
Let me show your stupidity once more... "Then the shooters move to
another floor... what`s so difficult about that? "shooters" too, gangs
of assassins wandering the TSBD, looking for unoccupied windows to
shoot from.
> >> >Claim it isn`t difficult to move around, right, like there is some
> >> >surety you won`t bump into someone?
> >>
> >> Who cares? With work crews there laying floors, who's to know who's who?
> >
> > Bing-bing-bing-bing. Crackpot alert. Conspirators now just mingle,
> >unbeknownst to the workers.
>
>
> They *proveably* did. The fingerprint at the SN, for example, that's never been
> identified.
Why didn`t you say there was a fingerpreint that has never been
identied. That makes none of the difference in the world.
> So - who's the crackpot?
Still you, Ben.
> >> >> >with people going here and there. I suppose they are lugging the rifle
> >> >> >along, they do need people saying there were shots from the building.
> >> >>
> >> >> There *were* shots from the building ... that *is* what the eyewitnesses
> >> >> reported. And, interestingly, from *both* sides of the building.
> >> >
> >> > Where else, Ben? The sewer, Dal-Tek, the limo, what? Coordinated by
> >> >radio, or just throwing a fuselage at random? Don`t get me wrong, I
> >> >really respect your position...
> >>
> >>
> >> Afraid of the evidence, aren't you?
> >>
> >>
> >> And, more to the point, unable to *rebute* the evidence.
> >
> > I`d first need to know your beliefs. What shot came from what
> >location at what time (z-film frame)?
>
>
> Nah... all you need to know is the 26 volumes.
Yup, unwilling to back up your silly assertions.
> And I've giving evidence in these posts all the time that you are unable to
> rebute.
"unable suggests I`ve tried. The moon kooks have ofered scads of
theories I haven`t refuted either.
> >> >> >You know, you may be right, I do rememeber the guys on the fifth floor
> >> >> >saying someone came in with a rifle and mumbled something like "sorry
> >> >> >guys, didn`t know this area was occupied". You`re slipping Ben, you
> >> >> >really are "outting" yourself as a true blue kook here. The true kook
> >> >> >believes *they* are omnipotent, capable of anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> Liar, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > I call like I see them. And I see this thinking all the time with CT
> >> >kooks. I`ll give you and the lurkers a hint. If you are uaware of this
> >> >phenomenon, then you are a kook who indulges in it.
> >>
> >>
> >> When you find it necessary to lie about my position in order to attack
> >> it, it's known as the classic "strawman" argument.
> >>
> >> Since by *YOUR* account, LHO did exactly what you assert could not have
> >> been done, your stupidity is illustrated. *NO-ONE* saw him with a rifle,
> >> *NO-ONE* saw him on the 6th floor.
> >
> > Yah, they did. Some even identified him as the person they saw.
>
>
> Nope. *NO-ONE* identified him as LHO. Brennan, as you well know, *REFUSED* to
> identify him.
>
> Lied again, didn't you?
No, he did identify him as the man he saw, under oath in a legal
proceeding.
Do you detect some conflict between the two statements? When I say
"I don`t need a court of law to tell me the sun is hot", I am speaking
for myself. I can`t vouch for others.
> And it's pointless to point out that in the one case where adversarial process
> took place, the evidence for conspiracy dramatically increased.
Increased from what, Oz`s trial for killing JFK? What would be
allowed and what would be disallowed can`r be determined.
> >> >Anything else doesn`t even remotely quack like that duck. Again, most
> >> >people thought OJ was guilty, yet he was found innocent. Two points
> >> >about that. One, not many of the people watched every minute of the
> >> >trial like the jury was compelled to do, so they weren`t drawing an as
> >> >informed opinion as the jury. And there was a lot of information that
> >> >played on television that was inadmissible in court. The home viewers
> >> >even saw things that occurred when the jury was taken out of court, and
> >> >legal issues were debated, ect. So, my point is that polls don`t mean
> >> >jack shit, you need to have 12 people hear both sides and decide.
> >> >These polls you take solace in are just a shadow of the real thing.
> >>
> >> You see? Once again, you imply that if only people *knew* the facts,
> >> they'd all be LNT'ers...
> >
> > I think a trial-type consideration of the facts of the case would
> >throw out the vast bulk of gobbilygook spouted by CT here.
>
> "gobbilygook" that you can never seem to refute when *I* list it here. Why is
> that, Bud?
Where is the jusge to rule your gobblygook inadmissible? I`m
talking about a trial, not kook-baiting in newsgroups.
> >I think a
> >trial would definately favor an LN finding, by weeding out the crap you
> >kooks bandy about.
>
> Actually, a trial would *drastically* cut down on what evidence there is on the
> LN'ers side. That you don't understand this shows your grasp of the evidence.
Kooks think if they can imagine some problems with evidence of Oz`s
guilt, that that evidence is somehow damaged, tainted, inadmissible.
Kooks are like that.
> >What the WC considered was trial type format,
>
>
> Completely untrue... of course.
Being mostly made up of lawyers, of course they are going to
approach things with jurisprudence in mind. It actually may have
contributed to why they had so much trouble, because lawyers tend to
believe all things are debatable.
> >the
> >stuff of kooks would largely be disallowed. Even you`re favorite piece
> >of evidence, the AP x-ray would be near useless for presenting what you
> >think it shows. How do you get your speculation about what this
> >evidence means to the jury`s ears? I think most of the CT`s favorite
> >talking points would be inadmissable, which might help Oz some.
>
>
> The AP X-ray is proof of *government* tampering with the evidence, since no-one
> else had control over those X-rays.
So you claim. The point I was raising was wether a judge would allow
your suppositions and conclusions about this evidence to admitted and
heard by the jury.
> You refer to what I "think it shows", yet you can't refute the facts when I
> present them... coward, aren't you?
Yah, I refer to it accurately as "what you think it shows".
> >> But, as anyone can see, I know far more of the facts in this case than
> >> you do, and *I'm* not a LNT'er.
> >
> > Your lack of reasoning skills make any knowlege you have useless.
>
>
> Quod erat demonstrandum...
Maybe, but your lack of reasoning skills stll render any knowledge
you may have useless.
> >> >You, Ben, have not even heard a prosecution presenting this case, the
> >> >WC was nothing like.
> >>
> >> Actually, it was. It dealt with this case *exactly* as a prosecution.
> >> You can even see in the WCR, where they presented their summary argument
> >> *before* they presented their findings.
> >
> > That was nothing like trial presentation would be.
>
>
> That's *EXACTLY* what a trial presentation is.
Well, if we had Oz`s actual trial, I could point out the diffences
to you.
> >No real trial
> >strategy.
>
> Nothing but.
>
> >This case, had it went to trial might have been won at jury
> >selection. A lot more dynamics to a trial than the WC investigation
> >was.
>
> Blind, aren't you?
Not quite. A large void in the necessary information needed to
predict how a trial would go would be what defense Oz desided on, what
his lawyer`s defensive stategy was. Possible Oz may have decided to
plead guilty, if they offered him a deal not to seek the death penlty.
Who knows?
> >> >The WC was "these are things that indicate to us that Oswald committed
> >> >these crimes".
> >>
> >>
> >> As you are surely aware, they never *looked* at any other suspect.
> >
> > It wasn`t quantity, it was quality. Oz had evidence that indicated
> >his guilt because Oz was guilty.
>
>
> Of *course* he was... that's why the WC felt it necessary to bury, hide, and get
> rid of any contrary evidence.
But Oz tried to kill the cops in the Texas Theater before the WC was
ever formed.
> But when you need to lie to support the truth, you'd better take another look at
> what you think is the "truth".
>
> Real truth doesn't need lies to support it.
Read Charles original list of "proofs" Oz was framed. See any lies
there?
> >> >Being a free country, people can agree or disagree. But
> >> >the number of people that do either is no indication of how this case
> >> >would have played out in a court of law. I suspect it would be a slam
> >> >dunk for the prosecution, mainly because of the lies Oz told. The
> >> >police are going to get up and say Oz told them these things, like not
> >> >owning a rifle.
> >>
> >> LOL!! LHO couldn't be allowed to live to present his side.
> >
> > Apparenly Ruby felt that way.
>
>
> No, those who ordered him felt that way...
So it is claimed by some. Kooks, mainly.
> >> So he was murdered in the middle of a crowd of policemen.
> >
> > He sure as hell was.
> >
> >> >I think it would be a hard sell to convince people that
> >> >these cops were lying.
> >>
> >> Not hard at all. In fact, we know that some of them were.
> >
> > Well, easy enough to say. Forty plus years ago I`d think you`d need
> >some strongly compelling reason to disregard the testimony of the cops
> >that interrogated Oz.
>
> Forty years ago people still believed that the FBI was lily white.
More obstacles to Oz being found innocent.
> >I think it would be easier for them to see Oz`s
> >motivations for lying than the cops.
>
>
> You think it would be easier for *WHO* to see Oz's motivations for lying?
Any jury hearing this case, of course.
> Presumably you're talking about the DPD. Blind, aren't you?
You stupid if you think I was refering to the DPD.
> >> >That leaves them with Oz lying, with no possible
> >> >reason than guilt being the explaination.
> >>
> >>
> >> Interestingly, voice stress analysis of his "I'm just a patsy" shows
> >> him to be telling the truth. Rather shocked the examiner...
> >
> > Well, thats the kind of thing you put stock in when you have nothing
> >better.
>
> No, I have *MUCH* better. So much better in fact, that you run away from it
> when I mention it.
>
> Things such as the tests done at Oak Ridge.
I suppose a defense would use this. I`d have to see the actual
testing details before I could opine on how a prosecution would handle
this evidence.
> Or the AP X-ray.
No doubt there is an x-ray with a round circle in the orbit of the
eye. Whether you could get a jury to draw the same conclusions from
this that you have seems to me extremely doubtful.
> Or the eyewitness accounts.
Plenty of those harm Oz.
> >Like jiggle analysis. I`m curious as to what they compared his voice
> >to, though.
> >I think you need a sample of the subject telling the truth, where did
> >Oz do this?
>
>
> Once again, you illustrate your near total ignorance of the topic.
Once again, you make claims of my ignorance, offering nothing to
dispute what I wrote. I did look up "voice analysis" before, and found
a scathing analysis of it by some polygraph testing group. They claimed
it had no better success than guessing.
> >> >Thats how I see it going, I
> >> >can`t envision it going any other way.
> >>
> >> Lack of knowledge... nothing more.
> >
> > I guess I just don`t read enough crackpot conspiracy books.
>
>
> I've very rarely ever referred you to anything other than the 26 volumes.
>
> But those frighten you too much to read.
Yah, 26 is a lot.
> >> >The shit that gets played here
> >> >in newsgroups just wouldn`t play well in a court of law.
> >>
> >>
> >> Such as hearsay? Or testimony by the defendent's wife under duress?
> >
> > If you have something to say, say it. I made some comments about the
> >legal status of Marina`s testimony which you left uncommented on.
>
> No, I TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE FLAT WRONG!
You may have, you do that a lot, think that saying something is
wrong rebuts any points made. If the points were not individually
addressd and refuted, they remain uncontested by you. I can say that
most of what you believe about this case is wrong (which it almost
undoubtedly is), does that refute everything you`ve ever written? If I
say that the statute you cited doesn`t apply because of "x", "y" and
"z", either address those points individually and refute them or they
remain uncommented on, and uncontested.
> Try to avoid telling lies, Bud - there's too many of them to count already.
That depends, Ben, how high can you count?
> >Why bring it up here?
>
> Because you couldn't rebute it. Why else? It's a *fact* that you have to deal
> with.
I would be more than happy to discuss the legal aspects of what
Marina told the authorities. Your response showed me you were to
cowardly to address the points I made, so I dropped it.
> >And I can see a defense attorney being concerned that a wife blurted
> >damaging information about his client,
>
>
> Why would he be concerned?
Because lawyers deal in legal matters.
> Most defense attorneys would *welcome* such an
> event. For it would not be allowed, the judge would probably be forced to grant
> a retrial, and defendents are not found guilty in retrials at the rate that they
> are in original trials... witnesses lose their memory, details get stale.
Well, there are two different things to consider. A trial with a
defense attorney assumes Oz to be alive. As this event unfolded,
Marina`s spouse was dead early on.
> >but I can`t imagine someone
> >looking for the truth in this matter being so concerned.
>
>
> But you *AREN'T* looking for the truth, are you? If you were, you'd tell
> everyone here how her testimony was taken.
And you aren`t looking for the truth by ignoring what she told the
authorities.
> >I would think you would welcome the insight from the person closest
> >a person not many were close to.
>
>
> LOL!!! Tell us about the bathroom door lock, Bud.
Ben, as I have often said, if you have something to say, say it.
> >> >> Must really bug you that so few people believe in the silly theory
> >> >> put forth by the WC.
> >> >
> >> > I didn`t even read down here.
> >>
> >> And yet, you somehow manage to respond... psychic, are you?
> >
> > My previous comments did pertain to these unread passages you wrote,
> >so I guess I am.
> >
> >> >You are hung up on the WC,
> >>
> >>
> >> They *did* compile the evidence, such as it is.
> >
> > Read only what the Dallas police compiled. Less is more.
>
>
> Facts to a LNT'er are like Kryptonite to Superman...
Perhaps if you`d stop your fasination with the fire trucks, you
might be able to figure out who started this fire.
> >> You'd prefer to simply assert
> >> that LHO did it, without bothering to *read* the evidence, right?
> >
> > I haven`t seen anyone explain Oz`s actions in any manner other than
> >guilt.
>
> For if someone does, you merely close your eyes.
I asked you to walk me through, explaining to me what really
happened, explaining Oz`s actions. You delined. If you had taken me up
on the offer, I`m sure it would have been some of the stupiest shit
imaginable.
> I've done so right in *THIS* post. Tell everyone here how a man who just
> finished shooting the President just 90 seconds before
Exactly determined, or estimated?
>, and ran down four
> flights of stairs,
Down is much easier than up.
> manages to look totally unconcerned,
Yah, remarkedly uncurious. Did anyone note any surprize? Of course
he was neither surprised or curious, he knew what it was about...
> guilt-free,
Yah, guilt can be determined that easily, by a adrenaline pumped
cop likely looking for someone who doesn`t belong in the building. Why
do we even have courts when we have can tell just by looking at people
whether they are guilty. If that fails, we always have voice stress
analysis. Christ..
> and not
> breathing heavily
Should he have been?
> when a pistol is stuck in his stomach,
How is the reaction of an innocent person having a gun pointed at
them different than a guilty person having a gun pointed at them?
> and a cop is staring
> him in the face...
Yah, guilty or innocent, he was confronted by a cop. How does it
speak to either?
> >To say that he just happened to bring a long paper package into
> >work is weak.
>
> People do that every day of the week, moron.
I could see a lawyer trying to float that weak shit. Why are you?
> >To say he just happened to leave work right after the
> >assassination is weak.
>
> You mean like the others?
Doubt it. Doubt any left that quickly without talking to anyone.
> >Why did Oz have the cab driver drive past the
> >boardinghouse before getting out?
>
> Didn't happen.
No? Caeruleo said that is what happened. He seems a reliable source
to me.
> >Lots of things like these leave only
> >one inescapable conclusion. Oz sold the rifle before the assassination,
> >was never a communist, and had an evil twin who killed Tippit.
>
> When you are forced to lie to support the "truth", you need to look at your
> "truth" a little more...
Ah, whats a little sarcasm and ridicule amongst friends?
> >> >the polls.
> >>
> >> Minority, aren't you?
> >
> > Aren`t we all, in one way or another? Being in the minority that is
> >correct on an issue isn`t a source of concern to me.
>
>
> It was enough to make a big issue of it.
The polls where never a big issue to me. You seem impressed enough
by them for both of us.
> >> >Neither mean a fiddlers fuck to me.
> >>
> >>
> >> That the polls mean nothing matters not at all... but that you believe
> >> that the WC doesn't matter, along with the evidence they put into the
> >> 26 volumes, speaks loudly about your character.
> >
> > Now it`s a character issue. Whatever Ben. The WC is your punching
> >bag in this case, beat the crap out of that cow. What Oz did makes Oz
> >look guilty.
>
> When you don't know what Oz did, it makes *YOU* look ignorant.
I know what he did. That you won`t accept what he did makes you look
silly.
Lots of people bring long paper bags to work my ass...
> >> >Oz`s actions prove Oz was guilty.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh? And which action was that?
> >
> > Actions. Plural. Walk me through his actions post assassination to
> >his arrest. Make some sense out of them for me.
>
>
> Oh? And which actionS were those?
I thought you claimed to know something about this case.
Ben Holmes
That isn't, of course, the definition of the term "alibi".
>I don`t suppose just *saying* that you were
>somewhere else works very much for alibis. Be that as it may, in my
>very next post, I moved off that definition, and supplied 3 verbatum
>legal definitions.
All of which did not contradict the possible alibi that LHO had.
>I challenged you to apply any of these, or any you
>could find, which would apply to Oz in this case.
I did, in each case.
>You know you can`t,
Why lie?
>so you want to keep attention focused on an issue that is resolved.
>Extremely cowardly.
What's cowardly, is to list actual legal definitions, then refuse to admit that
LHO's case IS NOT CONTRADICTED by those definitions...
>> You *lied* about the topic. You're ducking and weaseling right now, and I'm
>> merely going to keep the subject on-topic.
>
> You just can`t apply the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case, know you
>can`t, and
>are trying a bit of misdirection to draw attention from the fact that
>you can`t.
Already did.
>> >In what way does the legal term
>> >"alibi" apply in Oz`s case at all?
>>
>>
>> Another illustration of your ignorance of the meaning of the term.
>
> Another cowardly duck. Show me wrong, explain how the term applies.
>Instead of continueing to claim the term applies, show how it does.
>Show where Oz used one.
I already have. Illiterate, aren't you?
>> >> >> >So, who saw Oz in a place that makes committing the assassination
>> >> >> >impossible?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>>>>> So, who saw LHO in a place that makes committing the assassination
>>possible?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At a *TIME* that made it possible?
>> >> >
>> >> > Trees fall in the woods without anyone seeing them. Are all murders
>> >> >witnessed (other than the murderer, of course)?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It was *YOU* who is asking for an eyewitness - why back out?
>> >
>> > No need to, In what way could Oz have an alibi that didn`t include a
>> >eyewitness placing him in a place and time that would make his guilt in
>> >the assassination impossible?
>>
>>
>> Only a rather severe misunderstanding of the term "alibi" could allow
>> you to ask such a question.
>
> <chuckle> Only a wide yellow streak would lead you to sidestep it.
Okay, I'll meet it head on... YOU ARE A LIAR TO SUGGEST THAT AN EYEWITNESS IS A
NECESSARY LEGAL COMPONENT OF AN ALIBI. YOU CAN'T CITE OR QUOTE *ANY*
AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE THAT DEFINES IT IN THIS WAY.
Liar, aren't you?
>Don`t criticise the questions, dazzle me by answering them.
You already *know* that you're wrong, don't you?
>> Once again, try doing some basic research. You're looking more and more
>> stupid here.
>>
>> Alibi's don't require an eyewitness... try repeating that a dozen times
>> or so.
>
> Again, claiming I`m wrong doesn`t mean a whole lot. Show me to be
>wrong.
You've already done so. Which definition did *YOU* supply that requires an
eyewitness as a necessary component to the definition of "alibi"?
>Apply the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case.
Already have... numerous times.
>I`ve challenged you
>to do this several times now.
Repeating what's already been done is an exercise in futility.
>Instead of claiming to be the only person
>in this discussion that knows what the term means, prove it.
Already have.
Just as you've already admitted a misunderstanding of the term.
>>>>>> >> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi."
>>>> >> >> Since you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are
>>>> >> >> perfectly aware that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an
>> >> >> >> alibi, you lied.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It`s not an alibi, kook.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>>> >> As you've just illustrated above, you don't even know what the word means.
>> >> >
>> >> > I looked it up on a couple sites. It`s still not an alibi, kook.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Come on, Bud, you can admit it.
>> >
>> > I always can. You seem to have great difficulty.
>>
>>
>> Then do so. Let all the lurkers know that you *lied* in your assertion
>> concerning LHO and the "suggestion" of an alibi.
>
> Instead of claiming I lied,
You've already admitted that your understanding of the term was flawed...
>why don`t you just produce this
>suggestion of an alibi?
Done so repeatedly.
>The fact is, Oz could have claimed to have been
>standing next to Truly out front as an alibi. It may have been an
>unsucessful alibi, but he did have the right to present that as a legal
>defense. And the other fact is, the legal term "alibi" doesn`t apply in
>this case,
Silly...
>because it didn`t get to the point where it would apply. Ben
>knows this, so he is going into this diversionary mode
>instead of adressing how the term applies in Oz`s case.
>
>> >> You were mistaken about the meaning of the word, weren't you?
>> >
>> > I got no problem with that. I was working from memory of a
>> >definition I had read on the other board about a year ago. And it
>> >*still* doesn`t apply to Oz, kook.
>>
>> Sure it does. You evidently *still* haven't figured it out.
>
> Correct me, Perry Mason. Tell us all how the legal term applies in
>Oz`s case.
Already have.
>I say it doesn`t, and have explained why. You seem to claim it does,
>hard to tell when you re so frightened you can only say claim i`m
>wrong. Apply this legal defense to Oz`s case, coward.
Already have.
>> >> And you can admit that you lied when you commented that LHO didn't
>> >> have even a suggestion of an alibi.
>> >
>> > Of course I admitted no such thing, but how else could your brain
>> >process such information? By definition, Oz didn`t have an alibi
>> >because he never claimed one.
>>
>>
>>Your continued ignorance concerning the term is amusing... Stupid, aren't you?
>
> Well, you certainly aren`t offering anything to make me appear that
>way. I can get devastating rebuttal like "you`re stupid" in any
>schoolyard.
Which is probably where you are during the day...
>> >> When you can admit it, then the conversation can continue.
>> >
>> > Fuck you and your conditions. My spanking must be leaving welts for
>> >you to look for such a cowardly way out.
>>
>>
>> What "spanking"?
>
> Try sitting.
>
>>You are ignorant of the facts, you deny what's right in front of your face, and
>> you make rather stupid mistakes in legal terminology.
>
> I supplied 3 legal definitions. I applied them to Oz`s case, and
>pointed out why they don`t apply. Your turn.
And I pointed out why they do. Been there, done that.
>> >> >> Don't you think that it's just a tad kooky to argue about a word that
>> >> >> you don't even know the legal definition of?
>> >> >
>> >> > I was working off a definition supplied by someone over on the other
>> >> >assassination board last year. It probably wasn`t the best one.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It was *wrong*... come on, Bud, say it with me: "The definition for
>> >> 'alibi' that Bud used is incorrect"... say it again, Bud... perhaps
>> >> repetition will get it through your head.
>> >
>> > It was largely incorrect.
>>
>> Good. The first step towards rehabilitation is the admission that you need
>> help.
>
> Well, lets put all put all the cards on the table, let the lurkers
>see through the smokescreen you are creating. I originally said ""I
>believe it is a witness who saw a possible suspect in a place that
>makes committing the crime impossible". Now, since that was of the top
>of my head, and my belief, it can`t be a lie (and consequentlly anyone
>calling it a lie a liar). In the next post you challenged me to look up
>the word. I did, and I found my definition in error (and haven`t since
>pressed my original definition as correct), and also discovered that
>the term didn`t apply in Oz`s case at all.
Untrue, of course...
>In an attempt to keep all
>focus on my mistaken belief, instead of addressing how the term does
>apply to the case in hand, Ben has now opted to go into this song and
>dance diversionary tactic. I guess I just have to wait until he tires
>of this dance and the fear subsides, so we can continue.
When you admit that your original statement about LHO not having even a
"suggestion" of an alibi is a lie, then we can continue...
Until then, I'm going to keep pointing out your stupidities...
>> >A person who sees a person suspected of a
>> >crime in a place that makes the committing of that crime impossible is
>> >an "alibi witness". It doesn`t seem they are always necessary for an
>> >alibi, but I`d think they are what is used in the vast bulk of cases.
>> >Maybe video tape sometimes, or evidence presented that the person was
>> >out of the country when a crime was committed might be used in an alibi
>> >defense. But in Oz`s case, I think he`d need a witness putting him in a
>> >place were it made it impossible for him to be the assassin before he`d
>> >have anything resembling an alibi.
>>
>>
>> Why would LHO have to have something that no-one else has ever been
>> required to have?
>
> I was mentioning generally what I expect sucessful alibis to have,
But not, as is clear, the *actual* definition of the term.
>some kind of corroboration. Oz never presented an alibi as a defense.
You've never listed his prosecutor, either... Rather yellow of you, isn't it?
>You know it, so you refuse to discuss it. Pretty yellow.
Why would I "discuss" what isn't possible? Name his prosecutor, and I'll
discuss LHO's presentation of alibi to him.
>>Say it with me, Bud: "Eyewitnesses are not a necessary component to an alibi".
>>
>> Repeat until it sinks in.
>
> Yes, see I moved off of that a while ago,
Actually, you listed it yet again just above...
>are you ready to proceed
>yet? Corroboration of another person is extremely useful in
>establishing an alibi.
You see? There you go again...
>Without it, or some other corroborating evidence
>to establish a person`s whereabouts at a particular time is extremely
>difficult. Oswald could claim to have been anywhere on the planet as an
>alibi. For it to be sucessful, he would probably need a little more
>than just saying he was elsewhere.
He *does*. A fact that you refuse to admit.
>> >> >Here are two short and sweet legal definitions I just located...
>> >> >
>> >> > The first one is from Legal-Explainations.com..
>> >> >
>> >> > Alibi- Proof offered by one accused of a crime that they were in a
>> >> >different place from that where the crime was committed.
>> >>
>> >> Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and persons,
>> >> that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he's
>> >> accused of.
>>
>>
>> WHAT!!!? No rebuttal, oh stupid one?
>
> Missed it, or I would have.
Yep... it's merely one of the examples that I've already given, that you keep
falsely insisting that I haven't. Lied, didn't you?
This is why I keep saying that I've already done so...
>I addressed it elsewhere anyway, here or
>the other post under this topic. For starters, let me say that anyone
>can claim anything as an alibi. The fact is that Oz claimed no alibi,
>not in the legal sense.
Name the prosecutor, oh stupid one.
>As far as your example, how does decribing a
>scene prove a person was
>at a scene?
Your brilliance is underwhelming...
>I was watching the Phillies game on TV, I can describe the
>place, persons, timing of events, who hit what when. My sister went
>crabbing last weekend, she told me who went, what they did at different
>times. In neither place would I have much hope of establishing my
>presense without someone at either place saying they saw me there. Yes,
>I could claim either place as a legal defense if I was accused of a
>crime during these times. But in order for it to have a chance of
>succeeding, I better have a person saying I was there.
Not a necessary component of the term... nor can you cite for its necessity.
>> >> > You can see how this doesn`t apply to Oz, as you pointed out, there
>> >> >exists no testimony from Oz, therefore we can have no proof offered.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>> >
>> > <chuckle> Is that it. Is that your refutation? It is my claim that
>> >the legal term "alibi" does not apply in this case.
>>
>> You *still* haven't figured out what the term means...
>
> Instead of claiming it applies in Oz`s case, show how it does.
Been there, done that.
>Stop
>the wimpy dance or stop responding, you make yourself look foolish with
>all these evasions. Maybe you don`t mind looking foolish...
You're the one who doesn't understand jurisprudence, not me.
>> >Seems a simple
>> >concept to refute if it is as stupid as you claim.
>>
>> Your continued ignorance of the meaning of the word *is* the refutation.
>
> Sure is easy to make claims. Applying the term to Oz`s would be
>actual refutation. You can`t, so you skirt the issue entirely, then
>blame me for your cowardice.
Been there, done that.
>> >> > And this one, from Laborlaw.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > The alibi, a term in jurisprudence, is a form of legal defense in
>> >> >which a defendant argues that they were engaged in some other activity
>> >> >such that they could not possibly have committed the crime in question.
>> >>
>> >> Such as eating lunch and describing the only two other people who were
>> >> there... that sort of thing?
>> >
>> > Whoa, you said we have nothing from Oz. What exactly did he say,
>> >right? And, you have no idea whether he would have stuck to that story
>> >as an attempt at a legal defense.
>>
>> He described something that he would be required to be psychic to know - he
>> doesn't have to "stick" to that "story".
>
> Did he present this as a legal defense? Would he have used that come
>trial? You haven`t a clue, he may have claimed to be out front as an
>alibi. Maybe claimed to be Billy Lovelady in that picture. You don`t
>know what legal alibi Oz would choose, because it had not reached the
>point where one would need to be chosen. It is meaningless that you and
>the other kooks chose alibis for Oz.
There is no legal requirement to "present" an alibi for one to exist. And why
are you bothering to answer a point that you say I didn't make?
>> Getting desperate, Bud?
>
> Not at all, I`m more than willing to present reasons why the legal
>term "alibi" doesn`t apply in Oz`s case.
And yet, other than with misunderstandings of what the term means, you haven't
done so.
>You havn`t touched why it does
>apply. Since you have only skirted the issue,
Answered it directly, you mean...
>and not addressed it,
>explains why I`ve buried you in this discussion.
LOL!!! I'll leave that for the lurkers to decide...
>> >It is not, by legal definition, an
>> >alibi. Kook.
>>
>>
>> Still don't understand the term, do you?
>
> So you`ve claimed a dozen times.
And will continue to do so - until you show a proper understanding of the term.
>And offered nothing but claims to
>back it up. Your next claim to be the lurkers understand. I understand
>also. You won`t touch it because you don`t have a leg to stand on.
Won't touch what???
I've shown that LHO did indeed have a "suggestion" of an alibi... a perfectly
legal one... that fits the definition of the term.
>> >> Of course.
>> >>
>> >> > As you can see, this also couldn`t apply in Oz`s case, as he never
>> >> >invoked a legal defense.
>> >>
>> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>> >
>> > It`s not rebuttal unless you adress what I said. What I did was
>> >apply the legal definition of "alibi" to Oz`s case. In what way did I
>> >misuse the term?
>>
>>
>>You still don't understand what "alibi" means. That's all the rebuttal needed.
>
> Well, that seems to be all you got, anyway. I bring the lega
>definitions of "alibi",
And continue to assert things that are *NOT* part of the definition...
>and show how they don`t apply in Oz`s case,
You haven't been able to do that...
>you
>cry "wrong, wrong, wrong". It smacks of weakness to me, I think I will
>press my advantage.
Press it... people will enjoy a good laugh...
>> >> > Perhaps you can supply a definition of "alibi" that could apply in
>> >> >Oz`s case...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You've done quite well. It's too bad that you couldn't have done this
>> >> homework before you spout falsehoods.
>> >
>> > Always stuck in the past, aren`t you? Why not get up to speed and
>> >explain how the legal definition of "alibi" applies in Oz`s case?
>>
>>
>> Why not attempt to assert why it doesn't? It's *YOUR* claim, after all, that
>> LHO didn't have a "suggestion" of an alibi.
>
> What was it, then? Oz made no legal alibi,
Silly... yet another misunderstanding of the term. A defendent is not required
to assert one before one exists.
>therefore he had no
>alibi.
A tree falls in the forest with no-one to hear the sound, so therefore there is
no sound - this is the essence of your argument.
LHO did not assert this alibi to the non-existent prosecutor, so it didn't
exist.
How silly...
>Kooks would like to give him one, but that isn`t how it works.
Fool, aren't you?
>> >> >> >That is the point,
>> >> >>
>>>>>> A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that requires
>> >> >> another person for an alibi?
>> >> >
>> >> > No, not as a requirement. It sure does help, though.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course you can't. *YOUR* definition was simply wrong.
>> >
>> > But I was correct in saying Oz did not have an alibi.
>>
>>
>> That is not what you said. Why bother to lie, Bud?
>
> You`re now claiming I never said that Oz didn`t have an alibi?
Anyone can look up what you first said... why bother to lie about it?
And you admitted to not having seen one of those answers before... in *this*
post.
>and I just haven`t pieced it together from his hints
>and innuendo.
>
>> Try rereading this post...
>
> Now it`s an Easter egg hunt. Truth is, Oz offered no legal alibi.
You once again offer a mistaken definition of the term "alibi".
You're too cowardly to even attempt to offer a citation for this.
>Truth is, you know it. Truth is you will continue to duck it instead of
>addressing it. I`m sure the lurjers can compare. You have a problem
>with definition of "alibi" I ofered off the top of my head,
Yep... it was *WRONG*.
>I address
>it, discuss it, amend it if necessary. You`re whipped, so you claim the
>high ground, and say all questions are beneath you. It`s still evasion,
>even if it`s on the high ground.
LOL!!
>>But first, spend a little time acquainting yourself with the meaning of the term
>> "alibi".
>>
>> Try to understand what would constitute one.
>
> <heehee> Wahl, you wouldn`t want to be caught discussing issues like
>a mere mortal, would you? Just stick to making claims, you won`t expose
>as many of your weaknesses that way.
Why not discuss the facts, Bud?
>> >> one that is reasonably strong. And
>> >> *no-one* has been able to place him at the scene of the crime at the
>> >> time of the crime.
>> >
>> > That has nothing to do with an alibi either.
>>
>>
>> Of course not. It has EVERYTHING to do with your statement that this is in
>> response to.
>>
>>
>> Is this the best you can do, Bud?
>
> Whats that, applying the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case. Yes, I can
>do that. I have done that. You haven`t done anything to refute it, mere
>label it "wrong".
>Excellent, I like.
>
>> >> > You see the problem, Oz never alerted the Prosecutor that he was
>> >> >opting to present an alibi.
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Rather stupid of you, isn't it? You *still* don't understand the concept of
>> >> "alibi"...
>> >
>> > You don`t, even after I supplied three definitions. You are stuck
>> >parroting "stupid" instead of rebutting the points I made.
>>
>>
>> None of your definitions requires an eyewitness, none of your definitions
>> requires the assertion of the defendent for an alibi to exist.
>
> And of course you are stuck cowardly attacking a point I moved off
>of a number of posts ago, that eyewitnesses are required.
Actually, you've asserted it *AGAIN* in this very post. So your statement above
is a lie, isn't it?
>Now you are
>stuck with the Marsh-like tactic of bogging down the conversation
>because you realize the term "alibi" doesn`t apply in Oz`s case because
>of the reasons I`ve outlined.
Untrue... not a single definition you supplied (that didn't come out of your
fevered head, that is) contradicted LHO's "suggestion" of an alibi.
>BTW, the definition I produce say that it
>is the accused who decided on an alibi defense, and what that will
>include. They don`t say "kooks".
An "alibi defense" is not an "alibi". The two are not the same. Ignorant,
aren't you?
>>LHO did *indeed* have a "suggestion" of an alibi, and nothing you can say will
>> get you out of that lie.
>
> He presented no alibi that he expressed an intention to use in
>court. If he did, say what it was, coward.
Bravo! You've proven that LHO didn't have an "alibi defense". (Even if you
*are* too cowardly to name his 'prosecutor')
That isn't, of course, the topic of discussion.
>> >> There is *NO* legal requirement for the defendent to "alert the
>> >> prosecutor" for an alibi to exist.
>> >>
>> >> Nor can you *name* the "prosecutor" in LHO's "trial".
>> >
>> > Ah, you catch the drift. An "alibi" is the term for a legal defense,
>> >to be used strictly in a court of law.
>>
>> No, it is not. I find the term in ordinary dictionaries, it's widely
>> used and understood.
>
> For those who don`t know what just happened, Ben now wants to move
>off of how this term is used in legal matters on to a more general
>usage of the word.
Nope. I merely point out hat you are incorrect when you state that the term
"alibi" is a term for legal defense "TO BE USED STRICTLY IN A COURT OF LAW".
It *is* used outside of a court of law, you're simply wrong again...
>> >So, what was missing to have the
>> >term "alibi" apply? When Oz sat with his lawyer, and decided what his
>> >courtroom strategy would be, none of those things you consider "alibis"
>> >may have been offered as part of Oz`s defense. Oz offered no "alibi",
>> >in the legal sense.
>>
>> Yep... he absolutely did. Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>>
>> >You`ll see kooks in newsgroups try and foist them
>> >on him all the time. That doesn`t mean Oz would have used any of them.
>>
>>
>> An alibi does not need to be asserted by the defendent to exist.
>
> If you are going to use your absense at the scene of the crime as a
>legal defense you do.
You confuse an "alibi defense" with "alibi". Stupid, aren't you?
>> When are you
>> going to stop looking so stupid?
>
> Who selects "alibis"?
It's not required to be asserted by the defendent, as you've stated. You can't
produce any citation that so states. You've lied again, more than likely by
sheer ignorance.
Ben Holmes
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Picked up from an earlier response, around here somewhere.
>
>> >So, what was missing to have the
>> >term "alibi" apply? When Oz sat with his lawyer, and decided what his
>> >courtroom strategy would be, none of those things you consider "alibis"
>> >may have been offered as part of Oz`s defense. Oz offered no "alibi",
>> >in the legal sense.
>>
>> Yep... he absolutely did. Stupid, aren't you?
>
> You declare we have nothing from Oz`s own mouth, how can we have an
>alibi given by him?
You obviously can't separate statements in his favor with statements that would
be detrimental. The law would recognize that the police, with a clear bias,
would hardly 'invent' statements that might clear LHO.
>State here what you think the alibi is that Oz
>gave. You won`t, being a coward, and knowing it isn`t an alibi.
Already have... repeatedly. You've even been involved in a thread dedicated to
precisely that topic. Have you forgotten?
>> >You`ll see kooks in newsgroups try and foist them
>> >on him all the time. That doesn`t mean Oz would have used any of them.
>>
>>
>> An alibi does not need to be asserted by the defendent to exist. When
>> are you going to stop looking so stupid?
>
> Oz could claim to have been in Paris when this went to trial. He
>could steadfastly maintain that all through the trial. Who chooses what
>a person`s alibi will be? Is it something just magically and
>psychically known? Someone must give voice to this concept, I`m pretty
>sure it isn`t kooks in newsgroups.
An alibi does not need to be asserted by the defendent to exist. When are you
going to stop looking so stupid?
Or better yet, why not provide a citation for this kooky idea?
>> >> >> >> It's as simple as that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There may be some newbie lurkers out here, try not expose yourself
>> >> >> >as an asshole with everything you say.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't you think you should take the time to learn what the legal
>> >> >> term "alibi" means first?
>> >> >
>> >> > Just did, it appears I was slightly mistaken on it`s meaning.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Slightly"???
>> >>
>> >> You were wrong. It's that simple. And you are CONTINUING to
>> >> misunderstand the concept, as illustrated above.
>> >
>> > As do you, by ignoring my points shows you to be unable to refute my
>> >reading of the definitions.
>>
>>
>> LOL!! I've been doing nothing else!
>
> Yah, right. Tell you what, I produced three legal definitions of
>"alibi", and
>explained why none of them apply in Oz`s case.
And you were wrong each time.
>Why don`t you produce
>one legal definition of the term "alibi" and apply it to what you think
>Oz`s alibi was, and show how it appies.
Been there, done that.
>My crystal ball is telling me
>you won`t, though.
Your crystal ball can't read either...
>> >> >It also appears the word doesn`t apply in the manner you`ve been using it
>> >> >either. It *still* isn`t an alibi, kook.
>> >>
>> >> So you believe... but then again, *you* believe that there was a legal
>> >> necessity to "alert the prosecutor" before an alibi exists.
>> >
>> > Yah, I believe that is true that when a defendant wishes to invoke
>> >an alibi, he would have to alert the prosecutor of that intent, so that
>> >the prosecutor could look into the merits of it.
>>
>> Then once again, you are wrong. An alibi can exist independently of
>> this set of circumstances.
>>
>> I defy you to produce any authoritative citation that requires the
>> defendent to notify the prosecutor before an "alibi" exists
>
> Well, I`ve tried my hand at it, and you claim I failed miserably.
You have.
>Instead of just continuing to contest my application of the term, why
>not try a hand at it yourself? Produce a definition of alibi, produce
>Oz`s alibi, and show how one applies to the other.
Already did so with *YOUR* provided definitions.
>The simple fact is,
>we don`t know what Oz`s alibi would have been,
Incorrect... we don't know what LHO's *ALIBI DEFENSE* would have been.
>although you claim to
>know it, despite also claiming we have nothing from Oz.
>
>> >To give an example
>> >that others will get and you will totally miss, lets say a guy commits
>> >a murder. Later, he overhears a conversation of an auto accident
>> >between a cab and a fire truck that occured at the same time as the
>> >murder he committed, but many miles away. If taken to court for the
>> >murder, he couldn`t just withhold this "alibi", and spring it on the
>> >prosecutor on the stand ("I can`t be the murderer, I was at that
>> >accident"), because it wouldn`t give the prosecutor a chance to
>> >investigate the merits of the claim.
>>
>> Actually, that's *exactly* what he can do. You seem to be rather mixed
>> up - the *prosecutor* must share his evidence and eyewitness list to the
>> defense, the defense is under *NO* legal requirement to do the same. Try
>> looking up "full disclosure"
>
> You think the defense is under no obligation to make the court aware
>of the legal defenses they intend to employ?
Until they employ them, no.
It's *always* been American jurisprudence that the defense doesn't have to say
anything other than plead "not guilty" before the trial commences.
>You think the defense can
>wait until the closing arguments,
"spring it on the prosecutor on the stand" is hardly in the same league as "wait
until closing arguments".
You've been caught fairly, Bud... why not just admit your misunderstanding?
Trying to continue just shows your stupidity.
>produce someone who is the spitting
>image of the suspect and say "by the way, this is the person who really
>did the crime", or "by the way, here is a picture of the suspect in
>Paris, holding a Paris newspaper of that day, so he couldn`t have been
>the perpitrator."? There are rules the defense must play by also, it
>isn`t only the prosecution that must.
LOL!! Change your argument in midstream... just don't ask *me* to contradict
the obvious.
I only contradict your mistakes.
>> Once again, you've illustrated your mind-boggling ignorance of the American
>> jurisprudence system.
>
> When you are finished with all this misdirection, perhaps you can
>find the time to produce the alibi Oz was going to use.
You were clearly mistaken on this one, Bud.
If you don't admit it, I'll merely keep bringing it up.
>> >But, if you wish to skip these
>> >hypotheticals,
>>
>> Oh, NO!! Give some more examples that illustrate your stupidity, Bud!
>
> I`ve been asking you to get down to brass tacks for some time now.
>What did Oz claim as an alibi?
Been there, done that.
>> >present what you believe to be Oz presenting an alibi,
>> >and we can discuss that.
>>
>> Already given.
>
> By you, but not by Oz.
It *was* given by LHO.
>The opinions of kooks in newgroups of what
>Oz would have used as an alibi is fairly meaningless.
An "alibi defense" is not the same as an "alibi". They can exist perfectly
independently...
>> >> >> My crystal ball is telling me that you won't be able to provide a
>> >> >> citation that matches your silly definition.
>> >> >
>> >> > Only looked at the first couple hits. Seems anything can be
>> >> >*claimed* as an alibi, by the person in question.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My crystal ball was correct, yet again. You *couldn't* provide any
>> >> citation for your silly mistaken belief of what "alibi" means.
>> >
>> > You`ve yet to offer an alibi that Oz claimed for himself.
>>
>> Done several times.
>
> Humor me, do it again here. Shake the fear that grips you, be a man,
>and state the alibi Oz claimed right here.
Nah... I see no reason to repeat myself. You'd like to draw the thread away
from your assertion that LHO didn't have a "suggestion" of an alibi, and I think
I'll keep on topic.
As you've already participated in a thread concerning that possible alibi,
you're already well aware of it.
>> My crystal ball was correct, yet again.
>
> Yet we have nothing from Oz himself claiming an alibi.
Yep... LHO didn't have an "alibi defense". Nor did he have a prosecutor, even
though you're too yellow to admit it.
>You point
>out yourself our lack of any firsthand statements by him. Did Oz convey
>this alibi to you by telepathy?
Your stupidity is showing...
Even such facts that are widely available, such as how much the rifle costs.
>> >> >> The fact that you couldn't figure this out merely illustrates once
>> >> >> again your near total ignorance of the facts in this case.
>> >> >
>> >> > I just looked at the Klein ad, I think the price Oz paid was 19.95
>> >> >(99?), and after tax, it came to 21-something.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you bother to research something before you shout your
>> >> ignorance to the world?
>> >
>> > It`s your kooky shit.
>>
>>
>> No, you just asserted a fact - a fact that can be checked.
>
> Yah, the fact I asserted was that I think the price Oz paid was
>either 19.99 or 19.95 for the rifle, and after taxes, the total was
>21-something. And guess what, it remains a fact as it is still what I
>believe.
But you *aren't* a good-looking genius, no matter *what* your mother told you,
and you continue to believe.
Facts exist independently of whether you "believe" them or not.
>> You didn't bother to
>> check, and once again, you're wrong.
>
> So you say.
Too cowardly to research it, aren't you?
>> Why don't you bother to research something before you shout your
>> ignorance to the world?
>
> I told you, because it`s your kooky shit. As far as i`m concerned,
>nothing has been shown to connect the price of the rifle to the amount
>of money Oz was carrying that day.
Since you know neither, you have no basis on which to make any point.
Other than that you don't know.
>> >You present it, or cryptically hint that there
>> >is deeper meaning, or whatever the fuck you want. This is the kind of
>> >things kooks bandy about, that does nothing but impress other kooks.
>>
>>
>> Ignorant, aren't you?
>
> So you say.
Proven every day - right here - alt.conspiracy.jfk.
>> >> >Is that what Oz was
>> >> >carrying 21-something? Remember, he took a bus and a cab. Well, anyway,
>> >> >this is the stuff that intrigues kooks. But, if Oz did bring in the
>> >> >rifle, why tell Frazier it was curtain rods? Why lie to the cops about
>> >> >it, say he never owned a rifle,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Quote his testimony to this effect.
>> >
>> > Read what the witnesses to his statements said. Or ignore the
>> >witnesses, while claiming you don`t.
>>
>>
>> Yep... I thought you wouldn't be able to.
>
> Why do you ignore the witnesses to Oz`s statements?
Quote his testimony to this effect.
>> >> >even after they showed him a picture of
>> >> >him holding it? As usual, your speculation doesn`t make sense no matter
>> >> >how you view it, Oz`s actions at no time can be explained as a guy who
>> >> >sold a rifle, and that rifle was used to kill someone.
>> >>
>> >> Oh? And your evidence is what???
>> >
>> > Thank you for that illustration of your lack of common sense and
>> >reasoning ability.
>>
>>
>> Oh? Common sense and reasoning ability forbid LHO from selling a rifle?
>
> Or a goat. And we have no evidence Oz sold a goat that day either.
>You can imagine that Oz sold the rifle because Oz had money in his
>pocket when arrested, and money is sometimes acquired when you sell
>something. Stellar.
Ignorant, aren't you?
>> Does this work with other people too? What's going to happen when the
>> gun show hears about this?
>
> What about when people who carry money find out they sold rifles?
Some of them indisputably have.
>> >> >The normal
>> >> >reaction in such an instance is to go to the cops and say "Hey, I think
>> >> >the rifle used to kill that guy
>> >>
>> >> How would he know?
>> >
>> > I think he knew because he was the shooter.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!! So the guilty person goes up to a cop, and announces that the
>> weapon he just used to murder someone "might have been used to kill someone"!
>
> No, Oz didn`t do that at all, he fled the scene of the crime.
As did hundreds of other people.
>> Your logic is amazingly silly!!
>
> I like it.
>
>> >But you seem, in your
>> >usual dribs and drabs manner to suggest that Oz sold his rifle to
>> >person unknown, and said person used it to commit this crime.
>>
>> That the facts will support a scenario such as this is beyond your ken - you
>>don't even know how much LHO paid for the rifle, or how much money he had with
>> him that day.
>
> Nor am I aware of any connection either of these things have to
>whether he shot JFK. Are you?
Nope. Since I've never asserted any such thing - seems like I'll let *you* play
with your strawman...
>> >Maybe I
>> >am rushing this fairy tale, but I`ve sat through this before, and it
>> >usually leads to Oz knowing he was set up, and that is why he acts so
>> >strangely (even to the point of killing cops) after the assassination.
>>
>> Actually, he acted quite normal. So normal, that a cop with a gun to his
>> stomach didn't notice any abnormal or guilty behavior.
>
> Wouldn`t it be nice to be able to tell a murderer by looking at
>him.
I'm not required by my logic to believe that police are stupid.
>> So abnormal that he
>> offered his cab to another person.
>
> The cab driver Whaley told Oz to tell the woman to wait for the next
>cab. It wasn`t Oz who offered it.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. The front seat. And about that time an old lady, I think
she was an old lady, I don't remember nothing but her sticking her head down
past him in the door and said, "Driver, will you call me a cab down here?"
She had seen him get this cab and she wanted one, too, and he opened the door a
little bit like he was going to get out and he said, "I will let you have this
one," and she says, "No, the driver can call me one."
So, I didn't call one because I knew before I could call one would come around
the block and keep it pretty well covered.
Lied, didn't you?
>> >If you want to suggest Oz sold the rifle and had no clue he sold the
>> >weapon that was used in the assassination, than walk me through Oz`s
>> >actions post assassination up until the time of his arrest.
>>
>> Read the eyewitness testimony.
>
> I did. Thats how I determined he was guilty. Witnesses say he shot a
>cop. Witnesses say he tried to kill them.
And yet, you can be amazingly ignorant concerning what the eyewitnesses said. I
wonder why that is.
>> >Ignorance
>> >of his connection to the crime does not seem to fit his later actions.
>>
>> Only when you are presupposing "actions" that never actually happened.
>
> Typical CT denial. Who was this guy all the witnesses say was doing
>all these things?
>
>> >And we are going far afield with supposition, there is zero evidence Oz
>> >sold his rifle to anyone.
>>
>> Incorrect. There *IS* evidence that he sold his rifle. It's not strong
>> evidence, in fact, it's quite weak. But it is *NOT* zero.
>>
>> Why lie?
>
> Didn`t. It is zip. It is zilch. It is nada. It is zero. It wouldn`t
>even be able to be suggested in a court of law. Not only that, but it
>is devoid of reasoning and common sense, a much better standard for
>such things, when one has these things to apply.
A great example of your lack of logic. You don't even know how much money he
had, or how much the rifle costs... and yet you can attempt to assert an
opinion that isn't based on any knowledge of the facts...
An opinion that isn't based on the facts is worth what, Bud?
>> >> Do you seriously think that everyone who owned a rifle
>> >> thought that their rifle had been used? If so, why was Frazier's rifle
>> >> confiscated by the DPD?
>> >
>> > Why did the Dallas police say?
>>
>> Yep.... I thought so... QUACK, QUACK..
>
> They didn`t say what motivted them? I can only guess, you can
>suppose, I suppose.
Nah... you're too cowardly to guess...
>> >> >is the one a sold to so-and-so earlier,
>> >> >for exactly the same price I bought it for". Just more stupid shit to
>> >> >dazzle the idiots.
>> >>
>> >> The fact that you can't even put together such ideas is due to your
>> >> near total ignorance of this case.
>> >
>> > The fact that kooks have spent the last 40 years doing nothing but
>> >shows something much more telling.
>>
>>
>>Yep... you'd rather be ignorant that knowledgeable - then ding those who think
>> otherwise.
>
> I ding your thinking because your thinking is fucked up.
Then by all means, why can't you rebute the facts I present?
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> So you keep saying. Doesn`t say much for you, though.
You're even *proud* of your stupidity... as, for example, the price of the
rifle.
CT'ers have. Have any money you'd like to bet and lose?
>I`ve been around here a few years now, don`t remember a
>kook ever bringing them up. Until some kook does, I`ll continue to
>assume no such thing exists.
Care to back up your ignorance and illiteracy with cash?
>> >> >For *that* (a shooter in the
>> >> >window for minutes afterwards) to have happened would mean that certain
>> >> >other things would have had to have happened.
>> >>
>> >> They did. They are known in the legal community as "eyewitnesses".
>> >
>> > The people just stood and stared at the assassin for five whole
>> >minutes?
>>
>> You just stood there and watched your mother undress???
>
> I`m gonna give myself 5 points for provoking that reaction.
You can't, of course, find me asserting what you *claimed* I asserted.
Liar, aren't you?
>> >I think I could have gone from the street to the 6th floor in
>> >that amount of time. But these folks stood and gaped like guppies? No
>> >pictures taken? No detailed descriptions? Nobody shouting "there is the
>> >killer" to the cops running to and fro looking for just such a person?
>> >My God, your common sense must still be in it`s original wrapper.
>>
>> Your stupidity is showing again. I can't seem to recall you answering this
>> point with Brennan.
>
> I did. Brennan said the assassin lingered a moment, then was gone.
Why didn't he shout "There is the killer"???
And if *he* didn't - who indisputably saw one of the assassins, how can you
claim that others *would*?
>Brennan dove to the ground. The assasin was no longer in the window to
>shout "there he is".
He was there when Brennan saw him. Why didn't he shout "There is the killer"???
>Had the assassin lingered for any amount of time,
>he may have.
He didn't - did he?
>Bruce Almighty, you have no sense to call your own, do you?
Proven wrong by the actual facts, aren't you.
>> Why not, Bud? Cat got your tongue?
>
> Your lack of reasoning ability is leaving me speechless.
Proven wrong, haven't you?
>> >> >Since those other things
>> >> >didn`t happen (descriptions, photos, shouts of "there he is") didn`t
>> >> >happen, then "that* (a shooter in the window for minutes afterwards)
>> >> >could not have happened. Duh.
>> >>
>> >> Oh? Can you cite the testimony or evidence for Brennen doing what
>> >> you assert must have happened?
>> >
>> > Brennan doesn`t put the gunman up in the window for 5 minutes after
>> >the last shot. Or even one. Only "a moment".
>>
>>
>> "I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion.
>> Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight.
>> He did not seem to be in any hurry."
>>
>> So Brennan *DOES NOT CONTRADICT* other eyewitnesses that also reported the
>> assassin/s lingering after the last shot.
>
> What kind of time are we talking for the assassin`s post shooting
>actions?
Why... that he didn't *immediately* turn and run for the 2nd floor...
As required by the WC's silly theory.
> That is the issue, right?
Yep... *exactly* the issue. And multiple eyewitnesses reported that he *did*
linger.
But when eyewitnesses report something that's inconvenient for your theory - you
dismiss them, or call them liars.
It's unnecessary to do such for the CT crowd.
>> >> It's *BEYOND DISPUTE* that Brennan claimed to have seen the assassin...
>> >> did he point and shout "there he is"?
>> >
>> > Brennan might have done such a thing, had the gunman lingered more
>> >than "a moment". Being a prudent man, he dove for cover first.
>>
>> Your answer then, is "no". Rather contradicts what you said others would
>> do, doesn't it?
>
> No, what Brennan said is evidence the gunman wasn`t in the window
>very long.
You said they would shout "There is the killer". Brennan did no such thing.
>> >> Mistaken yet again, aren't you?
>> >
>> > How long do you think Brennan put the gunman in the window after
>> >the shooting?
>>
>> Probably longer than was possible for the WC scenario.
>
> How does that translate into seconds? That is how time is generally
>measured, in incriments of time.
If you don't know what the WC asserted - on what basis do you talk about this?
>How many seconds did Oz put the gunman
>in that window for, exactly? You see, if you can precisely determine
>this to the second, and Oz`s descent to the second, and Baker`s ascent
>to the second, you can support the claims you make.
I *support* what I say with the evidence... bugs you, doesn't it?
>Or, you can make
>the claims without the necessary support, it`s up to you. And kooks
>will give your unsupported claims great weight, no doubt.
If I don't have the eyewitness testimony and/or evidence, why would they?
And yet you're willing to debate what you admit you won't bother to look up.
How silly of you...
>> >> >> Feel free to announce
>>>>>> here to the world that you dispute what the Warren Commission stated in
>>this
>> >> >> regard.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And then cite the evidence to the contrary.
>> >> >
>> >> > When you produce something that motivates me to look into, I will
>> >> >look into it. What you have is an estimated timeline supplied by the WC
>> >> >that you are trying to pass off as a carved in stone, super precise
>> >> >down-to-the-last-second established sequence of events. Try it on your
>> >> >fellow kooks, they`ll buy it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep... unable to cite. Coward, aren't you?
>> >
>> > I`ve seen nothing supplied by you from the WC claiming they had
>> >established an exact, to-the-second sequence of events.
>>
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
> When you present something worth disputing, I`ll be glad to dispute
>it. You assert that an exact timeline exists. You don`t produce an
>exact timeline.
Ah! But I *have*... repeatedly. It's the *exact* timeline that the WC
proposed. By what means, you have no clue, but that's okay.
>My position has been that without precise timing at the
>time these events took place, exact timing of these events is
>impossible. Do you have anything to produce that impugns that position?
Yep. You can find it in the 26 Volumes.
Hypocrite, aren't you? Willing to call someone who merely asserts the WC's
position a kook, but unwilling to call the *WARREN COMMISSION* kooks.
>> >And you can do nothing of the sort. You try and pass it off as some
>> >failing of the WC. Let me try common sense on you one more time, for
>> >what it`s worth. Untimed events cannot be timed precisely.
>>
>> Ignorant, aren't you?
>
> I know they use devices in the Oylmpics to determine precise times.
>I suppose they could be determined in some other manner, they could get
>despositions from the crowds and determine to the second how fast a
>swimmer sawm or a runner ran. I just don`t see that as being an
>effective or accurate method.
(And this kid calls *other people* kooks!)
>> >> >> >> the WC
>>>>>>>> timing is all that's necessary to illustrate that their silly theory is
>> >>just
>>>>>> >> that. The WC was forced to ignore facts to make their timing what it
>>was.
>> >> >> >> (Such as that Truly was half a flight in front of Baker)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Exactlly how many seconds would it take Oz to descend 4 floors of
>> >> >> >steps?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How long did the WC state the time as?
>> >> >
>> >> > Whatever it was was an estimate. The actual time is indeterminable.
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Yet another example of your ignorance. How was this "estimate" figured out?
>> >
>> > If the original event wasn`t timed with a stopwatch, the times can
>> >be nothing other than estimates. Will you dispute this?
>>
>>
>> Yep...
>
> This one word is Ben`s full rebuttal to the point I just made. Let
>me totally devastate that rebuttal. "Nope".
I do so with testimony and the full weight of the WC - you do so on the basis of
ignorance.
>> another illustration of your near total ignorance on this case.
>>
>> It explains why you're a LNT'er...
>
> Oh, make no mistake, I am demonstrating why I am a LN, and why you
>are a CT, and what the difference is.
Yep... I know the facts, am able to *cite* those facts and sources for them, and
you are unwilling to even look something up before looking idiotic in a
discussion on it.
Ignorance on any topic can be cured, but if you refuse to even try, your
ignorance turns to sheer stupidity.
>It is in the reasoning
>department. Why do you think you have stopped lengthy rebuttal? It is
>because ever time you do, it shows your total lack of reasoning
>ability, and I point this deficiency out.
Nah... I just don't think lurkers need anything other than what I point out.
>>>> >> Or how long would it *actually* have taken - considering the actual facts?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which one is your question?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, you seem to know that Oz couldn`t make it down to that
>> >> >lunchroom before the arrival of Baker and Truly. I guess that means you
>> >> >know the exact time Oz would need to make that trip, down to the
>> >> >second.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Coward, aren't you?
>> >
>> > I told you these silly timing games only impress other kooks. You
>> >don`t have precise times. You pretend you do.
>>
>>
>> I've never stated that *I* had any time at all...
>
> Yet *you* here, not the WC, have been claiming things about this
>timing. What was or was not possible, what could or could not occur.
Yep. Based on the *WARREN COMMISSION'S* study. You base your argument on
ignorance.
>> the *WARREN COMMISSION*
>>asserted the times. Coward that you are, you dispute them, but don't have the
>> balls to make it plain.
>
> I was never disputing the WC findings.
Sure you have. You just refuse to go look and see that I've told the truth. If
you can avoid that, you can avoid looking stupid by debating against your bible.
>You just claim their findings
>support your suppositions. Who cares what you say?
>
>> >> >> >> >They`re crazy that way. The reason nothing like what you
>> >> >> >> >suggest happened
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Oh? And what is that?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells and a bag
>> >> >> >looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh? And can you quote ANY STATEMENT OF MINE WHATSOEVER that would
>> >> >> lead even the stupid to think that I'd ever made any such statement
>> >> >> or implication?
>> >> >
>> >> > "Then the shooters move to another floor... what`s so difficult
>> >> >about that".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My! You *ARE* stupid, aren't you? And a liar, to boot.
>> >
>> > You said it, not me. And you are right, it was a stupid thing to
>> >say.
>>
>>
>> Even the *stupidest* LNT'er wannabe can see that you were unable to quote me
>> saying what you attempted to imply I'd said.
>
> I just quoted you above. Are you saying you didn`t say this?
You implied that I'd stated "conspirators roaming the TSBD with bullet shells
and a bag looking for an unoccupied window to plant them in."
Your quote of my words doesn't come close to such a silly assertion.
You lied, didn't you?
>> When you must lie to support the "truth", it must not really be the truth...
>
> You waxing about truth and lies is like Stevie Wonder judging a
>beauty contest.
Lied about what I'd said above, didn't you?
>> >> >Easy-peasy-japansey. Or did you mean they teleported? If not, they had
>> >> >to move in a building that had people moving around in it. Or are you a
>> >> >CT who doesn`t feel the bag and shells were planted? Hard to tell, so
>> >> >many kooks, so many beliefs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I go by the evidence. One shell was planted. Two shots were fired
>> >> from the SN window.
>> >
>> > And if that window was occupied, they`d just move to an unoccupied
>> >one, right? Just wander around looking for an openning, whats so hard
>> >about that?
>>
>>The last time I said that, you twisted it into something completely different...
>> liar, aren't you?
>
> "Then the shooters just move to another floor... what`s so difficult
>about that?"
Yep. An absolutely true statement.
But *not* what you implied I'd said, was it?
Yep... it *is* what multiple eyewitnesses reported. Bugs you, doesn't it?
>> >> >Claim it isn`t difficult to move around, right, like there is some
>> >> >surety you won`t bump into someone?
>> >>
>> >> Who cares? With work crews there laying floors, who's to know who's who?
>> >
>> > Bing-bing-bing-bing. Crackpot alert. Conspirators now just mingle,
>> >unbeknownst to the workers.
>>
>>
>> They *proveably* did. The fingerprint at the SN, for example, that's
>> never been identified.
>
> Why didn`t you say there was a fingerpreint that has never been
>identied. That makes none of the difference in the world.
Makes nonsense of your attempted rebuttal, didn't it?
And it isn't an eyewitness. So "double whammy"... you can't even claim that
"fingerprint evidence is the least reliable form of evidence"
>> So - who's the crackpot?
>
> Still you, Ben.
Yep... even *physical* facts don't faze the stupid.
>> >> >> >with people going here and there. I suppose they are lugging the rifle
>> >> >> >along, they do need people saying there were shots from the building.
>> >> >>
>>>> >> There *were* shots from the building ... that *is* what the eyewitnesses
>> >> >> reported. And, interestingly, from *both* sides of the building.
>> >> >
>> >> > Where else, Ben? The sewer, Dal-Tek, the limo, what? Coordinated by
>> >> >radio, or just throwing a fuselage at random? Don`t get me wrong, I
>> >> >really respect your position...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Afraid of the evidence, aren't you?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And, more to the point, unable to *rebute* the evidence.
>> >
>> > I`d first need to know your beliefs. What shot came from what
>> >location at what time (z-film frame)?
>>
>>
>> Nah... all you need to know is the 26 volumes.
>
> Yup, unwilling to back up your silly assertions.
Already have.
>> And I've giving evidence in these posts all the time that you are unable to
>> rebute.
>
> "unable suggests I`ve tried. The moon kooks have ofered scads of
>theories I haven`t refuted either.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >> >You know, you may be right, I do rememeber the guys on the fifth floor
>> >> >> >saying someone came in with a rifle and mumbled something like "sorry
>> >> >> >guys, didn`t know this area was occupied". You`re slipping Ben, you
>> >> >> >really are "outting" yourself as a true blue kook here. The true kook
>> >> >> >believes *they* are omnipotent, capable of anything.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Liar, aren't you?
>> >> >
>> >> > I call like I see them. And I see this thinking all the time with CT
>> >> >kooks. I`ll give you and the lurkers a hint. If you are uaware of this
>> >> >phenomenon, then you are a kook who indulges in it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> When you find it necessary to lie about my position in order to attack
>> >> it, it's known as the classic "strawman" argument.
>> >>
>> >> Since by *YOUR* account, LHO did exactly what you assert could not have
>> >> been done, your stupidity is illustrated. *NO-ONE* saw him with a rifle,
>> >> *NO-ONE* saw him on the 6th floor.
>> >
>> > Yah, they did. Some even identified him as the person they saw.
>>
>>
>> Nope. *NO-ONE* identified him as LHO. Brennan, as you well know,
>> *REFUSED* to identify him.
>>
>> Lied again, didn't you?
>
> No, he did identify him as the man he saw, under oath in a legal
>proceeding.
Lied, didn't you?
Yep... you're only interested in fairness if its used to fry LHO.
>> And it's pointless to point out that in the one case where
>> adversarial process took place, the evidence for conspiracy
>> dramatically increased.
>
> Increased from what, Oz`s trial for killing JFK? What would be
>allowed and what would be disallowed can`r be determined.
My statement stands... unrebutted, I note.
>> >> >Anything else doesn`t even remotely quack like that duck. Again, most
>> >> >people thought OJ was guilty, yet he was found innocent. Two points
>> >> >about that. One, not many of the people watched every minute of the
>> >> >trial like the jury was compelled to do, so they weren`t drawing an as
>> >> >informed opinion as the jury. And there was a lot of information that
>> >> >played on television that was inadmissible in court. The home viewers
>> >> >even saw things that occurred when the jury was taken out of court, and
>> >> >legal issues were debated, ect. So, my point is that polls don`t mean
>> >> >jack shit, you need to have 12 people hear both sides and decide.
>> >> >These polls you take solace in are just a shadow of the real thing.
>> >>
>> >> You see? Once again, you imply that if only people *knew* the facts,
>> >> they'd all be LNT'ers...
>> >
>> > I think a trial-type consideration of the facts of the case would
>> >throw out the vast bulk of gobbilygook spouted by CT here.
>>
>>"gobbilygook" that you can never seem to refute when *I* list it here. Why is
>> that, Bud?
>
> Where is the jusge to rule your gobblygook inadmissible? I`m
>talking about a trial, not kook-baiting in newsgroups.
Ignorant *AND* a coward... aren't you, Bud?
>> >I think a
>> >trial would definately favor an LN finding, by weeding out the crap you
>> >kooks bandy about.
>>
>> Actually, a trial would *drastically* cut down on what evidence there
>> is on the LN'ers side. That you don't understand this shows your
>> grasp of the evidence.
>
> Kooks think if they can imagine some problems with evidence of Oz`s
>guilt, that that evidence is somehow damaged, tainted, inadmissible.
>Kooks are like that.
Marina would not be admitted at all. Thus a *lot* of LNT'er factoids would be
eliminated.
Given decent counsel, CE399 wouldn't have made it either.
Those are just two examples...
>> >What the WC considered was trial type format,
>>
>>
>> Completely untrue... of course.
>
> Being mostly made up of lawyers, of course they are going to
>approach things with jurisprudence in mind. It actually may have
>contributed to why they had so much trouble, because lawyers tend to
>believe all things are debatable.
It's been pointed out too many times the material that the WC looked at that
would *NOT* have been admissible in court.
An investigation is *not* the same thing as a court case.
>> >the
>> >stuff of kooks would largely be disallowed. Even you`re favorite piece
>> >of evidence, the AP x-ray would be near useless for presenting what you
>> >think it shows. How do you get your speculation about what this
>> >evidence means to the jury`s ears? I think most of the CT`s favorite
>> >talking points would be inadmissable, which might help Oz some.
>>
>>
>> The AP X-ray is proof of *government* tampering with the evidence, since
>> no-one else had control over those X-rays.
>
> So you claim.
And, I note, you've been totally unable to refute.
>The point I was raising was wether a judge would allow
>your suppositions and conclusions about this evidence to admitted and
>heard by the jury.
Some of the X-rays can be proven (or more accurately, *have* been proven) by
scientific methods to be forgeries. (Altered copies of the originals is
probably most accurate)
>> You refer to what I "think it shows", yet you can't refute the facts when I
>> present them... coward, aren't you?
>
> Yah, I refer to it accurately as "what you think it shows".
And yet, you can't refute any of the facts I list...
>> >> But, as anyone can see, I know far more of the facts in this case than
>> >> you do, and *I'm* not a LNT'er.
>> >
>> > Your lack of reasoning skills make any knowlege you have useless.
>>
>>
>> Quod erat demonstrandum...
>
> Maybe, but your lack of reasoning skills stll render any knowledge
>you may have useless.
LOL!!
>> >> >You, Ben, have not even heard a prosecution presenting this case, the
>> >> >WC was nothing like.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, it was. It dealt with this case *exactly* as a prosecution.
>> >> You can even see in the WCR, where they presented their summary argument
>> >> *before* they presented their findings.
>> >
>> > That was nothing like trial presentation would be.
>>
>>
>> That's *EXACTLY* what a trial presentation is.
>
> Well, if we had Oz`s actual trial, I could point out the diffences
>to you.
Yep... much of the "evidence" wouldn't be allowed.
>> >No real trial
>> >strategy.
>>
>> Nothing but.
>>
>> >This case, had it went to trial might have been won at jury
>> >selection. A lot more dynamics to a trial than the WC investigation
>> >was.
>>
>> Blind, aren't you?
>
> Not quite. A large void in the necessary information needed to
>predict how a trial would go would be what defense Oz desided on, what
>his lawyer`s defensive stategy was. Possible Oz may have decided to
>plead guilty, if they offered him a deal not to seek the death penlty.
>Who knows?
>
>> >> >The WC was "these are things that indicate to us that Oswald committed
>> >> >these crimes".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As you are surely aware, they never *looked* at any other suspect.
>> >
>> > It wasn`t quantity, it was quality. Oz had evidence that indicated
>> >his guilt because Oz was guilty.
>>
>>
>> Of *course* he was... that's why the WC felt it necessary to bury, hide,
>> and get rid of any contrary evidence.
>
> But Oz tried to kill the cops in the Texas Theater before the WC was
>ever formed.
If true, how does this force the WC to bury, hide, and get rid of contrary
evidence, Bud?
Or, better put, why is it necessary to lie to support the "truth"?
>> But when you need to lie to support the truth, you'd better take
>> another look at what you think is the "truth".
>>
>> Real truth doesn't need lies to support it.
>
> Read Charles original list of "proofs" Oz was framed. See any lies
>there?
Did Charles present the case to the American people?
And yes, should I bother to do so, I'm quite sure that I could point out "facts"
that are based on lies.
>> >> >Being a free country, people can agree or disagree. But
>> >> >the number of people that do either is no indication of how this case
>> >> >would have played out in a court of law. I suspect it would be a slam
>> >> >dunk for the prosecution, mainly because of the lies Oz told. The
>> >> >police are going to get up and say Oz told them these things, like not
>> >> >owning a rifle.
>> >>
>> >> LOL!! LHO couldn't be allowed to live to present his side.
>> >
>> > Apparenly Ruby felt that way.
>>
>>
>> No, those who ordered him felt that way...
>
> So it is claimed by some. Kooks, mainly.
Kook, aren't you?
When you going to grow up?
>> >> So he was murdered in the middle of a crowd of policemen.
>> >
>> > He sure as hell was.
>> >
>> >> >I think it would be a hard sell to convince people that
>> >> >these cops were lying.
>> >>
>> >> Not hard at all. In fact, we know that some of them were.
>> >
>> > Well, easy enough to say. Forty plus years ago I`d think you`d need
>> >some strongly compelling reason to disregard the testimony of the cops
>> >that interrogated Oz.
>>
>> Forty years ago people still believed that the FBI was lily white.
>
> More obstacles to Oz being found innocent.
Of course! The FBI could fake their investigation - AS THEY DID - and no-one
would call 'em on it.
Even the WC would only do so behind closed doors.
>> >I think it would be easier for them to see Oz`s
>> >motivations for lying than the cops.
>>
>>
>> You think it would be easier for *WHO* to see Oz's motivations for lying?
>
> Any jury hearing this case, of course.
LOL! Silly...
>> Presumably you're talking about the DPD. Blind, aren't you?
>
> You stupid if you think I was refering to the DPD.
>
>> >> >That leaves them with Oz lying, with no possible
>> >> >reason than guilt being the explaination.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Interestingly, voice stress analysis of his "I'm just a patsy" shows
>> >> him to be telling the truth. Rather shocked the examiner...
>> >
>> > Well, thats the kind of thing you put stock in when you have nothing
>> >better.
>>
>> No, I have *MUCH* better. So much better in fact, that you run away from it
>> when I mention it.
>>
>> Things such as the tests done at Oak Ridge.
>
> I suppose a defense would use this. I`d have to see the actual
>testing details before I could opine on how a prosecution would handle
>this evidence.
And since that will never happen, you'll never answer.
But of course, you have no answer for why the WC felt it necessary to bury this
evidence.
>> Or the AP X-ray.
>
> No doubt there is an x-ray with a round circle in the orbit of the
>eye. Whether you could get a jury to draw the same conclusions from
>this that you have seems to me extremely doubtful.
Oh, they would. It would only take a few scientific types to parade in and
explain what optical density measurements mean.
>> Or the eyewitness accounts.
>
> Plenty of those harm Oz.
Plenty *exhonerate* him. Bugs you, doesn't it?
>> >Like jiggle analysis. I`m curious as to what they compared his voice
>> >to, though.
>> >I think you need a sample of the subject telling the truth, where did
>> >Oz do this?
>>
>>
>> Once again, you illustrate your near total ignorance of the topic.
>
> Once again, you make claims of my ignorance, offering nothing to
>dispute what I wrote. I did look up "voice analysis" before, and found
>a scathing analysis of it by some polygraph testing group. They claimed
>it had no better success than guessing.
Your ignorance is shown above. Theres no such procedure as to "compare" the
voice to something else...
>> >> >Thats how I see it going, I
>> >> >can`t envision it going any other way.
>> >>
>> >> Lack of knowledge... nothing more.
>> >
>> > I guess I just don`t read enough crackpot conspiracy books.
>>
>>
>> I've very rarely ever referred you to anything other than the 26 volumes.
>>
>> But those frighten you too much to read.
>
> Yah, 26 is a lot.
>
>> >> >The shit that gets played here
>> >> >in newsgroups just wouldn`t play well in a court of law.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Such as hearsay? Or testimony by the defendent's wife under duress?
>> >
>> > If you have something to say, say it. I made some comments about the
>> >legal status of Marina`s testimony which you left uncommented on.
>>
>> No, I TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE FLAT WRONG!
>
> You may have,
You lied when you asserted that I'd left it uncommented.
Why do you feel the need to lie to make your points?
>you do that a lot, think that saying something is
>wrong rebuts any points made.
As I recall, I even pointed out where you could locate all the citations you
could handle.
But you're always free to provide a citation that states that a wife can testify
against her husband without his consent.
(My crystal ball is whispering to me again...)
>If the points were not individually
>addressd and refuted, they remain uncontested by you. I can say that
>most of what you believe about this case is wrong (which it almost
>undoubtedly is), does that refute everything you`ve ever written? If I
>say that the statute you cited doesn`t apply because of "x", "y" and
>"z", either address those points individually and refute them or they
>remain uncommented on, and uncontested.
I deal in facts, Bud.
That's why you keep ducking.
>> Try to avoid telling lies, Bud - there's too many of them to count already.
>
> That depends, Ben, how high can you count?
>
>> >Why bring it up here?
>>
>> Because you couldn't rebute it. Why else? It's a *fact* that you have
>> to deal with.
>
> I would be more than happy to discuss the legal aspects of what
>Marina told the authorities. Your response showed me you were to
>cowardly to address the points I made, so I dropped it.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Go ahead, Bud... *CITE FOR IT*!
>> >And I can see a defense attorney being concerned that a wife blurted
>> >damaging information about his client,
>>
>>
>> Why would he be concerned?
>
> Because lawyers deal in legal matters.
>
>> Most defense attorneys would *welcome* such an event. For it would not
>> be allowed, the judge would probably be forced to grant a retrial, and
>> defendents are not found guilty in retrials at the rate that they
>> are in original trials... witnesses lose their memory, details get stale.
>
> Well, there are two different things to consider. A trial with a
>defense attorney assumes Oz to be alive. As this event unfolded,
>Marina`s spouse was dead early on.
So? You wish to claim that Marina's testimony would be admitted in LHO's trial.
Can't have a trial with a dead defendent.
Why bring up inanities?
>> >but I can`t imagine someone
>> >looking for the truth in this matter being so concerned.
>>
>>
>> But you *AREN'T* looking for the truth, are you? If you were, you'd tell
>> everyone here how her testimony was taken.
>
> And you aren`t looking for the truth by ignoring what she told the
>authorities.
I know far better than you what she *did* say to authorities.
>> >I would think you would welcome the insight from the person closest
>> >a person not many were close to.
>>
>>
>> LOL!!! Tell us about the bathroom door lock, Bud.
>
> Ben, as I have often said, if you have something to say, say it.
I just did. As I commented above: "I know far better than you what she *did*
say to authorities."... and this is just one more illustration of that fact.
Try running over to the censored group, and ask the people there - maybe one of
them will know enough to clue you in.
*OR*, you could spend the time reading her testimony. Take your pick.
This question to you, Bud, was merely to make my point. Made it, didn't I?
>> >> >> Must really bug you that so few people believe in the silly theory
>> >> >> put forth by the WC.
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn`t even read down here.
>> >>
>> >> And yet, you somehow manage to respond... psychic, are you?
>> >
>> > My previous comments did pertain to these unread passages you wrote,
>> >so I guess I am.
>> >
>> >> >You are hung up on the WC,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> They *did* compile the evidence, such as it is.
>> >
>> > Read only what the Dallas police compiled. Less is more.
>>
>>
>> Facts to a LNT'er are like Kryptonite to Superman...
>
> Perhaps if you`d stop your fasination with the fire trucks, you
>might be able to figure out who started this fire.
You think facts are irrelevant?
>> >> You'd prefer to simply assert
>> >> that LHO did it, without bothering to *read* the evidence, right?
>> >
>> > I haven`t seen anyone explain Oz`s actions in any manner other than
>> >guilt.
>>
>> For if someone does, you merely close your eyes.
>
> I asked you to walk me through, explaining to me what really
>happened, explaining Oz`s actions. You delined. If you had taken me up
>on the offer, I`m sure it would have been some of the stupiest shit
>imaginable.
I've already given several prime examples... both of which you scoffed at, and
lied about.
Baker's meeting with LHO, and LHO offering the cab to another person.
>> I've done so right in *THIS* post. Tell everyone here how a man who just
>> finished shooting the President just 90 seconds before
>
> Exactly determined, or estimated?
Talk to the WC. It was, of course, shorter than this. This is the best that
the WC could do to lengthen the time without being unbelievable about it.
>>, and ran down four
>> flights of stairs,
>
> Down is much easier than up.
>
>> manages to look totally unconcerned,
>
> Yah, remarkedly uncurious. Did anyone note any surprize? Of course
>he was neither surprised or curious, he knew what it was about...
Stupid, aren't you?
>> guilt-free,
>
> Yah, guilt can be determined that easily, by a adrenaline pumped
>cop likely looking for someone who doesn`t belong in the building. Why
>do we even have courts when we have can tell just by looking at people
>whether they are guilty. If that fails, we always have voice stress
>analysis. Christ..
Yep... no explanation.
>> and not
>> breathing heavily
>
> Should he have been?
Feel free to do so yourself.
>> when a pistol is stuck in his stomach,
>
> How is the reaction of an innocent person having a gun pointed at
>them different than a guilty person having a gun pointed at them?
Ask a cop... they'll be happy to enlighten you.
>> and a cop is staring
>> him in the face...
>
> Yah, guilty or innocent, he was confronted by a cop. How does it
>speak to either?
Coward, aren't you?
>> >To say that he just happened to bring a long paper package into
>> >work is weak.
>>
>> People do that every day of the week, moron.
>
> I could see a lawyer trying to float that weak shit. Why are you?
Weak? *YOU'RE* trying to float it as the act of a guilty man.
Silly, isn't it?
>> >To say he just happened to leave work right after the
>> >assassination is weak.
>>
>> You mean like the others?
>
> Doubt it. Doubt any left that quickly without talking to anyone.
Then perhaps you should take the time to read up on the actual facts, shouldn't
you?
Because, as usual, you're wrong again.
>> >Why did Oz have the cab driver drive past the
>> >boardinghouse before getting out?
>>
>> Didn't happen.
>
> No? Caeruleo said that is what happened. He seems a reliable source
>to me.
Take your time - research it *YOURSELF*.
Better yet, pull up a map of Dallas on the Internet, and try to put an "x" where
the cab dropped LHO off at.
>> >Lots of things like these leave only
>> >one inescapable conclusion. Oz sold the rifle before the assassination,
>> >was never a communist, and had an evil twin who killed Tippit.
>>
>> When you are forced to lie to support the "truth", you need to look at your
>> "truth" a little more...
>
> Ah, whats a little sarcasm and ridicule amongst friends?
Lies, you mean?
>> >> >the polls.
>> >>
>> >> Minority, aren't you?
>> >
>> > Aren`t we all, in one way or another? Being in the minority that is
>> >correct on an issue isn`t a source of concern to me.
>>
>>
>> It was enough to make a big issue of it.
>
> The polls where never a big issue to me. You seem impressed enough
>by them for both of us.
And yet, you just kept right on debating it, didn't you?
>> >> >Neither mean a fiddlers fuck to me.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That the polls mean nothing matters not at all... but that you believe
>> >> that the WC doesn't matter, along with the evidence they put into the
>> >> 26 volumes, speaks loudly about your character.
>> >
>> > Now it`s a character issue. Whatever Ben. The WC is your punching
>> >bag in this case, beat the crap out of that cow. What Oz did makes Oz
>> >look guilty.
>>
>> When you don't know what Oz did, it makes *YOU* look ignorant.
>
> I know what he did. That you won`t accept what he did makes you look
>silly.
>Lots of people bring long paper bags to work my ass...
LOL!
>> >> >Oz`s actions prove Oz was guilty.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Oh? And which action was that?
>> >
>> > Actions. Plural. Walk me through his actions post assassination to
>> >his arrest. Make some sense out of them for me.
>>
>>
>> Oh? And which actionS were those?
>
> I thought you claimed to know something about this case.
I just want to hear what silly factoids you believe. So that I can cite the
truth for you.
Bud
> >about 99% of the sucessful alibi defenses involved, another person
> >seeing the suspect in a place that makes committing the crime in
> >question impossible.
>
> That isn't, of course, the definition of the term "alibi".
Nor did I say it was. I was only saying that it was an important
component in many sucessful alibis.
> >I don`t suppose just *saying* that you were
> >somewhere else works very much for alibis. Be that as it may, in my
> >very next post, I moved off that definition, and supplied 3 verbatum
> >legal definitions.
>
> All of which did not contradict the possible alibi that LHO had.
None of which you applied to anything you imagine Oz`s alibi to be.
> >I challenged you to apply any of these, or any you
> >could find, which would apply to Oz in this case.
>
> I did, in each case.
No, you didn`t. You didn`t say how any of the definition I supplied
applied to any specific aspect in this case. You chicken danced around
the whole subject. It`s really all you can do, you can`t admit you are
wrong, and you can`t admit that Oz offered an alibi in this case.
You`re stuck, so you opt to dance instead of admitting it.
> >You know you can`t,
>
> Why lie?
I think I know what your motivations are. You can`t admit to being
wrong. So, as always when you are caught in a crack, you twist and
parse, and dance.
> >so you want to keep attention focused on an issue that is resolved.
> >Extremely cowardly.
>
>
> What's cowardly, is to list actual legal definitions, then refuse to admit that
> LHO's case IS NOT CONTRADICTED by those definitions...
I explained under each definition why they didn`t apply to Oz in
this case. Oz offered no alibi in this case, nor have you shown where
he has.
> >> You *lied* about the topic. You're ducking and weaseling right now, and I'm
> >> merely going to keep the subject on-topic.
> >
> > You just can`t apply the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case, know you
> >can`t, and
> >are trying a bit of misdirection to draw attention from the fact that
> >you can`t.
>
>
> Already did.
Chicken dance.
> >> >In what way does the legal term
> >> >"alibi" apply in Oz`s case at all?
> >>
> >>
> >> Another illustration of your ignorance of the meaning of the term.
> >
> > Another cowardly duck. Show me wrong, explain how the term applies.
> >Instead of continueing to claim the term applies, show how it does.
> >Show where Oz used one.
>
>
> I already have. Illiterate, aren't you?
More dancing.
> >> >> >> >So, who saw Oz in a place that makes committing the assassination
> >> >> >> >impossible?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> So, who saw LHO in a place that makes committing the assassination
> >>possible?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> At a *TIME* that made it possible?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Trees fall in the woods without anyone seeing them. Are all murders
> >> >> >witnessed (other than the murderer, of course)?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It was *YOU* who is asking for an eyewitness - why back out?
> >> >
> >> > No need to, In what way could Oz have an alibi that didn`t include a
> >> >eyewitness placing him in a place and time that would make his guilt in
> >> >the assassination impossible?
> >>
> >>
> >> Only a rather severe misunderstanding of the term "alibi" could allow
> >> you to ask such a question.
> >
> > <chuckle> Only a wide yellow streak would lead you to sidestep it.
>
> Okay, I'll meet it head on... YOU ARE A LIAR TO SUGGEST THAT AN EYEWITNESS IS A
> NECESSARY LEGAL COMPONENT OF AN ALIBI. YOU CAN'T CITE OR QUOTE *ANY*
> AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE THAT DEFINES IT IN THIS WAY.
>
> Liar, aren't you?
Oh, well, another excursion to keep things in context for Ben. What
I said has nothing to with any legal application of the legal term
"alibi". I`m asking you, in the specific case we are examining "In what
way could Oz have an alibi that didn`t include an eyewitness in a place
and time that would make his guilt in the assassination impossible". No
need to back out, when I can go another route, and examine what part
eyewitnesses could play in an alibi by Oz. Do try and keep up, kid.
> >Don`t criticise the questions, dazzle me by answering them.
>
>
> You already *know* that you're wrong, don't you?
So you say. And that is all you can do.
> >> Once again, try doing some basic research. You're looking more and more
> >> stupid here.
> >>
> >> Alibi's don't require an eyewitness... try repeating that a dozen times
> >> or so.
> >
> > Again, claiming I`m wrong doesn`t mean a whole lot. Show me to be
> >wrong.
>
> You've already done so. Which definition did *YOU* supply that requires an
> eyewitness as a necessary component to the definition of "alibi"?
Yes, I`ve moved off that assertion a number of responses ago, do try
and keep up. Eyewitnesses are often conponents to sucesssful alibis,
though. Of course, Oz offered no alibi, with or without eyewitnesses.
Kooks feel free to supply them for him, though.
> >Apply the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case.
>
>
> Already have... numerous times.
More of the poultry polka. What do you think of your hero now, GD?
> >I`ve challenged you
> >to do this several times now.
>
>
> Repeating what's already been done is an exercise in futility.
Ben`s barnyard shuffle.
> >Instead of claiming to be the only person
> >in this discussion that knows what the term means, prove it.
>
>
> Already have.
>
> Just as you've already admitted a misunderstanding of the term.
I admitted the original definition off the top of my head was in
error. I`ve since supplied others, applied them to this case, and found
they don`t apply. Do try and keep up, kid.
> >>>>>> >> You asserted that "Oz didn`t have the slightest suggestion of an alibi."
> >>>> >> >> Since you've been involved in the discussion of exactly that - and are
> >>>> >> >> perfectly aware that there *is* a rather solid bit of evidence for an
> >> >> >> >> alibi, you lied.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > It`s not an alibi, kook.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> As you've just illustrated above, you don't even know what the word means.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I looked it up on a couple sites. It`s still not an alibi, kook.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Come on, Bud, you can admit it.
> >> >
> >> > I always can. You seem to have great difficulty.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then do so. Let all the lurkers know that you *lied* in your assertion
> >> concerning LHO and the "suggestion" of an alibi.
> >
> > Instead of claiming I lied,
>
> You've already admitted that your understanding of the term was flawed...
Yes, I did, quite right. The original definition was flawed,
eyewitnesses are not required. A reasoning person might see how they
could come in handy in an alibi, though.
> >why don`t you just produce this
> >suggestion of an alibi?
>
> Done so repeatedly.
Lied repeatedly, more like. You haven`t taken an aspect of this
case, shown where Oz expressed an event as an alibi, and shown how it
meets legal standards.
> >The fact is, Oz could have claimed to have been
> >standing next to Truly out front as an alibi. It may have been an
> >unsucessful alibi, but he did have the right to present that as a legal
> >defense. And the other fact is, the legal term "alibi" doesn`t apply in
> >this case,
>
> Silly...
More chickenshit one word dismisal. Are you saying that Oz
couldn`t claim to have been standing next to Truly as his alibi had
this gone to trial?
> >because it didn`t get to the point where it would apply. Ben
> >knows this, so he is going into this diversionary mode
> >instead of adressing how the term applies in Oz`s case.
> >
> >> >> You were mistaken about the meaning of the word, weren't you?
> >> >
> >> > I got no problem with that. I was working from memory of a
> >> >definition I had read on the other board about a year ago. And it
> >> >*still* doesn`t apply to Oz, kook.
> >>
> >> Sure it does. You evidently *still* haven't figured it out.
> >
> > Correct me, Perry Mason. Tell us all how the legal term applies in
> >Oz`s case.
>
> Already have.
The dance continues...
> >I say it doesn`t, and have explained why. You seem to claim it does,
> >hard to tell when you re so frightened you can only say claim i`m
> >wrong. Apply this legal defense to Oz`s case, coward.
>
> Already have.
And continues...
> >> >> And you can admit that you lied when you commented that LHO didn't
> >> >> have even a suggestion of an alibi.
> >> >
> >> > Of course I admitted no such thing, but how else could your brain
> >> >process such information? By definition, Oz didn`t have an alibi
> >> >because he never claimed one.
> >>
> >>
> >>Your continued ignorance concerning the term is amusing... Stupid, aren't you?
> >
> > Well, you certainly aren`t offering anything to make me appear that
> >way. I can get devastating rebuttal like "you`re stupid" in any
> >schoolyard.
>
>
> Which is probably where you are during the day...
I can`t do worse when it comes to reasoning ability then you here.
> >> >> When you can admit it, then the conversation can continue.
> >> >
> >> > Fuck you and your conditions. My spanking must be leaving welts for
> >> >you to look for such a cowardly way out.
> >>
> >>
> >> What "spanking"?
> >
> > Try sitting.
> >
> >>You are ignorant of the facts, you deny what's right in front of your face, and
> >> you make rather stupid mistakes in legal terminology.
> >
> > I supplied 3 legal definitions. I applied them to Oz`s case, and
> >pointed out why they don`t apply. Your turn.
>
>
> And I pointed out why they do. Been there, done that.
No, you didn`t. You didn`t take a specific aspect of the case, say
this is what Oz claimed as an alibi, and show that claim by Oz to be a
legal application of the term. You dance superbly, though.
> >> >> >> Don't you think that it's just a tad kooky to argue about a word that
> >> >> >> you don't even know the legal definition of?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I was working off a definition supplied by someone over on the other
> >> >> >assassination board last year. It probably wasn`t the best one.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It was *wrong*... come on, Bud, say it with me: "The definition for
> >> >> 'alibi' that Bud used is incorrect"... say it again, Bud... perhaps
> >> >> repetition will get it through your head.
> >> >
> >> > It was largely incorrect.
> >>
> >> Good. The first step towards rehabilitation is the admission that you need
> >> help.
> >
> > Well, lets put all put all the cards on the table, let the lurkers
> >see through the smokescreen you are creating. I originally said ""I
> >believe it is a witness who saw a possible suspect in a place that
> >makes committing the crime impossible". Now, since that was of the top
> >of my head, and my belief, it can`t be a lie (and consequentlly anyone
> >calling it a lie a liar). In the next post you challenged me to look up
> >the word. I did, and I found my definition in error (and haven`t since
> >pressed my original definition as correct), and also discovered that
> >the term didn`t apply in Oz`s case at all.
>
> Untrue, of course...
So you claim. And thats all you do.
> >In an attempt to keep all
> >focus on my mistaken belief, instead of addressing how the term does
> >apply to the case in hand, Ben has now opted to go into this song and
> >dance diversionary tactic. I guess I just have to wait until he tires
> >of this dance and the fear subsides, so we can continue.
>
> When you admit that your original statement about LHO not having even a
> "suggestion" of an alibi is a lie, then we can continue...
What alibi did Oz suggest? Spell it out, where, when, with who, if
anyone. Or dance, I could care less. I`ll be here when you tire.
> Until then, I'm going to keep pointing out your stupidities...
Oz had the legal right to claim anything as his alibi. He just
didn`t, is all.
> >> >A person who sees a person suspected of a
> >> >crime in a place that makes the committing of that crime impossible is
> >> >an "alibi witness". It doesn`t seem they are always necessary for an
> >> >alibi, but I`d think they are what is used in the vast bulk of cases.
> >> >Maybe video tape sometimes, or evidence presented that the person was
> >> >out of the country when a crime was committed might be used in an alibi
> >> >defense. But in Oz`s case, I think he`d need a witness putting him in a
> >> >place were it made it impossible for him to be the assassin before he`d
> >> >have anything resembling an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why would LHO have to have something that no-one else has ever been
> >> required to have?
> >
> > I was mentioning generally what I expect sucessful alibis to have,
>
>
> But not, as is clear, the *actual* definition of the term.
But just as clear is that eyewitnesses are often an important
component of alibis.
> >some kind of corroboration. Oz never presented an alibi as a defense.
>
> You've never listed his prosecutor, either... Rather yellow of you, isn't it?
Yah, that would be the point I made a while back, that this case
hadn`t reached the point in the legal process where the application of
the term "alibi" was appropriate.
> >You know it, so you refuse to discuss it. Pretty yellow.
>
> Why would I "discuss" what isn't possible?
Brilliant, Holmes, you finally arrived where I was at a few posts
back when I presented the legal definitions of "alibi". That any claims
of an alibi do not meet the requirements of the legal definitions. Do
try to keep up.
> Name his prosecutor, and I'll
> discuss LHO's presentation of alibi to him.
Quite right, if handing them to a prsecutor is a requirement before
they are recognized as a legal defense, then any suggestion of an alibi
for Oz does not apply in the legal sense.
> >>Say it with me, Bud: "Eyewitnesses are not a necessary component to an alibi".
> >>
> >> Repeat until it sinks in.
> >
> > Yes, see I moved off of that a while ago,
>
> Actually, you listed it yet again just above...
Not as a requirement. They can still be examined as a component of
an alibi. They are still common to alibis.
> >are you ready to proceed
> >yet? Corroboration of another person is extremely useful in
> >establishing an alibi.
>
> You see? There you go again...
Yah, I do see, why don`t you? What part of "Corroboration of another
person is extremely useful in establishing an alibi" do you have a
problem with?
> >Without it, or some other corroborating evidence
> >to establish a person`s whereabouts at a particular time is extremely
> >difficult. Oswald could claim to have been anywhere on the planet as an
> >alibi. For it to be sucessful, he would probably need a little more
> >than just saying he was elsewhere.
>
> He *does*. A fact that you refuse to admit.
I thought we had no testimony from Oz. And I can`t examine this
alibi because you are too craven to present it.
> >> >> >Here are two short and sweet legal definitions I just located...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The first one is from Legal-Explainations.com..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Alibi- Proof offered by one accused of a crime that they were in a
> >> >> >different place from that where the crime was committed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and persons,
> >> >> that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he's
> >> >> accused of.
> >>
> >>
> >> WHAT!!!? No rebuttal, oh stupid one?
> >
> > Missed it, or I would have.
>
> Yep... it's merely one of the examples that I've already given, that you keep
> falsely insisting that I haven't. Lied, didn't you?
>
> This is why I keep saying that I've already done so...
Then I will explain why what you keep saying is a lie. What you
wrote is "Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and
persons, that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the
crime he`s accused of" For starters, this is not an example of a legal
definition of alibi, it is a paraphrasing of the definition. But the
main failure of this meeting my requests is that it is not applied to
the case we are examining. It doesn`t say what person described what
scene in time, it doesn`t name what place, ect. You don`t do this, Ben,
because you know if you do, I can rip it to shreads in a variety of
ways. So, you keep claiming you have, but I`ve just shown, you have not
applied the legal term alibi in any specific manner in this case,
despite my numerous pleas for you to do so. If you did name a specific
event, then I could apply your assertion of "could not have been at",
and dispute if it applies in terms of an alibi, or some other grounds.
So you just omit relating details about the event entirely, that way I
can`t challenge it.
I`m gonna snip here, Google is choking on long response, I`ll pick
it up below, possibly not.
<SNIP>
Ben Holmes
<garbage snipped>
>> >> >> >Here are two short and sweet legal definitions I just located...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The first one is from Legal-Explainations.com..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Alibi- Proof offered by one accused of a crime that they were
>> >> >> > in a different place from that where the crime was committed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and persons,
>> >> >> that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he's
>> >> >> accused of.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> WHAT!!!? No rebuttal, oh stupid one?
>> >
>> > Missed it, or I would have.
>>
>> Yep... it's merely one of the examples that I've already given, that
>> you keep falsely insisting that I haven't. Lied, didn't you?
>>
>> This is why I keep saying that I've already done so...
>
> Then I will explain why what you keep saying is a lie. What you
>wrote is "Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and
>persons, that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the
>crime he`s accused of" For starters, this is not an example of a legal
>definition of alibi,
Nor have I ever stated that it was. I'm not attempting to *provide*
definitions. I've merely stated that your original definition was simply wrong,
and your recent statements *still* assert things not required by the definitions
you *have* quoted. Your strawman is showing...
You provided a definition - I provided the example of how LHO's possible alibi
met THAT EXACT DEFINITION.
You've continued to deny that I've ever done that. Lied, didn't you?
>it is a paraphrasing of the definition.
Ah! Good of you to admit that an example pulled *DIRECTLY* from the evidence in
this case is so close to your quoted definition of "alibi" that you believe it
to be a "paraphrase".
>But the main failure of this meeting my requests is that it is not
>applied to the case we are examining.
It's *PRECISELY* from this case. What you thought was a "paraphrase" was an
example pulled directly from the evidence in this case.
Evidence that *YOU* are well aware of. So your normal claim of ignorance won't
work here.
>It doesn`t say what person described what
>scene in time, it doesn`t name what place, ect.
Oh, I'm quite sure you can answer both questions. You can't claim ignorance,
for if you do, I'll merely quote your own words from past discussions of this
topic.
>You don`t do this, Ben, because you know if you do, I can rip it to
>shreads in a variety of ways.
Go ahead, Bud - assert right here and now that you have no idea of the time,
people and places.
>So, you keep claiming you have, but I`ve just shown, you have not
>applied the legal term alibi in any specific manner in this case,
And yet, you manage to call it a "paraphrase". Perhaps you should crack a
dictionary.
>despite my numerous pleas for you to do so. If you did name a specific
>event,
Oh, but I *have*. And, coward that you are, you won't deal with it.
>then I could apply your assertion of "could not have been at",
>and dispute if it applies in terms of an alibi, or some other grounds.
>So you just omit relating details about the event entirely, that way I
>can`t challenge it.
But surely you *must* know the details... it was YOU who stated that LHO didn't
have a "suggestion" of an alibi. How can a person make such a statement in all
honesty if they didn't know the facts?
Or are you willing to lie and state that you have no idea about this possible
alibi of LHO's?
(If you do, be prepared for quotes of *YOUR* past statements on the topic)
> I`m gonna snip here, Google is choking on long response, I`ll pick
>it up below, possibly not.
Who cares? It'll undoubtably be simply filled with more lies & ignorance.
> <SNIP>
P.S. Can you tell us about that bathroom door in Marina's testimony yet?
Bud
<SNIP>
> >I addressed it elsewhere anyway, here or
> >the other post under this topic. For starters, let me say that anyone
> >can claim anything as an alibi. The fact is that Oz claimed no alibi,
> >not in the legal sense.
>
> Name the prosecutor, oh stupid one.
Name the alibi, oh cowardly one.
> >As far as your example, how does decribing a
> >scene prove a person was
> >at a scene?
>
> Your brilliance is underwhelming...
So you say. But leave the point I just made untouched.
> >I was watching the Phillies game on TV, I can describe the
> >place, persons, timing of events, who hit what when. My sister went
> >crabbing last weekend, she told me who went, what they did at different
> >times. In neither place would I have much hope of establishing my
> >presense without someone at either place saying they saw me there. Yes,
> >I could claim either place as a legal defense if I was accused of a
> >crime during these times. But in order for it to have a chance of
> >succeeding, I better have a person saying I was there.
>
>
> Not a necessary component of the term... nor can you cite for its necessity.
Wow, theres the reasoning and reading comprehension issue again.
Being able to describe events, times and places does not necessarily
meen a person was at a particular location at a particular time to
witness them first hand. This is where eyewitnesses are useful, to
provide confirmation. That is as much as I can dumb it down, but stay
focused on that matra "eyewitneses are not necessary for an alibi".
Jacks aren`t necessary to change a tire, but they sure do come in
handy. Were you born with reasoning ability, or did you lose it in an
accident?
> >> >> > You can see how this doesn`t apply to Oz, as you pointed out, there
> >> >> >exists no testimony from Oz, therefore we can have no proof offered.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > <chuckle> Is that it. Is that your refutation? It is my claim that
> >> >the legal term "alibi" does not apply in this case.
> >>
> >> You *still* haven't figured out what the term means...
> >
> > Instead of claiming it applies in Oz`s case, show how it does.
>
> Been there, done that.
Chicken dance.
> >Stop
> >the wimpy dance or stop responding, you make yourself look foolish with
> >all these evasions. Maybe you don`t mind looking foolish...
>
> You're the one who doesn't understand jurisprudence, not me.
I understand enough of it to know Oz offered no alibi for the
assassination.
> >> >Seems a simple
> >> >concept to refute if it is as stupid as you claim.
> >>
> >> Your continued ignorance of the meaning of the word *is* the refutation.
> >
> > Sure is easy to make claims. Applying the term to Oz`s would be
> >actual refutation. You can`t, so you skirt the issue entirely, then
> >blame me for your cowardice.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Chicken dance.
> >> >> > And this one, from Laborlaw.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The alibi, a term in jurisprudence, is a form of legal defense in
> >> >> >which a defendant argues that they were engaged in some other activity
> >> >> >such that they could not possibly have committed the crime in question.
> >> >>
> >> >> Such as eating lunch and describing the only two other people who were
> >> >> there... that sort of thing?
Is this supposed to be the another assertion of Oz`s alib? In the
form of a question? With no particulars named, not who, not where?
Chickenshit. I`m not filling in the blanks for you, if you have
something to say, say it. Identify the people, the events, ect. Then I
can proceed to demolish your assertions (which is why you leave it
vague to begin with, I can`t attack an unnamed episode).
> >> > Whoa, you said we have nothing from Oz. What exactly did he say,
> >> >right? And, you have no idea whether he would have stuck to that story
> >> >as an attempt at a legal defense.
> >>
> >> He described something that he would be required to be psychic to know - he
> >> doesn't have to "stick" to that "story".
> >
> > Did he present this as a legal defense? Would he have used that come
> >trial? You haven`t a clue, he may have claimed to be out front as an
> >alibi. Maybe claimed to be Billy Lovelady in that picture. You don`t
> >know what legal alibi Oz would choose, because it had not reached the
> >point where one would need to be chosen. It is meaningless that you and
> >the other kooks choose alibis for Oz.
>
> There is no legal requirement to "present" an alibi for one to exist.
They form from alibi molecules? Who gives voice to this concept,
"alibi"? I`m thinking it must be the person accused. What if Oz didn`t
like any of the alibis you kooks foist on him, would he have to take
them?
> And why
> are you bothering to answer a point that you say I didn't make?
More cowardly parsing games. Afraid to address the only real issue,
whether Oz presented an alibi.
> >> Getting desperate, Bud?
> >
> > Not at all, I`m more than willing to present reasons why the legal
> >term "alibi" doesn`t apply in Oz`s case.
>
> And yet, other than with misunderstandings of what the term means, you haven't
> done so.
So you claim. And that is all.
> >You havn`t touched why it does
> >apply. Since you have only skirted the issue,
>
> Answered it directly, you mean...
No, I characterized it accurately.
> >and not addressed it,
> >explains why I`ve buried you in this discussion.
>
> LOL!!! I'll leave that for the lurkers to decide...
I only hope they enjoyed your "Lord of the Chicken Dance" routine.
> >> >It is not, by legal definition, an
> >> >alibi. Kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> Still don't understand the term, do you?
> >
> > So you`ve claimed a dozen times.
>
> And will continue to do so - until you show a proper understanding of the term.
I supplied three legal defintions of "alibi", applied them to this
case, and explained why they don`t apply. I`ve seen no challenges from
you, except to assert them wrong. So you say, so what?
> >And offered nothing but claims to
> >back it up. Your next claim to be the lurkers understand. I understand
> >also. You won`t touch it because you don`t have a leg to stand on.
>
> Won't touch what???
An application of the legal term "alibi" to anything presented by
Oz.
> I've shown that LHO did indeed have a "suggestion" of an alibi... a perfectly
> legal one... that fits the definition of the term.
You just won`t say what Oz said this alibi was, or how the legal
term "alibi" applies to what he said.
> >> >> Of course.
> >> >>
> >> >> > As you can see, this also couldn`t apply in Oz`s case, as he never
> >> >> >invoked a legal defense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > It`s not rebuttal unless you adress what I said. What I did was
> >> >apply the legal definition of "alibi" to Oz`s case. In what way did I
> >> >misuse the term?
> >>
> >>
> >>You still don't understand what "alibi" means. That's all the rebuttal needed.
> >
> > Well, that seems to be all you got, anyway. I bring the legal
> >definitions of "alibi",
>
> And continue to assert things that are *NOT* part of the definition...
>
> >and show how they don`t apply in Oz`s case,
>
> You haven't been able to do that...
Oz advanced no alibi, so there is really no alibi to discuss.
> >you
> >cry "wrong, wrong, wrong". It smacks of weakness to me, I think I will
> >press my advantage.
>
>
> Press it... people will enjoy a good laugh...
Hope they like your dancing.
> >> >> > Perhaps you can supply a definition of "alibi" that could apply in
> >> >> >Oz`s case...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You've done quite well. It's too bad that you couldn't have done this
> >> >> homework before you spout falsehoods.
> >> >
> >> > Always stuck in the past, aren`t you? Why not get up to speed and
> >> >explain how the legal definition of "alibi" applies in Oz`s case?
> >>
> >>
> >> Why not attempt to assert why it doesn't? It's *YOUR* claim, after all, that
> >> LHO didn't have a "suggestion" of an alibi.
> >
> > What was it, then? Oz made no legal alibi,
>
> Silly... yet another misunderstanding of the term. A defendent is not required
> to assert one before one exists.
Well, according to two of the legal definitions I supplied it does.
> >therefore he had no
> >alibi.
>
> A tree falls in the forest with no-one to hear the sound, so therefore there is
> no sound - this is the essence of your argument.
You claim to know the exact sound the tree made, although you never
heard it.
> LHO did not assert this alibi to the non-existent prosecutor, so it didn't
> exist.
Who did Oz advance this alibi to? What was it? You are frozen with
fear to say.
> How silly...
You can produce Oz`s alibi, or dance, makes no difference to me.
> >Kooks would like to give him one, but that isn`t how it works.
>
>
> Fool, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> >> >> >That is the point,
> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that requires
> >> >> >> another person for an alibi?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, not as a requirement. It sure does help, though.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course you can't. *YOUR* definition was simply wrong.
> >> >
> >> > But I was correct in saying Oz did not have an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> That is not what you said. Why bother to lie, Bud?
> >
> > You`re now claiming I never said that Oz didn`t have an alibi?
>
>
> Anyone can look up what you first said... why bother to lie about it?
Well, seems I must help Ben with context, it is a weak spot for him.
You can see above that admit that eyewitneses are not a requirement for
an alibi. Despite that admission, Ben still revisits the point with
"*YOUR* definition was wrong", as if I hadn`t just admitted that very
thing. I advance the idea that although my initial definition was
wrong, my initial assertion that Oz didn`t have an alibi still remains
true. Ben still remains fixated on the mistaken definition, calls me a
liar for moving on.
It was not an answer, what you had to say was not applied to any part
of the case under discussion. It supplied no specific particulars of
the case, so how could any legal definition of alibi be applied to
those particulars?
> >and I just haven`t pieced it together from his hints
> >and innuendo.
> >
> >> Try rereading this post...
> >
> > Now it`s an Easter egg hunt. Truth is, Oz offered no legal alibi.
>
> You once again offer a mistaken definition of the term "alibi".
An alibi is the term for a form of legal defense. Oz did not offer
this.
> You're too cowardly to even attempt to offer a citation for this.
The definitions I supplied show that Oz offered no alibi.
> >Truth is, you know it. Truth is you will continue to duck it instead of
> >addressing it. I`m sure the lurjers can compare. You have a problem
> >with definition of "alibi" I ofered off the top of my head,
>
> Yep... it was *WRONG*.
Yah. Eyewitnesses are not a requirement for an alibi. Just damned
useful.
> >I address
> >it, discuss it, amend it if necessary. You`re whipped, so you claim the
> >high ground, and say all questions are beneath you. It`s still evasion,
> >even if it`s on the high ground.
>
> LOL!!
Proves my point.
> >>But first, spend a little time acquainting yourself with the meaning of the term
> >> "alibi".
> >>
> >> Try to understand what would constitute one.
> >
> > <heehee> Wahl, you wouldn`t want to be caught discussing issues like
> >a mere mortal, would you? Just stick to making claims, you won`t expose
> >as many of your weaknesses that way.
>
>
> Why not discuss the facts, Bud?
Trying to, but it takes two to tango, and you are enjoying this solo
chicken dance too much. If you would have said "Oz`s alibi was "x", and
it is supported by this legal definition "y", we`d be moved on by now.
Since you can`t or won`t do such a thing, I must await you tiring of
this silly dance routine.
> >> >> one that is reasonably strong. And
> >> >> *no-one* has been able to place him at the scene of the crime at the
> >> >> time of the crime.
> >> >
> >> > That has nothing to do with an alibi either.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course not. It has EVERYTHING to do with your statement that this is in
> >> response to.
> >>
> >>
> >> Is this the best you can do, Bud?
> >
> > Whats that, applying the legal term "alibi" to Oz`s case. Yes, I can
> >do that. I have done that. You haven`t done anything to refute it, mere
> >label it "wrong".
> >Excellent, I like.
> >
> >> >> > You see the problem, Oz never alerted the Prosecutor that he was
> >> >> >opting to present an alibi.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Rather stupid of you, isn't it? You *still* don't understand the concept of
> >> >> "alibi"...
> >> >
> >> > You don`t, even after I supplied three definitions. You are stuck
> >> >parroting "stupid" instead of rebutting the points I made.
> >>
> >>
> >> None of your definitions requires an eyewitness, none of your definitions
> >> requires the assertion of the defendent for an alibi to exist.
> >
> > And of course you are stuck cowardly attacking a point I moved off
> >of a number of posts ago, that eyewitnesses are required.
>
>
> Actually, you've asserted it *AGAIN* in this very post. So your statement above
> is a lie, isn't it?
I haven`t claimed it is a requirement since my first mistaken
definition. I have in a couple places pointed out what a useful
component of an alibi an eyewitness can be.
> >Now you are
> >stuck with the Marsh-like tactic of bogging down the conversation
> >because you realize the term "alibi" doesn`t apply in Oz`s case because
> >of the reasons I`ve outlined.
>
> Untrue... not a single definition you supplied (that didn't come out of your
> fevered head, that is) contradicted LHO's "suggestion" of an alibi.
Oh boy, now we`re are going to parse "suggestion". Which, of course
I amended to resembling". But, be that as it may, what did Oz suggest
his alibi would be?
> >BTW, the definition I produce say that it
> >is the accused who decided on an alibi defense, and what that will
> >include. They don`t say "kooks".
>
>
> An "alibi defense" is not an "alibi". The two are not the same. Ignorant,
> aren't you?
Yah, so apparentlly are the people at Laborlaw.com., they think an
alibi is a form of legal defense.
> >>LHO did *indeed* have a "suggestion" of an alibi, and nothing you can say will
> >> get you out of that lie.
> >
> > He presented no alibi that he expressed an intention to use in
> >court. If he did, say what it was, coward.
>
> Bravo! You've proven that LHO didn't have an "alibi defense". (Even if you
> *are* too cowardly to name his 'prosecutor')
An alibi is a form of legal defense.
> That isn't, of course, the topic of discussion.
I have an idea, stop weasaling, stop parsing, and lets discuss what
you think Oz`s alibi was, and whether it applies as such in a legal
sense. It might make for an interesting discussion, if you could just
shake your fear...
> >> >> There is *NO* legal requirement for the defendent to "alert the
> >> >> prosecutor" for an alibi to exist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nor can you *name* the "prosecutor" in LHO's "trial".
> >> >
> >> > Ah, you catch the drift. An "alibi" is the term for a legal defense,
> >> >to be used strictly in a court of law.
> >>
> >> No, it is not. I find the term in ordinary dictionaries, it's widely
> >> used and understood.
> >
> > For those who don`t know what just happened, Ben now wants to move
> >off of how this term is used in legal matters on to a more general
> >usage of the word.
>
> Nope. I merely point out hat you are incorrect when you state that the term
> "alibi" is a term for legal defense "TO BE USED STRICTLY IN A COURT OF LAW".
I will amend that to "Our focus is stricktly how the word applies
pertaining to legal matters." Happy?
> It *is* used outside of a court of law, you're simply wrong again...
Yah, I saw it used on LA Law once, but that is irrelevant to our
discussion, which is about it`s application in jurisprudence.
> >> >So, what was missing to have the
> >> >term "alibi" apply? When Oz sat with his lawyer, and decided what his
> >> >courtroom strategy would be, none of those things you consider "alibis"
> >> >may have been offered as part of Oz`s defense. Oz offered no "alibi",
> >> >in the legal sense.
> >>
> >> Yep... he absolutely did. Stupid, aren't you?
> >>
> >>
> >> >You`ll see kooks in newsgroups try and foist them
> >> >on him all the time. That doesn`t mean Oz would have used any of them.
> >>
> >>
> >> An alibi does not need to be asserted by the defendent to exist.
> >
> > If you are going to use your absense at the scene of the crime as a
> >legal defense you do.
>
>
> You confuse an "alibi defense" with "alibi". Stupid, aren't you?
An alibi is a form of legal dense.
> >> When are you
> >> going to stop looking so stupid?
> >
> > Who selects "alibis"?
>
> It's not required to be asserted by the defendent, as you've stated. You can't
> produce any citation that so states. You've lied again, more than likely by
> sheer ignorance.
In fact, I`ve already produced two citations that do that very thing,
I`m surprised to see you lie so blatently. The definition from
Laborlaw.com has it as "Proof offered by one accused of a crime..." The
definition from Legal-Explainations.com has it "...in which a defendant
argues..." In both cases, for the purposes of our discussion that is
Oz. Can you cite anywhere that
says its the province of kooks in newsgroups?
Bud
<SNIP>
> Go ahead, Bud - assert right here and now that you have no idea of the time,
> people and places.
I`ve had many discussions, and seen many things offered by CT, that
they felt were alibis for Oz. I`m not interested in guessing games.
Either you supply what you think this alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets
the legal requirements of an alibi, or keep dancing, I could care less.
<SNIP>
Ben Holmes
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> >I addressed it elsewhere anyway, here or
>> >the other post under this topic. For starters, let me say that anyone
>> >can claim anything as an alibi. The fact is that Oz claimed no alibi,
>> >not in the legal sense.
>>
>> Name the prosecutor, oh stupid one.
>
> Name the alibi, oh cowardly one.
I have... repeatedly. Are you illiterate?
>> >As far as your example, how does decribing a
>> >scene prove a person was
>> >at a scene?
>>
>> Your brilliance is underwhelming...
>
> So you say. But leave the point I just made untouched.
No need to touch it, lurkers who are aware of this possible alibi of LHO
understand that he described a scene *IN A SPECIFIC TIME AND PLACE*, which
unless he possessed a crystal ball, would have been unable to do unless he was
there.
And yet, you maintain that LHO didn't even have a "suggestion" of an alibi.
Lied, didn't you?
>> >I was watching the Phillies game on TV, I can describe the
>> >place, persons, timing of events, who hit what when. My sister went
>> >crabbing last weekend, she told me who went, what they did at different
>> >times. In neither place would I have much hope of establishing my
>> >presense without someone at either place saying they saw me there. Yes,
>> >I could claim either place as a legal defense if I was accused of a
>> >crime during these times. But in order for it to have a chance of
>> >succeeding, I better have a person saying I was there.
>>
>>
>> Not a necessary component of the term... nor can you cite for its necessity.
>
> Wow, theres the reasoning and reading comprehension issue again.
Yep... despite your denials, you *CONTINUE* to attempt to assert that an
eyewitness is a necessary component of an alibi.
>Being able to describe events, times and places does not necessarily
>meen a person was at a particular location at a particular time to
>witness them first hand.
Nope. But I'm not dealing in generalities. This is a *specific* example, one
that you cannot provide any alternative explanation for.
>This is where eyewitnesses are useful, to
>provide confirmation.
Useful, and NOT NECESSARY.
>That is as much as I can dumb it down, but stay
>focused on that matra "eyewitneses are not necessary for an alibi".
They aren't. You're a liar to suggest otherwise.
Nor have you been able to produce a single citation that states that an
eyewitness is a necessary component of an alibi.
>Jacks aren`t necessary to change a tire, but they sure do come in
>handy. Were you born with reasoning ability, or did you lose it in an
>accident?
Coward, aren't you?
>>>> >> > You can see how this doesn`t apply to Oz, as you pointed out, there
>> >> >> >exists no testimony from Oz, therefore we can have no proof offered.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>> >> >
>> >> > <chuckle> Is that it. Is that your refutation? It is my claim that
>> >> >the legal term "alibi" does not apply in this case.
>> >>
>> >> You *still* haven't figured out what the term means...
>> >
>> > Instead of claiming it applies in Oz`s case, show how it does.
>>
>> Been there, done that.
>
> Chicken dance.
Illiterate, aren't you?
>> >Stop
>> >the wimpy dance or stop responding, you make yourself look foolish with
>> >all these evasions. Maybe you don`t mind looking foolish...
>>
>> You're the one who doesn't understand jurisprudence, not me.
>
> I understand enough of it to know Oz offered no alibi for the
>assassination.
You've understood it so well as to believe that the defense has a full
disclosure requirement to the prosecution... that's all that need be said...
>> >> >Seems a simple
>> >> >concept to refute if it is as stupid as you claim.
>> >>
>> >> Your continued ignorance of the meaning of the word *is* the refutation.
>> >
>> > Sure is easy to make claims. Applying the term to Oz`s would be
>> >actual refutation. You can`t, so you skirt the issue entirely, then
>> >blame me for your cowardice.
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that.
>
> Chicken dance.
Already did so... coward, aren't you?
>> >> >> > And this one, from Laborlaw.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The alibi, a term in jurisprudence, is a form of legal defense in
>> >> >> >which a defendant argues that they were engaged in some other activity
>>>> >> >such that they could not possibly have committed the crime in question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Such as eating lunch and describing the only two other people who were
>> >> >> there... that sort of thing?
>
> Is this supposed to be the another assertion of Oz`s alib?
Another example of "Been there, done that", that you keep denying... yes.
As everyone can see, you were too cowardly to address it when I made the
statement, and too cowardly to tell the truth *now* about it.
>In the
>form of a question? With no particulars named, not who, not where?
No need to. This has all been covered in a thread that you were a participant
in. Why repeat what's already been laid out - and that you couldn't refute the
first time through?
Let's deal with your lie that LHO didn't have a "suggestion" of an alibi, even
though you know full well that your statement isn't true.
>Chickenshit. I`m not filling in the blanks for you, if you have
>something to say, say it. Identify the people, the events, ect. Then I
>can proceed to demolish your assertions (which is why you leave it
>vague to begin with, I can`t attack an unnamed episode).
Covered in great detail in another thread that was *on* this topic.
What we are discussing *here*, is your lie that LHO didn't have even the
"suggestion" of an alibi.
You know quite well that this is a lie, why assert it?
>> >> > Whoa, you said we have nothing from Oz. What exactly did he say,
>> >> >right? And, you have no idea whether he would have stuck to that story
>> >> >as an attempt at a legal defense.
>> >>
>>>> He described something that he would be required to be psychic to know - he
>> >> doesn't have to "stick" to that "story".
>> >
>> > Did he present this as a legal defense? Would he have used that come
>> >trial? You haven`t a clue, he may have claimed to be out front as an
>> >alibi. Maybe claimed to be Billy Lovelady in that picture. You don`t
>> >know what legal alibi Oz would choose, because it had not reached the
>> >point where one would need to be chosen. It is meaningless that you and
>> >the other kooks choose alibis for Oz.
>>
>> There is no legal requirement to "present" an alibi for one to exist.
>
> They form from alibi molecules? Who gives voice to this concept,
>"alibi"?
Still a believer that there's no sound in the forest if no-one hears it...
Silly...
>I`m thinking it must be the person accused.
Then you are thinking wrong. It's never been a requirement that the defendent
produce an alibi.
>What if Oz didn`t like any of the alibis you kooks foist on him,
>would he have to take them?
Again, you confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. Such amazing reasoning
ability!
>> And why
>> are you bothering to answer a point that you say I didn't make?
>
> More cowardly parsing games. Afraid to address the only real issue,
>whether Oz presented an alibi.
No, that's not the point at all. LHO doesn't have to "present" an alibi for one
to exist.
Why would I grant solidarity to a false statement?
>> >> Getting desperate, Bud?
>> >
>> > Not at all, I`m more than willing to present reasons why the legal
>> >term "alibi" doesn`t apply in Oz`s case.
>>
>> And yet, other than with misunderstandings of what the term means,
>> you haven't done so.
>
> So you claim. And that is all.
>
>> >You havn`t touched why it does
>> >apply. Since you have only skirted the issue,
>>
>> Answered it directly, you mean...
>
> No, I characterized it accurately.
>
>> >and not addressed it,
>> >explains why I`ve buried you in this discussion.
>>
>> LOL!!! I'll leave that for the lurkers to decide...
>
> I only hope they enjoyed your "Lord of the Chicken Dance" routine.
>
>> >> >It is not, by legal definition, an
>> >> >alibi. Kook.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Still don't understand the term, do you?
>> >
>> > So you`ve claimed a dozen times.
>>
>> And will continue to do so - until you show a proper understanding of
>> the term.
>
> I supplied three legal defintions of "alibi", applied them to this
>case, and explained why they don`t apply.
And when I explained precisely how they *DO* apply, you refused to refute my
statements. Claimed not to have seen them... called them a "paraphrase", and
accused me of never having answered.
Lied, didn't you?
>I`ve seen no challenges from
>you, except to assert them wrong. So you say, so what?
>
>> >And offered nothing but claims to
>> >back it up. Your next claim to be the lurkers understand. I understand
>> >also. You won`t touch it because you don`t have a leg to stand on.
>>
>> Won't touch what???
>
> An application of the legal term "alibi" to anything presented by
>Oz.
>
>> I've shown that LHO did indeed have a "suggestion" of an alibi... a
>> perfectly legal one... that fits the definition of the term.
>
> You just won`t say what Oz said this alibi was, or how the legal
>term "alibi" applies to what he said.
Been there, done that.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >> Of course.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > As you can see, this also couldn`t apply in Oz`s case, as he never
>> >> >> >invoked a legal defense.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>> >> >
>> >> > It`s not rebuttal unless you adress what I said. What I did was
>> >> >apply the legal definition of "alibi" to Oz`s case. In what way did I
>> >> >misuse the term?
>> >>
>> >>
>>>>You still don't understand what "alibi" means. That's all the rebuttal
>>needed.
>> >
>> > Well, that seems to be all you got, anyway. I bring the legal
>> >definitions of "alibi",
>>
>> And continue to assert things that are *NOT* part of the definition...
>>
>> >and show how they don`t apply in Oz`s case,
>>
>> You haven't been able to do that...
>
> Oz advanced no alibi, so there is really no alibi to discuss.
Not a requirement of an "alibi". Liar, aren't you?
>> >you
>> >cry "wrong, wrong, wrong". It smacks of weakness to me, I think I will
>> >press my advantage.
>>
>>
>> Press it... people will enjoy a good laugh...
>
> Hope they like your dancing.
>
>> >> >> > Perhaps you can supply a definition of "alibi" that could apply in
>> >> >> >Oz`s case...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You've done quite well. It's too bad that you couldn't have done this
>> >> >> homework before you spout falsehoods.
>> >> >
>> >> > Always stuck in the past, aren`t you? Why not get up to speed and
>> >> >explain how the legal definition of "alibi" applies in Oz`s case?
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Why not attempt to assert why it doesn't? It's *YOUR* claim, after all, that
>> >> LHO didn't have a "suggestion" of an alibi.
>> >
>> > What was it, then? Oz made no legal alibi,
>>
>> Silly... yet another misunderstanding of the term. A defendent is not
>> required to assert one before one exists.
>
> Well, according to two of the legal definitions I supplied it does.
Untrue. Why lie about it?
>> >therefore he had no
>> >alibi.
>>
>> A tree falls in the forest with no-one to hear the sound, so therefore
>> there is no sound - this is the essence of your argument.
>
> You claim to know the exact sound the tree made, although you never
>heard it.
LOL!!! Go ahead, Bud, argue your analogy.
>> LHO did not assert this alibi to the non-existent prosecutor, so it didn't
>> exist.
>
> Who did Oz advance this alibi to?
The prosecutor you refuse to name.
>What was it?
Given many times... illiterate, are you?
>You are frozen with
>fear to say.
>
>> How silly...
>
> You can produce Oz`s alibi, or dance, makes no difference to me.
>
>> >Kooks would like to give him one, but that isn`t how it works.
>>
>>
>> Fool, aren't you?
>
> So you say.
>
>> >> >> >> >That is the point,
>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> A mistaken point, isn't it? Can you cite EVEN ONE definition that
>>requires
>> >> >> >> another person for an alibi?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, not as a requirement. It sure does help, though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course you can't. *YOUR* definition was simply wrong.
>> >> >
>> >> > But I was correct in saying Oz did not have an alibi.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That is not what you said. Why bother to lie, Bud?
>> >
>> > You`re now claiming I never said that Oz didn`t have an alibi?
>>
>>
>> Anyone can look up what you first said... why bother to lie about it?
>
> Well, seems I must help Ben with context, it is a weak spot for him.
Try quoting your claim that included the word "suggestion". Or is that too
difficult for you to do?
>You can see above that admit that eyewitneses are not a requirement for
>an alibi. Despite that admission, Ben still revisits the point with
>"*YOUR* definition was wrong", as if I hadn`t just admitted that very
>thing.
If you *continue* to argue that LHO must have an eyewitness, then yes, I will
*continue* to point out that you are wrong.
No rocket science involved, Bud.
>I advance the idea that although my initial definition was
>wrong, my initial assertion that Oz didn`t have an alibi still remains
>true.
Despite your complete inability to disprove or explain his possible alibi.
>Ben still remains fixated on the mistaken definition, calls me a
>liar for moving on.
If you keep *using* a mistake definition, I will keep pointing it out. You seem
to be too stupid to make a mistake only once.
No need to get into specifics, they've already been covered quite well. In a
thread you participated in.
>> >and I just haven`t pieced it together from his hints
>> >and innuendo.
>> >
>> >> Try rereading this post...
>> >
>> > Now it`s an Easter egg hunt. Truth is, Oz offered no legal alibi.
>>
>> You once again offer a mistaken definition of the term "alibi".
>
> An alibi is the term for a form of legal defense. Oz did not offer
>this.
It's not a requirement for the defendent to "offer" one, for one to exist.
Liar, aren't you?
>> You're too cowardly to even attempt to offer a citation for this.
>
> The definitions I supplied show that Oz offered no alibi.
Lack of reasoning ability. It's *IMPOSSIBLE* for a quote of a definition of a
word to "show" that a particular person did or did not perform an action.
>> >Truth is, you know it. Truth is you will continue to duck it instead of
>> >addressing it. I`m sure the lurjers can compare. You have a problem
>> >with definition of "alibi" I ofered off the top of my head,
>>
>> Yep... it was *WRONG*.
>
> Yah. Eyewitnesses are not a requirement for an alibi. Just damned
>useful.
Wrong, aren't you?
>> >I address
>> >it, discuss it, amend it if necessary. You`re whipped, so you claim the
>> >high ground, and say all questions are beneath you. It`s still evasion,
>> >even if it`s on the high ground.
>>
>> LOL!!
>
> Proves my point.
What? That you're a coward who refuses to answer my statements, then claims I
never made them?
>>>>But first, spend a little time acquainting yourself with the meaning of the
>>term
>> >> "alibi".
>> >>
>> >> Try to understand what would constitute one.
>> >
>> > <heehee> Wahl, you wouldn`t want to be caught discussing issues like
>> >a mere mortal, would you? Just stick to making claims, you won`t expose
>> >as many of your weaknesses that way.
>>
>>
>> Why not discuss the facts, Bud?
>
> Trying to, but it takes two to tango, and you are enjoying this solo
>chicken dance too much. If you would have said "Oz`s alibi was "x", and
>it is supported by this legal definition "y", we`d be moved on by now.
Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
No, you've attempted to assert that LHO didn't have an alibi BECAUSE THERE WAS
NO EYEWITNESS.
And you are simply wrong to do so.
>> >Now you are
>> >stuck with the Marsh-like tactic of bogging down the conversation
>> >because you realize the term "alibi" doesn`t apply in Oz`s case because
>> >of the reasons I`ve outlined.
>>
>> Untrue... not a single definition you supplied (that didn't come out of your
>> fevered head, that is) contradicted LHO's "suggestion" of an alibi.
>
> Oh boy, now we`re are going to parse "suggestion".
I'm merely being accurate with what *YOU* stated... would you prefer that I lie
about your assertion?
>Which, of course
>I amended to resembling". But, be that as it may, what did Oz suggest
>his alibi would be?
When you can admit that LHO did indeed have a "suggestion" of an alibi, then
you'll be telling the truth.
>> >BTW, the definition I produce say that it
>> >is the accused who decided on an alibi defense, and what that will
>> >include. They don`t say "kooks".
>>
>>
>> An "alibi defense" is not an "alibi". The two are not the same. Ignorant,
>> aren't you?
>
> Yah, so apparentlly are the people at Laborlaw.com., they think an
>alibi is a form of legal defense.
Confused, aren't you?
>>>>LHO did *indeed* have a "suggestion" of an alibi, and nothing you can say will
>> >> get you out of that lie.
>> >
>> > He presented no alibi that he expressed an intention to use in
>> >court. If he did, say what it was, coward.
>>
>> Bravo! You've proven that LHO didn't have an "alibi defense". (Even if you
>> *are* too cowardly to name his 'prosecutor')
>
> An alibi is a form of legal defense.
So?
>> That isn't, of course, the topic of discussion.
>
> I have an idea, stop weasaling, stop parsing, and lets discuss what
>you think Oz`s alibi was,
Already did. And you're too cowardly to admit it. Evidently you're quite aware
that you have no answer for it.
>and whether it applies as such in a legal
>sense.
Yep... so well, that when I referred to the exact circumstances, you called it a
"paraphrase".
>It might make for an interesting discussion, if you could just
>shake your fear...
"paraphrase"
>> >> >> There is *NO* legal requirement for the defendent to "alert the
>> >> >> prosecutor" for an alibi to exist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nor can you *name* the "prosecutor" in LHO's "trial".
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, you catch the drift. An "alibi" is the term for a legal defense,
>> >> >to be used strictly in a court of law.
>> >>
>> >> No, it is not. I find the term in ordinary dictionaries, it's widely
>> >> used and understood.
>> >
>> > For those who don`t know what just happened, Ben now wants to move
>> >off of how this term is used in legal matters on to a more general
>> >usage of the word.
>>
>> Nope. I merely point out hat you are incorrect when you state that the term
>> "alibi" is a term for legal defense "TO BE USED STRICTLY IN A COURT OF LAW".
>
> I will amend that to "Our focus is stricktly how the word applies
>pertaining to legal matters." Happy?
You can talk about whatever you want to.
But you lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have a "suggestion" of an
alibi.
You were ignorant of the meaning of the word "alibi".
And you were so ignorant of modern day jurisprudence, that you thought the
defense had a full disclosure requirement to the prosecution, rather than the
opposite.
Learning... aren't you?
>> It *is* used outside of a court of law, you're simply wrong again...
>
> Yah, I saw it used on LA Law once, but that is irrelevant to our
>discussion, which is about it`s application in jurisprudence.
When you can prove that LHO didn't have even the "suggestion" of an alibi, you
will have made your case.
>> >> >So, what was missing to have the
>> >> >term "alibi" apply? When Oz sat with his lawyer, and decided what his
>> >> >courtroom strategy would be, none of those things you consider "alibis"
>> >> >may have been offered as part of Oz`s defense. Oz offered no "alibi",
>> >> >in the legal sense.
>> >>
>> >> Yep... he absolutely did. Stupid, aren't you?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >You`ll see kooks in newsgroups try and foist them
>> >> >on him all the time. That doesn`t mean Oz would have used any of them.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> An alibi does not need to be asserted by the defendent to exist.
>> >
>> > If you are going to use your absense at the scene of the crime as a
>> >legal defense you do.
>>
>>
>> You confuse an "alibi defense" with "alibi". Stupid, aren't you?
>
> An alibi is a form of legal dense.
You confuse an "alibi defense" with "alibi". Stupid, aren't you?
>> >> When are you
>> >> going to stop looking so stupid?
>> >
>> > Who selects "alibis"?
>>
>> It's not required to be asserted by the defendent, as you've stated. You
>> can't produce any citation that so states. You've lied again, more than
>> likely by sheer ignorance.
>
> In fact, I`ve already produced two citations that do that very thing,
Liar, aren't you?
>I`m surprised to see you lie so blatently. The definition from
>Laborlaw.com has it as "Proof offered by one accused of a crime..." The
>definition from Legal-Explainations.com has it "...in which a defendant
>argues..." In both cases, for the purposes of our discussion that is
>Oz. Can you cite anywhere that
>says its the province of kooks in newsgroups?
Your cites have been fine. They just don't say what you think they do.
Bud
TOP POST: It`s clear that Ben is not man enough to clearly and
precisely state what this alibi Oz supposedly had is and how it meets
the legal reqirements of the term "alibi". Watching him dance was fun
for a few responses, but now I`m just embarrassed for the guy.
Ben Holmes
Repost of an excellent synopsis by Don Willis:
Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
If on 11/22/63 one wanted to give Lee Oswald a fair chance to exonerate himself,
this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something re the
movements of his fellow employees within the building, something which he could
not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" at
12:30pm. In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators something
which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
The moderately curious, if they want to learn a little something re the JFK
assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. There, they will find, in
the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository worker
James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Oswald
(p182). Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the WR
footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
employees, "Junior" & "Shorty" (pp605, 626/Fritz, Kelley [Secret Service],
resp.). The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third,
unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendices of
the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
particular other employees (p622/Bookhout [FBI]). And, finally, at the very
center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonant note
from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of Oswald:
say[s] two negr came in.
As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could in fact
describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 12:15pm
the day before. With those five words--which did not make it to Fritz's final
report--Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
reconcile Oswald's version of events with that of co-workers Jarman and Harold
"Shorty" Norman, & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements between
11:45am & 12:30pm. Dynamite five words....
Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Williams
(v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard, Oswald
on the fifth and/or sixth floors. Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "domino
room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mainly on
the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201). Between about
11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs) & 12:10, then, we
cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet joined
forces. But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place a bit
*later*, & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald....
By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor domino
room because (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that
the motorcade was on Main [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137], &
re-entered the depository through the "back of the building" (Jarman p202)--this
was not a planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't
go through & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people
standing on the stairway there" (p202)
(b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
elevators would have been seen from the door of the domino room (WR diagram
p148)
(c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TSBD,
alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during
this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
(d) Oswald [as per Fritz] "say[s] two negr came in. One Jr. + short negro."
In other words--contrary to the Fritz & Kelley reports--Oswald was *not*
claiming to have gone downstairs, around noon, to join Jarman & Norman at a
table. Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phraseology, &
the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman to
handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: "[Oswald] said he ate lunch
with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). Bookhout, unambiguously, said
*alone*, however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
through," & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was closer,
ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! Both phrases suggest,
further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in or
near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
Pretty clearly, then--in between the time that Fritz did his notes & the time
that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman indeed
"came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--and the
phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might seem to
synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be replaced
(in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easily
contradicted "ate lunch with". If you read only the final reports of Fritz,
Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had the bum
ear here; but Fritz's original, discarded "came in" reconciles Fritz with
Bookhout, & leaves *Kelley* out in the cold, with Fritz's now-suspect "ate lunch
with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with". Because "two negr came in" implies
in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
12:25....
Speculate as you wish as to why his lunch was delayed about 20 minutes--there
are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was on the
floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or not
*they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)--& he would have had to
dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "sniper's
nest" by 12:30. He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman (not, say, Williams &
Givens) come in....
copr 2004 Donald Willis
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1123289399.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>
> TOP POST: It`s clear that Ben is not man enough to clearly and
>precisely state what this alibi Oz supposedly had is and how it meets
>the legal reqirements of the term "alibi". Watching him dance was fun
>for a few responses, but now I`m just embarrassed for the guy.
It's clear that no matter how clearly this is specified, Bud will continue to
lie about it.
It's clear that Bud *lied* about LHO not even having a "suggestion" of an alibi,
it's clear that Bud doesn't know what an alibi consists of, and it's clear that
Bud was so confused about judicial procedure that he thought the defense was
required to fully disclose evidence pretrial to the prosecution.
Paraphrase, remember?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1123290332....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >
> >> Go ahead, Bud - assert right here and now that you have no idea of the time,
> >> people and places.
> >
> > I`ve had many discussions, and seen many things offered by CT, that
> >they felt were alibis for Oz. I`m not interested in guessing games.
> >Either you supply what you think this alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets
> >the legal requirements of an alibi, or keep dancing, I could care less.
Apparently, you`d still rather dance than supply what you think this
alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets the legal requirements of an alibi.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1123361474.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1123289399.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> > TOP POST: It`s clear that Ben is not man enough to clearly and
> >precisely state what this alibi Oz supposedly had is and how it meets
> >the legal reqirements of the term "alibi". Watching him dance was fun
> >for a few responses, but now I`m just embarrassed for the guy.
>
>
> It's clear that no matter how clearly this is specified, Bud will continue to
> lie about it.
I`ll be more than happy to discuss what you think Oz`s alibi is when
you say what it is.
> It's clear that Bud *lied* about LHO not even having a "suggestion" of an alibi,
That sould be easy enough for you to prove. Just say what alibi Oz
suggested, chickenshit.
> it's clear that Bud doesn't know what an alibi consists of, and it's clear that
> Bud was so confused about judicial procedure that he thought the defense was
> required to fully disclose evidence pretrial to the prosecution.
Without saying any of that.
> Paraphrase, remember?
Yah, I do remember you playing games with words to distract from
the fact that you haven`t supplied what this alibi of Oz`s is supposed
to be. Still haven`t.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1123290332....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > <SNIP>
>> >
>> >
>>>> Go ahead, Bud - assert right here and now that you have no idea of the time,
>> >> people and places.
>> >
>> > I`ve had many discussions, and seen many things offered by CT, that
>> >they felt were alibis for Oz. I`m not interested in guessing games.
>> >Either you supply what you think this alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets
>> >the legal requirements of an alibi, or keep dancing, I could care less.
>
>
> Apparently, you`d still rather dance than supply what you think this
>alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets the legal requirements of an alibi.
Nah... I think I'll just let your cowardice stand by itself.
Even if Bud can't, lurkers can read below:
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1123361474.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <1123289399.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud
>>says...
>> >
>> > TOP POST: It`s clear that Ben is not man enough to clearly and
>> >precisely state what this alibi Oz supposedly had is and how it meets
>> >the legal reqirements of the term "alibi". Watching him dance was fun
>> >for a few responses, but now I`m just embarrassed for the guy.
>>
>>
>> It's clear that no matter how clearly this is specified, Bud will
>> continue to lie about it.
>
> I`ll be more than happy to discuss what you think Oz`s alibi is when
>you say what it is.
Been there, done that. Multiple times.
Reposted in it's entirety a second time below.
>> It's clear that Bud *lied* about LHO not even having a "suggestion"
>> of an alibi,
>
> That sould be easy enough for you to prove. Just say what alibi Oz
>suggested, chickenshit.
If by merely stating what alibi LHO suggested constitutes the "proof" needed
that you lied about LHO not having even the suggestion of an alibi, then the
matter is already solved.
I've already so stated, therefore; You lied.
>> it's clear that Bud doesn't know what an alibi consists of, and it's
>> clear that Bud was so confused about judicial procedure that he thought
>> the defense was required to fully disclose evidence pretrial to the
>> prosecution.
>
> Without saying any of that.
Tut, tut... it's the truth, Bud. Rather embarrassing, I'm sure. Even people
who watch popular movies such as "My Cousin Vinnie" have learned better...
>> Paraphrase, remember?
>
> Yah, I do remember you playing games with words to distract from
>the fact that you haven`t supplied what this alibi of Oz`s is supposed
>to be. Still haven`t.
Been there, done that. And YOU called it a "paraphrase". Embarrassing, wasn't
it?
But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists, and
won't answer, reposted again:
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1123377622....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1123290332....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > <SNIP>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>>> Go ahead, Bud - assert right here and now that you have no idea of the time,
> >> >> people and places.
> >> >
> >> > I`ve had many discussions, and seen many things offered by CT, that
> >> >they felt were alibis for Oz. I`m not interested in guessing games.
> >> >Either you supply what you think this alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets
> >> >the legal requirements of an alibi, or keep dancing, I could care less.
> >
> >
> > Apparently, you`d still rather dance than supply what you think this
> >alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets the legal requirements of an alibi.
>
>
> Nah... I think I'll just let your cowardice stand by itself.
>
>
> Even if Bud can't, lurkers can read below:
Yah, and if they can reason better than you, which seems a surety,
they`ll see that you did nothing more than submit a concoction by Don
Willis, without comment (other than claiming it`s "excellent"). You
never even say whether you even think it is an alibi. Just more of your
chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s is no more an
alibi than it is a description of an elephant. It fails in a variety of
ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from. Instead
of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes before the
assassination. In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
precious little to support that he was), if those guys could get to the
5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
aeffects
I believe the Dudster is showing his .john tendencies. Hang in there
Dudster, summer session is almost over...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1123378352.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1123361474.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>In article <1123289399.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud
> >>says...
> >> >
> >> > TOP POST: It`s clear that Ben is not man enough to clearly and
> >> >precisely state what this alibi Oz supposedly had is and how it meets
> >> >the legal reqirements of the term "alibi". Watching him dance was fun
> >> >for a few responses, but now I`m just embarrassed for the guy.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's clear that no matter how clearly this is specified, Bud will
> >> continue to lie about it.
> >
> > I`ll be more than happy to discuss what you think Oz`s alibi is when
> >you say what it is.
>
>
> Been there, done that. Multiple times.
>
> Reposted in it's entirety a second time below.
Do you believe what you Don Willis presents is an alibi?
> >> It's clear that Bud *lied* about LHO not even having a "suggestion"
> >> of an alibi,
> >
> > That sould be easy enough for you to prove. Just say what alibi Oz
> >suggested, chickenshit.
>
>
> If by merely stating what alibi LHO suggested constitutes the "proof" needed
> that you lied about LHO not having even the suggestion of an alibi, then the
> matter is already solved.
>
> I've already so stated, therefore; You lied.
I didn`t ask you to go into that elaborate chicken dance routine
again, I`ve seen enough of that. But I think I`ll use this opportunity
to illustrate a difference between us in these discussions. I`m not
hung up on parsing words and second-guessing definitions, I`m more
interested in expressing ideas and applying reason (which you avoid
whenever possible, being devoid of any reasoning skills whatsoever).
So, for example, when I said Oz didn`t have the suggestion of an alibi,
and you leapt at the word (but of course not the concept expressed), I
thought "Oh-oh, that was a bad choice of a word, I`m in a newsgroup
full of kooks who can suggest anything". You see, someone could suggest
that Oz was never in the TSBD the day of the assassination, that it was
a double of him there that day. They might even be able to back this
premise up with bits and pieces from the evidence. Other suggested
alibis I`ve seen for Oz are that it was him on the steps in the
Altgen`s photo, that he couldn`t make it from the 6th floor to the 2nd
in time to have that confrontation with Baker, ect. Someone could even
suggest Oz was on the roof when the assassination took place, or in the
basement (if one exists). Note, the musing of kooks are not alibis. For
something to be an alibi *for* Oz, it would need to be selected *by*
Oz. Anyway, I realized it was a poor choice of a word to use
"suggestion", because once a word can mean anything, it doesn`t mean
very much. So I tried to withdraw "suggestion", and replace it with
"resembling", as in "Oz didn`t have anything resembling an alibi".
Another horrible choice of a word, because it is so subjective. A cloud
can resemble a bunny to someone, that doesn`t make it a bunny. So, if I
can say that something is nothing like an alibi, and you can claim a
certain thing is like an alibi, then "resembling" doesn`t mean a whole
lot either. So, it really comes down to is, either a particular thing
is an alibi, or it isn`t. So, let me ask a new question, so you can
start a new dance. Do you think there is anything in this case that
meets the legal requirements to be called an alibi?
> >> it's clear that Bud doesn't know what an alibi consists of, and it's
> >> clear that Bud was so confused about judicial procedure that he thought
> >> the defense was required to fully disclose evidence pretrial to the
> >> prosecution.
> >
> > Without saying any of that.
>
>
> Tut, tut... it's the truth, Bud.
No Ben, it can`t possibly be true. I`ve never said "pretrail", or
"full disclosure" in this discussion. I produced something that someone
on the other board claimed was taken from a legal website. It said, in
part, that notification of the prosecutor was a requirement.
> Rather embarrassing, I'm sure. Even people
> who watch popular movies such as "My Cousin Vinnie" have learned better...
Pesci`s acting in that was better than the performance his
performance in "JFK". And both were based as much in reality.
> >> Paraphrase, remember?
> >
> > Yah, I do remember you playing games with words to distract from
> >the fact that you haven`t supplied what this alibi of Oz`s is supposed
> >to be. Still haven`t.
>
>
> Been there, done that. And YOU called it a "paraphrase". Embarrassing, wasn't
> it?
You called it an example, without providing what aspect of the case
it was supposed to be addressing.
> But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists, and
> won't answer, reposted again:
A supposed event at 12:20 is an alibi for a murder at 12:30? I`ve
thoughly critiqued this "alibi" elsewhere (even dw admitted that it was
only "close"). Basically, it says "if this means this, and that means
that, than this could mean this." Stellar.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1123377622....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <1123290332....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > <SNIP>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>>>>> Go ahead, Bud - assert right here and now that you have no idea of the
>>time,
>> >> >> people and places.
>> >> >
>> >> > I`ve had many discussions, and seen many things offered by CT, that
>> >> >they felt were alibis for Oz. I`m not interested in guessing games.
>> >> >Either you supply what you think this alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets
>> >> >the legal requirements of an alibi, or keep dancing, I could care less.
>> >
>> >
>> > Apparently, you`d still rather dance than supply what you think this
>> >alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets the legal requirements of an alibi.
>>
>>
>> Nah... I think I'll just let your cowardice stand by itself.
>>
>>
>> Even if Bud can't, lurkers can read below:
>
> Yah, and if they can reason better than you, which seems a surety,
>they`ll see that you did nothing more than submit a concoction by Don
>Willis, without comment (other than claiming it`s "excellent"). You
>never even say whether you even think it is an alibi.
Nah... most people are surely too stupid to think that if it's titled "Oswald's
Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits", it might have had something to do with
Oswald's alibi, and giving Fritz fits...
At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
trying to miss the obvious.
>Just more of your
>chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
>newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
>is no more an
>alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the evidence that
LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
>It fails in a variety of
>ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your definition of
an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
ROTFLMAO!!!
>Instead
>of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
>"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
>that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
>accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
>little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30. And since the parade was *scheduled*
to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time. But when you're
forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time to look at
your "truth".
>before the assassination.
Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that reported LHO
coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50 or so, and prior to
12:31.
You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details... just call
this material that Don Willis has compiled "lies by the DPD", and let it go at
that...
>In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
>precious little to support that he was),
Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
lunch there...
>if those guys could get to the
>5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
>time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
>you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
This is a fairly sad response...
But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
"suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion that you
lied.
Bud
It could say "This proves Oz innocent", or "Oz was a teenage
werewolf" in the header, who cares? Without you saying what the
significance of this article is, I`m not going to assume. Just saying
"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything. I`m
having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
satnd on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
this article?
> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
that".
> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> trying to miss the obvious.
I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
cut and ran. Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
watch you dance.
> >Just more of your
> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
>
>
> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >is no more an
> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
>
> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the evidence that
> LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
says "evidence tending to show". Oz offering the cab to that lady
(which there is conflicting evidence about) might be information
tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi. Stop with the
diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi, or continue this ridiculous
dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >It fails in a variety of
> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
>
>
> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your definition of
> an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
Yah, you reworded the definition, still without specificaly
mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
skills.
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
>
> >Instead
> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
>
> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
I think it possible they went in earlier. Norman said "I believe" we
went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
true, that might be what he believed.
> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
came until the shooting.
> But when you're
> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time to look at
> your "truth".
Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
> >before the assassination.
>
> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that reported LHO
> coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50 or so, and prior to
> 12:31.
There was reason to believe he did stay up. Certainly this creation
of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details... just call
> this material that Don Willis has compiled "lies by the DPD", and let it go at
> that...
Oh, stop the bullshit. There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated,
this is not something easily misconstrued. There exists nothing from
any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi. None of the parts
established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
ones kooks think they`ve produced.
> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >precious little to support that he was),
>
>
> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> lunch there...
Quote him, kook.
> >if those guys could get to the
> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
>
>
> This is a fairly sad response...
The dance continues...
> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
>
> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion that you
> lied.
Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben? Did Oz say anything
like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
weak shit up as an alibi? You really should look into a common sense
implant.
<snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
Ben Holmes
You don't *have* to assume. All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
you?
>Just saying
>"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
>I`m
>having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
>satnd on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
>this article?
Why do you keep ducking, Bud? You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have even the
"suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were not telling the
truth.
Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
>> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
>
> I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
>dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
>that".
I stand by the evidence.
>> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
>> trying to miss the obvious.
>
> I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
>cut and ran.
Untrue. I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you *LIED* about
me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection of your character.
>Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
>repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
>requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
>watch you dance.
I hear you quacking, Bud...
>> >Just more of your
>> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
>> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
>>
>>
>> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
>
> Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
>information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
>world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
"Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
"created"?
>> >is no more an
>> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
>>
>> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
>> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
>
> Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't have had
anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO spent the time of the
assassination in the lunchroom.
>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
>> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
>
> Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
>says "evidence tending to show".
Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what an alibi is.
I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
>Oz offering the cab to that lady
>(which there is conflicting evidence about)
Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
>might be information
>tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions" after the
assassination, I referred to several of them.
Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you be honest?
>Stop with the
>diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
>or continue this ridiculous
>dance indefinately, I could care less.
Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to defend the
impossible.
>> >It fails in a variety of
>> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
>>
>>
>> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
>> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
>
> Yah, you reworded the definition,
Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that relate to
LHO.
And you called it a "paraphrase".
Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to LHO and the
evidence?
Or are you going to continue to lie?
>still without specificaly
>mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
>hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
>skills.
>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!
>>
>>
>> >Instead
>> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
>> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
>> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
>> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
>> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
>>
>> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
>
> I think it possible they went in earlier.
Yep... you're speculating.
>Norman said "I believe" we
>went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
>true, that might be what he believed.
>
>> And since the parade was *scheduled*
>> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
>
> No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
>came until the shooting.
Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom *BEFORE*
12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
>> But when you're
>> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
>> to look at your "truth".
>
> Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
If you can't read, I can't help you.
>> >before the assassination.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
>> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
>> or so, and prior to 12:31.
>
> There was reason to believe he did stay up.
Name the reason. What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
>Certainly this creation
>of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
>> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
>
> I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
>get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
>I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
>on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
Based on *what* evidence?
>> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
>> just call this material that Don Willis has compiled "lies by the DPD",
>> and let it go at that...
>
> Oh, stop the bullshit. There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
>that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated,
>this is not something easily misconstrued.
Yep. You are absolutely correct.
>There exists nothing from
>any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
>domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
>building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
>remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
>from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
Getting confused here, aren't you?
>None of the parts
>established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
>full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
>walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
>said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
>just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
>inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
>ones kooks think they`ve produced.
Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
>> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
>> >precious little to support that he was),
>>
>>
>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
>> lunch there...
>
> Quote him, kook.
You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
>> >if those guys could get to the
>> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
>> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
>> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
>>
>>
>> This is a fairly sad response...
>
> The dance continues...
When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
>> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
>> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
>>
>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
>> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
>> that you lied.
>
> Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed. Lied, didn't
you?
>Did Oz say anything
>like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
>first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
>weak shit up as an alibi?
It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
>You really should look into a common sense
>implant.
>
> <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
Bud
Apparentlly I must, because you neglect to give your opinion of it.
> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> you?
You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
> >Just saying
> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
>
>
> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
what they were in reference to. Then you offered up this article by dw,
largely without comment.
> >I`m
> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >this article?
>
>
> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
to be the suggestion of an alibi.
> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have even the
> "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were not telling the
> truth.
I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
they considered to be alibis, yes.
> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >
> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >that".
>
>
> I stand by the evidence.
Whatever that means to a kook.
> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >
> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >cut and ran.
>
>
> Untrue.
I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
accurate.
> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
back about a year, I think?
> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you *LIED* about
> me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection of your character.
If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
responses ago, instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
while ago. If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
(which you still haven`t done, coward), I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
dozen times. I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
fuck up.
> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >watch you dance.
>
> I hear you quacking, Bud...
But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
> >> >Just more of your
> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >>
> >>
> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >
> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
"A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
reasoning person and ask them.
> >> >is no more an
> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >>
> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >
> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
>
>
> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't have had
> anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO spent the time of the
> assassination in the lunchroom.
"a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
elephant as it is an alibi.
> >> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >
> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >says "evidence tending to show".
>
> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what an alibi is.
Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant. I`ve
challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
<chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
>
> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
From Fritz`s handwritten report...
"I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
cab".
Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
evidence.
> >might be information
> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
>
>
> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions" after the
> assassination, I referred to several of them.
>
> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you be honest?
Why can`t follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
*not* an alibi.
> >Stop with the
> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
dance.
> >or continue this ridiculous
> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
>
>
> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to defend the
> impossible.
Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
original idea is nowhere to be seen. Offer an alibi for Oz. Is dw`s
article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
> >> >It fails in a variety of
> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
> >
> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
>
> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that relate to
> LHO.
Without specifically stating what those circumstances were. See, how
it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea. You
aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
> And you called it a "paraphrase".
Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
the case this supposed "example" applied to.
> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to LHO and the
> evidence?
You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
> Or are you going to continue to lie?
How would you know?
> >still without specificaly
> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
> >skills.
> >
> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
> >>
> >>
> >> >Instead
> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
> >>
> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
> >
> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
>
>
> Yep... you're speculating.
No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
> >Norman said "I believe" we
> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
> >true, that might be what he believed.
> >
> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
> >
> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
> >came until the shooting.
>
>
> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom *BEFORE*
> 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
> >> But when you're
> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
> >> to look at your "truth".
> >
> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
>
>
> If you can't read, I can't help you.
Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
an alibi or not.
> >> >before the assassination.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
> >
> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
>
> Name the reason.
Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
unlikely to me that Oz came down.
> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
What am I trying to contradict? Don`t give me a position and tell me
to prove it.
> >Certainly this creation
> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
>
>
> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
with that offering?
> >> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> >> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
> >
> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
>
>
> Based on *what* evidence?
The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
on the first floor.
> >> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
> >> just call this material that Don Willis has compiled "lies by the DPD",
> >> and let it go at that...
> >
> > Oh, stop the bullshit. There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
> >that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated,
> >this is not something easily misconstrued.
>
>
> Yep. You are absolutely correct.
Yah, lets look generally at what the cops reported a little bit.
These things were written when Oz was alive, and the cops would know he
would protest and contest anything he hadn`t said in their reports.
But, for the reasoning people out there, I`ll offer why I find it
unlikely the DP would try to manipulate or fudge any early statements
by Oz. Why bother, there was gold pouring in, they only needed to get
as much of what Oz said on record as they could. Did they even know
what time Norman and Jarman came back in this early on? Highly
unlikely, they had the affidavits, but no real in-depth interviews.
Just because dw makes a connection between these things combing through
the WC testimony 40 years later doesn`t mean the Dallas police could do
these things at the time. They didn`t know what witness was going to
give what information, so how does it benefit them to start filtering
information without even a basis to do so? They would be as likely to
ommit something incriminating as exonerating this early, without full
interviews from the witnesses.
> >There exists nothing from
> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
>
> Getting confused here, aren't you?
No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
proceed...
> >None of the parts
> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
>
>
> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
said, wht specifically you consider to be lies. Play it close to the
vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
to.
> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >> >precious little to support that he was),
> >>
> >>
> >> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> >> lunch there...
> >
> > Quote him, kook.
>
>
> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
Quote Oz, kook.
> >> >if those guys could get to the
> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a fairly sad response...
> >
> > The dance continues...
>
>
> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
I do. Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
These things
would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
and here it is applied to what you said. Make your points, don`t hint
at them.
> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
> >>
> >> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
> >> that you lied.
> >
> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
>
> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
kook to be an alibi.
> Lied, didn't
> you?
How would you know?
> >Did Oz say anything
> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
> >weak shit up as an alibi?
>
>
> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
an alibi had this gone to trial.
> >You really should look into a common sense
> >implant.
> >
> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
>
> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
<snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
Ben Holmes
First, you want the alibi... I provide it, you *deny* that I've provided it, now
you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
Can you quack any louder?
>> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
>> you?
>
> You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
>this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
facts here.
You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
>> >Just saying
>> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
>>
>>
>> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
>> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
>
> No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
>what they were in reference to.
You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
later.
>Then you offered up this article by dw,
>largely without comment.
No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an alibi -
that you asserted didn't exist.
Lied, didn't you?
>> >I`m
>> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
>> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
>> >this article?
>>
>>
>> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
>
> No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
>you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
>> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
>
> So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
>this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
>alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
>something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
>to be the suggestion of an alibi.
Nah... it's not *that* subjective. In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved in a
discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
>> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
>> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
>> not telling the truth.
>
> I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
>they considered to be alibis, yes.
You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
>> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
>
> You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
repeating it.
>> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
>> >
>> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
>> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
>> >that".
>>
>>
>> I stand by the evidence.
>
> Whatever that means to a kook.
Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the lunchroom?
>> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
>> >> trying to miss the obvious.
>> >
>> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
>> >cut and ran.
>>
>>
>> Untrue.
>
> I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
>accurate.
Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
>> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
>> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
>
> And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
>back about a year, I think?
It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never rebutted *any* of
the facts raised by Don.
>> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
>> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
>> of your character.
>
> If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
>responses ago,
Yep... clearly did so.
>instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
>while ago.
No, you aren't interested in facts.
>If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
>(which you still haven`t done, coward),
I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
>I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
>dozen times.
And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said: "I offer
Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the essence
of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually denying that
I've stated it.
Been there... done that.
>I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
>drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
>fuck up.
I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
>> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
>> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
>> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
>> >watch you dance.
>>
>> I hear you quacking, Bud...
>
> But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
>Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
You can't shame an honest man. Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
you claim I've never provided...
When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
Bud?
>> >> >Just more of your
>> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
>> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
>> >
>> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
>> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
>> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
>>
>>
>> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
>> that Don "created"?
>
> "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
>arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
>reasoning person and ask them.
"Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
"created"?
Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
>> >> >is no more an
>> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
>> >>
>> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
>> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
>> >
>> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
>>
>>
>> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
>> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
>> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
>
> "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
>elephant as it is an alibi.
And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
Looking more and more foolish, kid.
>>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
>> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
>> >
>> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
>> >says "evidence tending to show".
>>
>> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
>> an alibi is.
>
> Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
>suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
>case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
definition. LOL!!
>I`ve
>challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
>legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
Been there, done that.
>> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
>
> <chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
>
>> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
>> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
>>
>> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
>
> From Fritz`s handwritten report...
>
> "I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
>he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
>wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
>cab".
>
> Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
>idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
>evidence.
So you take the hearsay evidence *THAT MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON WHALEY'S
STATEMENTS* over that of Whaley?
Once again, you lied, I cited.
>> >might be information
>> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
>>
>>
>> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
>> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
>>
>> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
>> be honest?
>
> Why can`t follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
>tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
>someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
>*not* an alibi.
It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
>> >Stop with the
>> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
>
>> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
>
> Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
>than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
>dance.
Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
exist?
>> >or continue this ridiculous
>> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
>>
>>
>> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
>> defend the impossible.
>
> Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
>original idea is nowhere to be seen.
Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
>Offer an alibi for Oz.
Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
>Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
Coward, aren't you?
You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now. Care to quack
some more?
>> >> >It fails in a variety of
>> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
>> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
>> >
>> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
>>
>> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
>> relate to LHO.
>
> Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't claim
ignorance.
I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
Coward, aren't you?
>See, how
>it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
>You
>aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
>
>> And you called it a "paraphrase".
>
> Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
>the case this supposed "example" applied to.
You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
>> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
>> LHO and the evidence?
>
> You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
>supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
Coward, aren't you?
>> Or are you going to continue to lie?
>
> How would you know?
Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence, and I'm perfectly
aware that *YOU* know this too. So when you make statements contradicting what
you *know* to be true, you're a liar.
>> >still without specificaly
>> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
>> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
>> >skills.
>> >
>> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Instead
>> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
>> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
>> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
>> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
>> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
>> >>
>> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
>> >
>> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
>>
>>
>> Yep... you're speculating.
>
> No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
When you are using a speculation to attempt to rebute the facts listed, it's not
merely a "possibility".
>> >Norman said "I believe" we
>> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
>> >true, that might be what he believed.
>> >
>> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
>> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
>> >
>> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
>> >came until the shooting.
>>
>>
>> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
>> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
>
> What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
>is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If LHO saw
the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time allowed by the
testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to the 6th floor and get
prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than the 9 minutes he would have if
the motorcade was scheduled to go by at 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed
someone there at 12:15, LHO is doing alot of running up and down the stairs,
isn't he?
>> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
>
> I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
>on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
>assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
>time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
>> >> But when you're
>> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
>> >> to look at your "truth".
>> >
>> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
>>
>>
>> If you can't read, I can't help you.
>
> Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
>is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
>an alibi or not.
I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
facts, or be shown a coward.
>> >> >before the assassination.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
>> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
>> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
>> >
>> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
>>
>> Name the reason.
>
> Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
>unlikely to me that Oz came down.
That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO below
the 6th floor.
You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th floor, that
those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have been seeing things.
It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
>> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
>> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
>
> What am I trying to contradict?
The WC's assertions that you agree with.
>Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
>> >Certainly this creation
>> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
>>
>>
>> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
>
> I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
>with that offering?
Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
rebutted yet.
>>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
>>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
>> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
>> >
>> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
>> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
>> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
>> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
>>
>>
>> Based on *what* evidence?
>
> The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
>on the first floor.
Silly... as discussed above.
>> >> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
>> >> just call this material that Don Willis has compiled "lies by the DPD",
>> >> and let it go at that...
>> >
>> > Oh, stop the bullshit. There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
>> >that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated,
>> >this is not something easily misconstrued.
>>
>>
>> Yep. You are absolutely correct.
>
> Yah, lets look generally at what the cops reported a little bit.
>These things were written when Oz was alive, and the cops would know he
>would protest and contest anything he hadn`t said in their reports.
>But, for the reasoning people out there, I`ll offer why I find it
>unlikely the DP would try to manipulate or fudge any early statements
>by Oz. Why bother, there was gold pouring in, they only needed to get
>as much of what Oz said on record as they could. Did they even know
>what time Norman and Jarman came back in this early on? Highly
>unlikely, they had the affidavits, but no real in-depth interviews.
>Just because dw makes a connection between these things combing through
>the WC testimony 40 years later doesn`t mean the Dallas police could do
>these things at the time. They didn`t know what witness was going to
>give what information, so how does it benefit them to start filtering
>information without even a basis to do so? They would be as likely to
>ommit something incriminating as exonerating this early, without full
>interviews from the witnesses.
I'm not arguing that the DPD lied about these statements - you *have* to do so.
For if these statements are correct, LHO *does* have an alibi.
>> >There exists nothing from
>> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
>> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
>> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
>> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
>> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
>>
>> Getting confused here, aren't you?
>
> No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
>are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
>he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
>proceed...
Been there, done that.
>> >None of the parts
>> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
>> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
>> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
>> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
>> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
>> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
>> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
>>
>>
>> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
>
> Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
>said, wht specifically you consider to be lies.
You rebut yourself. You state that "There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated, this is
not something easily misconstrued."
Then you argue that you *CAN* misconstrue it.
So which is it, Bud?
>Play it close to the
>vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
>to.
As revealed above, my reasoning ability is clearly superior to your poor
efforts.
After all, *I* don't refute my own statements.
>> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
>> >> >precious little to support that he was),
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
>> >> lunch there...
>> >
>> > Quote him, kook.
>>
>>
>> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
>
> Quote Oz, kook.
You've read the reports. Why lie about it? You've even stated that it was
"Clearly stated," and "not something easily misconstrued."
Why are you trying to refute your own words? Rather kooky behavior...
>> >> >if those guys could get to the
>> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
>> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
>> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is a fairly sad response...
>> >
>> > The dance continues...
>>
>>
>> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
>
> I do.
Then since you also accept what you called a "paraphrase", I've met your
"challenge", haven't I?
>Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
>These things
>would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
>and here it is applied to what you said.
I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
>Make your points, don`t hint at them.
I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
>> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
>> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
>> >>
>>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
>> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
>> >> that you lied.
>> >
>> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
>>
>> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
>
> Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
was left in on purpose.
I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
the truth to do so.
>The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
>suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
>kook to be an alibi.
What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
>> Lied, didn't
>> you?
>
> How would you know?
Because I know the facts.
>> >Did Oz say anything
>> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
>> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
>> >weak shit up as an alibi?
>>
>>
>> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
>
> Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
>Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
>an alibi had this gone to trial.
That matters not at all. I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
him and his attorney.
I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
>> >You really should look into a common sense
>> >implant.
>> >
>> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
>>
>> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
>
> <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
>Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
>you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
refutation by you:
"Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know that you
dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
Bud
I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> I provide it,
You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
worth of this tiresome dancing.
> you *deny* that I've provided it,
You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
> now
> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it. Are
your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
of the word.
> Can you quack any louder?
Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
elaboration. You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them. You want me to
expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
will. Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination. I lay my cards
on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
behavior makes *me* the coward.
> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> you?
> >
> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>
> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> facts here.
You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
> You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
words?
> >> >Just saying
> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >
> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >what they were in reference to.
>
>
> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> later.
Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
you thought it was an alibi?
> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >largely without comment.
>
>
> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an alibi -
> that you asserted didn't exist.
No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t. Then, after you
produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
thought this was. Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> >I`m
> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >this article?
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >
> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>
>
> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
address it.
> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
alibi.
> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >
> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>
>
> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
<guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
<heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
legal requirements of an alibi.
> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved in a
> discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
But, buety is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
the spitting image of one.
> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> not telling the truth.
> >
> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>
>
> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
person to be an alibi).
> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >
> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>
>
> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> repeating it.
You do just that.
> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >
> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >that".
> >>
> >>
> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >
> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>
>
> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the lunchroom?
A better question would be where did he?
> >> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >
> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >cut and ran.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >accurate.
>
>
> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>
> The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
>
> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case, or how any
understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case? If you
would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
> >
> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
> >back about a year, I think?
>
>
> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never rebutted *any* of
> the facts raised by Don.
I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
once again.
> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
> >> of your character.
> >
> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
> >responses ago,
>
> Yep... clearly did so.
Sure, sure, sure...
> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
> >while ago.
>
> No, you aren't interested in facts.
Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
>
> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
> >dozen times.
>
> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said: "I offer
> Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
suggestion of a alibi. I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
expend.
> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the essence
> of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually denying that
> I've stated it.
You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
> Been there... done that.
So you say.
> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >fuck up.
>
> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >watch you dance.
> >>
> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >
> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>
>
> You can't shame an honest man.
Nor was I addressing one.
> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> you claim I've never provided...
I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi. That seems a much
too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
produced is an alibi.
> When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
> Bud?
Thats why I have you to keep track of them for me.
> >> >> >Just more of your
> >> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >> >
> >> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> that Don "created"?
> >
> > "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
> >arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
> >reasoning person and ask them.
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
Why do you think I meant he created the components? One can arrange
building blocks in a number of ways, without altering the blocks. What
he produced is a creation. Why do you think it copywrited it?
> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
has no use for it.
> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >>
> >>
> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >
> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>
>
> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
I proceeded demolishing it.
> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >
> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >>
> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> an alibi is.
> >
> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>
> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> definition. LOL!!
When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
> >I`ve
> >challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
> >legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Well, thats just a lie. Surely you don`t think this submittal by dw
meets the legal requirements of an alibi, do you?
> >> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
> >
> > <chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
> >
> >> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
> >> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
> >>
> >> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
> >
> > From Fritz`s handwritten report...
> >
> > "I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
> >he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
> >wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
> >cab".
> >
> > Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
> >idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
> >evidence.
>
>
> So you take the hearsay evidence *THAT MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON WHALEY'S
> STATEMENTS* over that of Whaley?
<snicker> You`re a fucking idiot. It wasn`t based on Whaley
statements, it was based on the interrogation of Oz by the Dallas
Police. Let me run through the information, inserting the names of the
major players in brackets...
"I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab. Like I said,
it`s conflicting evidence. Now, you might say one carries more weight
than the other (the interrogation notes have the advantage of being
written contemporaneously), but they are still both evidence, and the
two accounts do conflict with one another.
> Once again, you lied, I cited.
Again, how would you know?
> >> >might be information
> >> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
> >> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
> >>
> >> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
> >> be honest?
> >
> > Why can`t you follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
> >tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
> >someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
> >*not* an alibi.
>
> It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
> actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
> clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
> that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
Man, that`s too much misconception on your part for me to clear up.
I`ll direct everyone to the exchange where you first used the phrase
"evidence tending to show", and I gave examples of the differences
between "evidence tending to show", and an actual alibi. The example I
gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
offering to give his cab. *If true*, it was evidence indicating
innocence, right? But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi. Therein,
I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
point again.
> >> >Stop with the
> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >
> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >dance.
>
> Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> exist?
Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> defend the impossible.
> >
> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>
>
> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
So you say.
> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>
>
> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
> You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now.
<guffaw> But when I ask you if dw`s submttal *is* an alibi, you
refuse comment. Finally, and recently, you called it the suggestion of
one, but that is all I was able to squeeze out after numerous requests.
Yah, it me thats the coward, Ben.
> Care to quack
> some more?
No, you done wore me down. You have nothing to say, no ideas to
exchange or discuss. Your only motivation is to mask your shortcomings
in reasoning and ideas.
> >> >> >It fails in a variety of
> >> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
> >> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
> >> >
> >> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
> >>
> >> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
> >> relate to LHO.
> >
> > Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
>
>
> Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't claim
> ignorance.
Discussions I had monthes or years ago do not allow you the option
not to identify them if you bring them into a discussion with me. This
is the stupidest shit I ever heard of, thinking hints are all you need
to supply. Just stop playing guessing games, and say clearly what you
mean, you fucking kook.
> I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
When and where did you specifically name an event and the players in
that event? Quit the fucking lying...
> Coward, aren't you?
So you say.
> >See, how
> >it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
>
>
> Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
If you ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness. You are
bankrupt of ideas and reasoning, so you try to pass of guessing games
and parsing as such. It`s not the same thing, you know.
> >You
> >aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
> >
> >> And you called it a "paraphrase".
> >
> > Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
> >the case this supposed "example" applied to.
>
>
> You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
*You* didn`t name the event you were refering to, kook. I`m not
interested in guessing, you aren`t interested in expressing your ideas
(such as they are) clearly.
> >> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
> >> LHO and the evidence?
> >
> > You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
> >supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
No, I`m not interested in playing guessing games. Why do you think
giving details about your points isn`t required?
> >> Or are you going to continue to lie?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence,
And couldn`t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
> and I'm perfectly
> aware that *YOU* know this too. So when you make statements contradicting what
> you *know* to be true, you're a liar.
So you say.
> >> >still without specificaly
> >> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
> >> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
> >> >skills.
> >> >
> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Instead
> >> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
> >> >
> >> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... you're speculating.
> >
> > No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
>
>
> When you are using a speculation to attempt to rebute the facts listed, it's not
> merely a "possibility".
When Norman said "I believe", he was allowing that it was possible
that it wasn`t true. Even the reason-challenged can see the difference
between saying "We went back in the building when the news said the
motorcade entered Main", and "I believe we went back in the building
when the news said the motorcade entered Main". Which is the more
definate statement, oh literate one?
> >> >Norman said "I believe" we
> >> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
> >> >true, that might be what he believed.
> >> >
> >> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> >> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
> >> >
> >> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
> >> >came until the shooting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
> >> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
> >
> > What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
> >is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
>
>
> This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If LHO saw
> the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time allowed by the
> testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to the 6th floor and get
> prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than the 9 minutes he would have if
> the motorcade was scheduled to go by at 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed
> someone there at 12:15, LHO is doing alot of running up and down the stairs,
> isn't he?
<hahahahaha> The assassination was at 12:30. This supposed sighting
is around 12:22ish. That gives Oz eight minutes to get into the nest.
The definition for alibi doesn`t say anything about the "scheduled time
of the crime", it says the time of the crime. We don`t know what events
might have thrown Oz off schedule, maybe someone was standing near
where rifle was hidden, and he needed to wait for them to move. He may
not have even known what time it was. Someone said the first floor
clock had the wrong time on it.
>
> >> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
> >
> > I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
> >on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
> >assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
> >time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
>
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Typical Ben response when confronted with actual thought, he employs
so little of it.
> >> >> But when you're
> >> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
> >> >> to look at your "truth".
> >> >
> >> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can't read, I can't help you.
> >
> > Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
> >is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
> >an alibi or not.
>
>
> I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
> facts, or be shown a coward.
Is that the whole menu?
> >> >> >before the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
> >> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
> >> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
> >> >
> >> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
> >>
> >> Name the reason.
> >
> > Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
> >unlikely to me that Oz came down.
>
>
> That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO below
> the 6th floor.
>
> You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th floor, that
> those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have been seeing things.
>
> It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
A sadder bit of logic would be to assert that witnesses are all
reliable, even when they relate completely different things. If my
interest in Shelley holds, I`ll check and see if I can piece together
his movements. I suspect he went out even before the flooring crew came
down. He left first from the 6th floor, and hardly ate before heading
out. None of the flooring crew mention seeing him on reaching the first
floor that I remember. Ofyen, you are left deciding what the
indications show to be the likeliest scenario.
> >> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
> >> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
> >
> > What am I trying to contradict?
>
> The WC's assertions that you agree with.
I don`t think so. I basically agree with the WC`s assertions I agree
with.
> >Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
>
>
> You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
Testimony isn`t a carved in stone accurate accounting of events.
Thats just an alternate reality created by kooks.
> >> >Certainly this creation
> >> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
> >
> > I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
> >with that offering?
>
>
> Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
> rebutted yet.
I said "no it`s not". Thats a more substantial rebuttal than is
needed.
> >>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> >>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> >> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
> >> >
> >> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
> >> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
> >> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
> >> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on *what* evidence?
> >
> > The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
> >on the first floor.
>
>
> Silly... as discussed above.
No, what is silly is the thought that during the course of a mundane
day, people note the times and places of the passing of their fellow
employees accurately.
More hints? Spill it, kook.
> >> >There exists nothing from
> >> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
> >> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
> >> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
> >> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
> >> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
> >>
> >> Getting confused here, aren't you?
> >
> > No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
> >are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
> >he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
> >proceed...
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Kooks consider it done. What more needs to be said?
> >> >None of the parts
> >> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
> >> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
> >> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
> >> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
> >> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
> >> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
> >> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
> >
> > Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
> >said, what specifically you consider to be lies.
>
> You rebut yourself. You state that "There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
> that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated, this is
> not something easily misconstrued."
>
> Then you argue that you *CAN* misconstrue it.
>
> So which is it, Bud?
C, your an idiot. I never argued that what appears in the police
reports, that Oz ate with those colored co-workers, could be easily
misinterpreted or misconstrued. It`s a very simple and straightforward
concept, not prone to be mistaken. I think the most likely
explaination, by far, is that Oz *did* tell those cops (Frtiz and
Kelley, anyway) that he ate with Norman and Jarman.
> >Play it close to the
> >vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
> >to.
>
>
> As revealed above, my reasoning ability is clearly superior to your poor
> efforts.
>
> After all, *I* don't refute my own statements.
Whatever you say, Ben. I don`t even care to try and figure out your
mistaken impression this time.
> >> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >> >> >precious little to support that he was),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> >> >> lunch there...
> >> >
> >> > Quote him, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
> >
> > Quote Oz, kook.
>
>
> You've read the reports. Why lie about it? You've even stated that it was
> "Clearly stated," and "not something easily misconstrued."
Yah, that was me that said that.
> Why are you trying to refute your own words? Rather kooky behavior...
I guess it would be if I did. Certainly you are not one to birddog
kooky behavior.
> >> >> >if those guys could get to the
> >> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a fairly sad response...
> >> >
> >> > The dance continues...
> >>
> >>
> >> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
> >
> > I do.
>
> Then since you also accept what you called a "paraphrase", I've met your
> "challenge", haven't I?
I guess so, Ben. I have no interest in tracking down that train of
thought. I should have snipped this further up, theres nothing down
here worth commenting on.
> >Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
> >These things
> >would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
> >and here it is applied to what you said.
>
>
> I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
> that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
Sure, sure, sure. Except you neglected to mention what part of the
case you were applying it to.
> >Make your points, don`t hint at them.
>
> I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
So you say. Why do I have to hound the information from you?
> >> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> >> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
> >> >>
> >>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> >> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
> >> >> that you lied.
> >> >
> >> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
> >>
> >> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
> >
> > Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
>
> Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
> was left in on purpose.
Yah, thats what I wanted to know, whether you gave it a thumbs up or
not. Idiot.
> I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
> the truth to do so.
Yah, thats what it is.
> >The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
> >suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
> >kook to be an alibi.
>
>
> What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
> show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
> testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
I`ll do that when you offer an alibi. The suggestion of one is a
less tangible, and more subjective thing.
>
> >> Lied, didn't
> >> you?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the facts.
Who is going to apply them for you?
> >> >Did Oz say anything
> >> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
> >> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
> >> >weak shit up as an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
> >
> > Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
>
>
> It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
Yah, parse a word to disregard the concept. Would Oz have offered
this thing of dw`s as an alibi had this gone to trial?
> >Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
> >an alibi had this gone to trial.
>
>
> That matters not at all.
<snicker> But what kooks on newgroups think are alibis are
significant. Go figure.
> I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
> have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
> him and his attorney.
"alibi" is a form of legal defense.
> I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
Excellent. That wasn`t too hard, but I`m exhausted dragging even
that much from you. Shall we discuss dw`s suggestion of an alibi, then?
> >> >You really should look into a common sense
> >> >implant.
> >> >
> >> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
> >>
> >> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
> >
> > <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
> >Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
> >you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
>
>
> Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
> refutation by you:
>
> "Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
> Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
> Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
You are looking at the wrong response, idiot. I told you I responded
to this exact offering you produced by dw. That response was to Peter
Fokes, or John Hill, If I remember correctly.
> Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
> officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
No, dw didn`t do *precisely* this. He interpreted a line in
Bookout`s report to mean a certain thing, is all.
> Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know that you
> dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
You again, Ben. I knew it was offered originally by dw, and reposted
by Peter Fokes afterwards. I directed you to the repost because it was
there that I addressed the very submittal you produced by dw here. The
very one you said I couldn`t respond to.
Bud
I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> I provide it,
You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
worth of this tiresome dancing.
> you *deny* that I've provided it,
You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
> now
> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it. Are
your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
of the word.
> Can you quack any louder?
Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
elaboration. You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them. You want me to
expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
will. Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination. I lay my cards
on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
behavior makes *me* the coward.
> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> you?
> >
> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>
> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> facts here.
You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
> You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
words?
> >> >Just saying
> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >
> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >what they were in reference to.
>
>
> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> later.
Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
you thought it was an alibi?
> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >largely without comment.
>
>
> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an alibi -
> that you asserted didn't exist.
No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t. Then, after you
produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
thought this was. Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> >I`m
> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >this article?
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >
> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>
>
> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
address it.
> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
alibi.
> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >
> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>
>
> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
<guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
<heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
legal requirements of an alibi.
> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved in a
> discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
But, buety is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
the spitting image of one.
> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> not telling the truth.
> >
> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>
>
> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
person to be an alibi).
> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >
> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>
>
> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> repeating it.
You do just that.
> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >
> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >that".
> >>
> >>
> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >
> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>
>
> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the lunchroom?
A better question would be where did he?
> >> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >
> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >cut and ran.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >accurate.
>
>
> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>
> The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
>
> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case, or how any
understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case? If you
would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
> >
> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
> >back about a year, I think?
>
>
> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never rebutted *any* of
> the facts raised by Don.
I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
once again.
> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
> >> of your character.
> >
> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
> >responses ago,
>
> Yep... clearly did so.
Sure, sure, sure...
> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
> >while ago.
>
> No, you aren't interested in facts.
Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
>
> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
> >dozen times.
>
> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said: "I offer
> Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
suggestion of a alibi. I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
expend.
> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the essence
> of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually denying that
> I've stated it.
You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
> Been there... done that.
So you say.
> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >fuck up.
>
> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >watch you dance.
> >>
> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >
> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>
>
> You can't shame an honest man.
Nor was I addressing one.
> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> you claim I've never provided...
I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi. That seems a much
too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
produced is an alibi.
> When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
> Bud?
Thats why I have you to keep track of them for me.
> >> >> >Just more of your
> >> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >> >
> >> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> that Don "created"?
> >
> > "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
> >arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
> >reasoning person and ask them.
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
Why do you think I meant he created the components? One can arrange
building blocks in a number of ways, without altering the blocks. What
he produced is a creation. Why do you think it copywrited it?
> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
has no use for it.
> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >>
> >>
> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >
> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>
>
> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
I proceeded demolishing it.
> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >
> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >>
> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> an alibi is.
> >
> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>
> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> definition. LOL!!
When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
> >I`ve
> >challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
> >legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Well, thats just a lie. Surely you don`t think this submittal by dw
meets the legal requirements of an alibi, do you?
> >> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
> >
> > <chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
> >
> >> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
> >> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
> >>
> >> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
> >
> > From Fritz`s handwritten report...
> >
> > "I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
> >he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
> >wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
> >cab".
> >
> > Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
> >idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
> >evidence.
>
>
> So you take the hearsay evidence *THAT MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON WHALEY'S
> STATEMENTS* over that of Whaley?
<snicker> You`re a fucking idiot. It wasn`t based on Whaley
statements, it was based on the interrogation of Oz by the Dallas
Police. Let me run through the information, inserting the names of the
major players in brackets...
"I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab. Like I said,
it`s conflicting evidence. Now, you might say one carries more weight
than the other (the interrogation notes have the advantage of being
written contemporaneously), but they are still both evidence, and the
two accounts do conflict with one another.
> Once again, you lied, I cited.
Again, how would you know?
> >> >might be information
> >> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
> >> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
> >>
> >> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
> >> be honest?
> >
> > Why can`t you follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
> >tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
> >someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
> >*not* an alibi.
>
> It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
> actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
> clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
> that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
Man, that`s too much misconception on your part for me to clear up.
I`ll direct everyone to the exchange where you first used the phrase
"evidence tending to show", and I gave examples of the differences
between "evidence tending to show", and an actual alibi. The example I
gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
offering to give his cab. *If true*, it was evidence indicating
innocence, right? But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi. Therein,
I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
point again.
> >> >Stop with the
> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >
> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >dance.
>
> Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> exist?
Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> defend the impossible.
> >
> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>
>
> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
So you say.
> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>
>
> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
> You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now.
<guffaw> But when I ask you if dw`s submttal *is* an alibi, you
refuse comment. Finally, and recently, you called it the suggestion of
one, but that is all I was able to squeeze out after numerous requests.
Yah, it me thats the coward, Ben.
> Care to quack
> some more?
No, you done wore me down. You have nothing to say, no ideas to
exchange or discuss. Your only motivation is to mask your shortcomings
in reasoning and ideas.
> >> >> >It fails in a variety of
> >> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
> >> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
> >> >
> >> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
> >>
> >> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
> >> relate to LHO.
> >
> > Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
>
>
> Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't claim
> ignorance.
Discussions I had monthes or years ago do not allow you the option
not to identify them if you bring them into a discussion with me. This
is the stupidest shit I ever heard of, thinking hints are all you need
to supply. Just stop playing guessing games, and say clearly what you
mean, you fucking kook.
> I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
When and where did you specifically name an event and the players in
that event? Quit the fucking lying...
> Coward, aren't you?
So you say.
> >See, how
> >it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
>
>
> Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
If you ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness. You are
bankrupt of ideas and reasoning, so you try to pass of guessing games
and parsing as such. It`s not the same thing, you know.
> >You
> >aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
> >
> >> And you called it a "paraphrase".
> >
> > Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
> >the case this supposed "example" applied to.
>
>
> You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
*You* didn`t name the event you were refering to, kook. I`m not
interested in guessing, you aren`t interested in expressing your ideas
(such as they are) clearly.
> >> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
> >> LHO and the evidence?
> >
> > You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
> >supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
No, I`m not interested in playing guessing games. Why do you think
giving details about your points isn`t required?
> >> Or are you going to continue to lie?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence,
And couldn`t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
> and I'm perfectly
> aware that *YOU* know this too. So when you make statements contradicting what
> you *know* to be true, you're a liar.
So you say.
> >> >still without specificaly
> >> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
> >> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
> >> >skills.
> >> >
> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Instead
> >> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
> >> >
> >> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... you're speculating.
> >
> > No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
>
>
> When you are using a speculation to attempt to rebute the facts listed, it's not
> merely a "possibility".
When Norman said "I believe", he was allowing that it was possible
that it wasn`t true. Even the reason-challenged can see the difference
between saying "We went back in the building when the news said the
motorcade entered Main", and "I believe we went back in the building
when the news said the motorcade entered Main". Which is the more
definate statement, oh literate one?
> >> >Norman said "I believe" we
> >> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
> >> >true, that might be what he believed.
> >> >
> >> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> >> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
> >> >
> >> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
> >> >came until the shooting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
> >> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
> >
> > What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
> >is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
>
>
> This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If LHO saw
> the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time allowed by the
> testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to the 6th floor and get
> prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than the 9 minutes he would have if
> the motorcade was scheduled to go by at 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed
> someone there at 12:15, LHO is doing alot of running up and down the stairs,
> isn't he?
<hahahahaha> The assassination was at 12:30. This supposed sighting
is around 12:22ish. That gives Oz eight minutes to get into the nest.
The definition for alibi doesn`t say anything about the "scheduled time
of the crime", it says the time of the crime. We don`t know what events
might have thrown Oz off schedule, maybe someone was standing near
where rifle was hidden, and he needed to wait for them to move. He may
not have even known what time it was. Someone said the first floor
clock had the wrong time on it.
>
> >> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
> >
> > I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
> >on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
> >assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
> >time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
>
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Typical Ben response when confronted with actual thought, he employs
so little of it.
> >> >> But when you're
> >> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
> >> >> to look at your "truth".
> >> >
> >> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can't read, I can't help you.
> >
> > Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
> >is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
> >an alibi or not.
>
>
> I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
> facts, or be shown a coward.
Is that the whole menu?
> >> >> >before the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
> >> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
> >> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
> >> >
> >> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
> >>
> >> Name the reason.
> >
> > Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
> >unlikely to me that Oz came down.
>
>
> That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO below
> the 6th floor.
>
> You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th floor, that
> those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have been seeing things.
>
> It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
A sadder bit of logic would be to assert that witnesses are all
reliable, even when they relate completely different things. If my
interest in Shelley holds, I`ll check and see if I can piece together
his movements. I suspect he went out even before the flooring crew came
down. He left first from the 6th floor, and hardly ate before heading
out. None of the flooring crew mention seeing him on reaching the first
floor that I remember. Ofyen, you are left deciding what the
indications show to be the likeliest scenario.
> >> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
> >> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
> >
> > What am I trying to contradict?
>
> The WC's assertions that you agree with.
I don`t think so. I basically agree with the WC`s assertions I agree
with.
> >Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
>
>
> You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
Testimony isn`t a carved in stone accurate accounting of events.
Thats just an alternate reality created by kooks.
> >> >Certainly this creation
> >> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
> >
> > I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
> >with that offering?
>
>
> Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
> rebutted yet.
I said "no it`s not". Thats a more substantial rebuttal than is
needed.
> >>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> >>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> >> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
> >> >
> >> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
> >> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
> >> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
> >> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on *what* evidence?
> >
> > The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
> >on the first floor.
>
>
> Silly... as discussed above.
No, what is silly is the thought that during the course of a mundane
day, people note the times and places of the passing of their fellow
employees accurately.
> >> >> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
More hints? Spill it, kook.
> >> >There exists nothing from
> >> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
> >> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
> >> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
> >> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
> >> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
> >>
> >> Getting confused here, aren't you?
> >
> > No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
> >are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
> >he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
> >proceed...
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Kooks consider it done. What more needs to be said?
> >> >None of the parts
> >> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
> >> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
> >> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
> >> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
> >> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
> >> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
> >> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
> >
> > Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
> >said, what specifically you consider to be lies.
>
> You rebut yourself. You state that "There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
> that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated, this is
> not something easily misconstrued."
>
> Then you argue that you *CAN* misconstrue it.
>
> So which is it, Bud?
C, your an idiot. I never argued that what appears in the police
reports, that Oz ate with those colored co-workers, could be easily
misinterpreted or misconstrued. It`s a very simple and straightforward
concept, not prone to be mistaken. I think the most likely
explaination, by far, is that Oz *did* tell those cops (Frtiz and
Kelley, anyway) that he ate with Norman and Jarman.
> >Play it close to the
> >vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
> >to.
>
>
> As revealed above, my reasoning ability is clearly superior to your poor
> efforts.
>
> After all, *I* don't refute my own statements.
Whatever you say, Ben. I don`t even care to try and figure out your
mistaken impression this time.
> >> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >> >> >precious little to support that he was),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> >> >> lunch there...
> >> >
> >> > Quote him, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
> >
> > Quote Oz, kook.
>
>
> You've read the reports. Why lie about it? You've even stated that it was
> "Clearly stated," and "not something easily misconstrued."
Yah, that was me that said that.
> Why are you trying to refute your own words? Rather kooky behavior...
I guess it would be if I did. Certainly you are not one to birddog
kooky behavior.
> >> >> >if those guys could get to the
> >> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a fairly sad response...
> >> >
> >> > The dance continues...
> >>
> >>
> >> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
> >
> > I do.
>
> Then since you also accept what you called a "paraphrase", I've met your
> "challenge", haven't I?
I guess so, Ben. I have no interest in tracking down that train of
thought. I should have snipped this further up, theres nothing down
here worth commenting on.
> >Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
> >These things
> >would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
> >and here it is applied to what you said.
>
>
> I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
> that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
Sure, sure, sure. Except you neglected to mention what part of the
case you were applying it to.
> >Make your points, don`t hint at them.
>
> I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
So you say. Why do I have to hound the information from you?
> >> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> >> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
> >> >>
> >>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> >> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
> >> >> that you lied.
> >> >
> >> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
> >>
> >> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
> >
> > Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
>
> Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
> was left in on purpose.
Yah, thats what I wanted to know, whether you gave it a thumbs up or
not. Idiot.
> I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
> the truth to do so.
Yah, thats what it is.
> >The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
> >suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
> >kook to be an alibi.
>
>
> What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
> show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
> testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
I`ll do that when you offer an alibi. The suggestion of one is a
less tangible, and more subjective thing.
>
> >> Lied, didn't
> >> you?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the facts.
Who is going to apply them for you?
> >> >Did Oz say anything
> >> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
> >> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
> >> >weak shit up as an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
> >
> > Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
>
>
> It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
Yah, parse a word to disregard the concept. Would Oz have offered
this thing of dw`s as an alibi had this gone to trial?
> >Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
> >an alibi had this gone to trial.
>
>
> That matters not at all.
<snicker> But what kooks on newgroups think are alibis are
significant. Go figure.
> I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
> have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
> him and his attorney.
"alibi" is a form of legal defense.
> I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
Excellent. That wasn`t too hard, but I`m exhausted dragging even
that much from you. Shall we discuss dw`s suggestion of an alibi, then?
> >> >You really should look into a common sense
> >> >implant.
> >> >
> >> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
> >>
> >> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
> >
> > <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
> >Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
> >you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
>
>
> Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
> refutation by you:
>
> "Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
> Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
> Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
You are looking at the wrong response, idiot. I told you I responded
to this exact offering you produced by dw. That response was to Peter
Fokes, or John Hill, If I remember correctly.
> Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
> officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
No, dw didn`t do *precisely* this. He interpreted a line in
Bookout`s report to mean a certain thing, is all.
> Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know that you
> dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
You again, Ben. I knew it was offered originally by dw, and reposted
Bud
I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> I provide it,
You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
worth of this tiresome dancing.
> you *deny* that I've provided it,
You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
> now
> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it. Are
your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
of the word.
> Can you quack any louder?
Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
elaboration. You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them. You want me to
expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
will. Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination. I lay my cards
on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
behavior makes *me* the coward.
> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> you?
> >
> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>
> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> facts here.
You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
> You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
words?
> >> >Just saying
> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >
> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >what they were in reference to.
>
>
> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> later.
Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
you thought it was an alibi?
> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >largely without comment.
>
>
> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an alibi -
> that you asserted didn't exist.
No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t. Then, after you
produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
thought this was. Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> >I`m
> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >this article?
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >
> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>
>
> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
address it.
> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
alibi.
> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >
> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>
>
> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
<guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
<heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
legal requirements of an alibi.
> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved in a
> discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
But, buety is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
the spitting image of one.
> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> not telling the truth.
> >
> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>
>
> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
person to be an alibi).
> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >
> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>
>
> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> repeating it.
You do just that.
> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >
> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >that".
> >>
> >>
> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >
> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>
>
> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the lunchroom?
A better question would be where did he?
> >> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >
> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >cut and ran.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >accurate.
>
>
> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>
> The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
>
> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case, or how any
understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case? If you
would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
> >
> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
> >back about a year, I think?
>
>
> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never rebutted *any* of
> the facts raised by Don.
I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
once again.
> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
> >> of your character.
> >
> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
> >responses ago,
>
> Yep... clearly did so.
Sure, sure, sure...
> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
> >while ago.
>
> No, you aren't interested in facts.
Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
>
> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
> >dozen times.
>
> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said: "I offer
> Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
suggestion of a alibi. I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
expend.
> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the essence
> of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually denying that
> I've stated it.
You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
> Been there... done that.
So you say.
> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >fuck up.
>
> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >watch you dance.
> >>
> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >
> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>
>
> You can't shame an honest man.
Nor was I addressing one.
> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> you claim I've never provided...
I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi. That seems a much
too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
produced is an alibi.
> When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
> Bud?
Thats why I have you to keep track of them for me.
> >> >> >Just more of your
> >> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >> >
> >> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> that Don "created"?
> >
> > "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
> >arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
> >reasoning person and ask them.
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
Why do you think I meant he created the components? One can arrange
building blocks in a number of ways, without altering the blocks. What
he produced is a creation. Why do you think it copywrited it?
> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
has no use for it.
> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >>
> >>
> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >
> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>
>
> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
I proceeded demolishing it.
> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >
> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >>
> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> an alibi is.
> >
> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>
> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> definition. LOL!!
When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
> >I`ve
> >challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
> >legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Well, thats just a lie. Surely you don`t think this submittal by dw
meets the legal requirements of an alibi, do you?
> >> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
> >
> > <chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
> >
> >> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
> >> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
> >>
> >> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
> >
> > From Fritz`s handwritten report...
> >
> > "I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
> >he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
> >wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
> >cab".
> >
> > Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
> >idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
> >evidence.
>
>
> So you take the hearsay evidence *THAT MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON WHALEY'S
> STATEMENTS* over that of Whaley?
<snicker> You`re a fucking idiot. It wasn`t based on Whaley
statements, it was based on the interrogation of Oz by the Dallas
Police. Let me run through the information, inserting the names of the
major players in brackets...
"I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab. Like I said,
it`s conflicting evidence. Now, you might say one carries more weight
than the other (the interrogation notes have the advantage of being
written contemporaneously), but they are still both evidence, and the
two accounts do conflict with one another.
> Once again, you lied, I cited.
Again, how would you know?
> >> >might be information
> >> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
> >> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
> >>
> >> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
> >> be honest?
> >
> > Why can`t you follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
> >tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
> >someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
> >*not* an alibi.
>
> It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
> actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
> clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
> that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
Man, that`s too much misconception on your part for me to clear up.
I`ll direct everyone to the exchange where you first used the phrase
"evidence tending to show", and I gave examples of the differences
between "evidence tending to show", and an actual alibi. The example I
gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
offering to give his cab. *If true*, it was evidence indicating
innocence, right? But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi. Therein,
I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
point again.
> >> >Stop with the
> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >
> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >dance.
>
> Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> exist?
Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> defend the impossible.
> >
> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>
>
> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
So you say.
> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>
>
> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
> You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now.
<guffaw> But when I ask you if dw`s submttal *is* an alibi, you
refuse comment. Finally, and recently, you called it the suggestion of
one, but that is all I was able to squeeze out after numerous requests.
Yah, it me thats the coward, Ben.
> Care to quack
> some more?
No, you done wore me down. You have nothing to say, no ideas to
exchange or discuss. Your only motivation is to mask your shortcomings
in reasoning and ideas.
> >> >> >It fails in a variety of
> >> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
> >> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
> >> >
> >> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
> >>
> >> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
> >> relate to LHO.
> >
> > Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
>
>
> Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't claim
> ignorance.
Discussions I had monthes or years ago do not allow you the option
not to identify them if you bring them into a discussion with me. This
is the stupidest shit I ever heard of, thinking hints are all you need
to supply. Just stop playing guessing games, and say clearly what you
mean, you fucking kook.
> I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
When and where did you specifically name an event and the players in
that event? Quit the fucking lying...
> Coward, aren't you?
So you say.
> >See, how
> >it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
>
>
> Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
If you ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness. You are
bankrupt of ideas and reasoning, so you try to pass of guessing games
and parsing as such. It`s not the same thing, you know.
> >You
> >aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
> >
> >> And you called it a "paraphrase".
> >
> > Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
> >the case this supposed "example" applied to.
>
>
> You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
*You* didn`t name the event you were refering to, kook. I`m not
interested in guessing, you aren`t interested in expressing your ideas
(such as they are) clearly.
> >> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
> >> LHO and the evidence?
> >
> > You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
> >supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
No, I`m not interested in playing guessing games. Why do you think
giving details about your points isn`t required?
> >> Or are you going to continue to lie?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence,
And couldn`t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
> and I'm perfectly
> aware that *YOU* know this too. So when you make statements contradicting what
> you *know* to be true, you're a liar.
So you say.
> >> >still without specificaly
> >> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
> >> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
> >> >skills.
> >> >
> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Instead
> >> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
> >> >
> >> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... you're speculating.
> >
> > No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
>
>
> When you are using a speculation to attempt to rebute the facts listed, it's not
> merely a "possibility".
When Norman said "I believe", he was allowing that it was possible
that it wasn`t true. Even the reason-challenged can see the difference
between saying "We went back in the building when the news said the
motorcade entered Main", and "I believe we went back in the building
when the news said the motorcade entered Main". Which is the more
definate statement, oh literate one?
> >> >Norman said "I believe" we
> >> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
> >> >true, that might be what he believed.
> >> >
> >> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> >> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
> >> >
> >> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
> >> >came until the shooting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
> >> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
> >
> > What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
> >is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
>
>
> This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If LHO saw
> the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time allowed by the
> testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to the 6th floor and get
> prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than the 9 minutes he would have if
> the motorcade was scheduled to go by at 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed
> someone there at 12:15, LHO is doing alot of running up and down the stairs,
> isn't he?
<hahahahaha> The assassination was at 12:30. This supposed sighting
is around 12:22ish. That gives Oz eight minutes to get into the nest.
The definition for alibi doesn`t say anything about the "scheduled time
of the crime", it says the time of the crime. We don`t know what events
might have thrown Oz off schedule, maybe someone was standing near
where rifle was hidden, and he needed to wait for them to move. He may
not have even known what time it was. Someone said the first floor
clock had the wrong time on it.
>
> >> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
> >
> > I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
> >on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
> >assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
> >time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
>
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Typical Ben response when confronted with actual thought, he employs
so little of it.
> >> >> But when you're
> >> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
> >> >> to look at your "truth".
> >> >
> >> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can't read, I can't help you.
> >
> > Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
> >is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
> >an alibi or not.
>
>
> I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
> facts, or be shown a coward.
Is that the whole menu?
> >> >> >before the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
> >> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
> >> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
> >> >
> >> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
> >>
> >> Name the reason.
> >
> > Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
> >unlikely to me that Oz came down.
>
>
> That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO below
> the 6th floor.
>
> You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th floor, that
> those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have been seeing things.
>
> It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
A sadder bit of logic would be to assert that witnesses are all
reliable, even when they relate completely different things. If my
interest in Shelley holds, I`ll check and see if I can piece together
his movements. I suspect he went out even before the flooring crew came
down. He left first from the 6th floor, and hardly ate before heading
out. None of the flooring crew mention seeing him on reaching the first
floor that I remember. Ofyen, you are left deciding what the
indications show to be the likeliest scenario.
> >> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
> >> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
> >
> > What am I trying to contradict?
>
> The WC's assertions that you agree with.
I don`t think so. I basically agree with the WC`s assertions I agree
with.
> >Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
>
>
> You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
Testimony isn`t a carved in stone accurate accounting of events.
Thats just an alternate reality created by kooks.
> >> >Certainly this creation
> >> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
> >
> > I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
> >with that offering?
>
>
> Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
> rebutted yet.
I said "no it`s not". Thats a more substantial rebuttal than is
needed.
> >>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> >>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> >> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
> >> >
> >> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
> >> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
> >> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
> >> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on *what* evidence?
> >
> > The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
> >on the first floor.
>
>
> Silly... as discussed above.
No, what is silly is the thought that during the course of a mundane
day, people note the times and places of the passing of their fellow
employees accurately.
> >> >> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
More hints? Spill it, kook.
> >> >There exists nothing from
> >> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
> >> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
> >> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
> >> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
> >> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
> >>
> >> Getting confused here, aren't you?
> >
> > No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
> >are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
> >he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
> >proceed...
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Kooks consider it done. What more needs to be said?
> >> >None of the parts
> >> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
> >> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
> >> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
> >> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
> >> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
> >> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
> >> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
> >
> > Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
> >said, what specifically you consider to be lies.
>
> You rebut yourself. You state that "There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
> that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated, this is
> not something easily misconstrued."
>
> Then you argue that you *CAN* misconstrue it.
>
> So which is it, Bud?
C, your an idiot. I never argued that what appears in the police
reports, that Oz ate with those colored co-workers, could be easily
misinterpreted or misconstrued. It`s a very simple and straightforward
concept, not prone to be mistaken. I think the most likely
explaination, by far, is that Oz *did* tell those cops (Frtiz and
Kelley, anyway) that he ate with Norman and Jarman.
> >Play it close to the
> >vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
> >to.
>
>
> As revealed above, my reasoning ability is clearly superior to your poor
> efforts.
>
> After all, *I* don't refute my own statements.
Whatever you say, Ben. I don`t even care to try and figure out your
mistaken impression this time.
> >> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >> >> >precious little to support that he was),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> >> >> lunch there...
> >> >
> >> > Quote him, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
> >
> > Quote Oz, kook.
>
>
> You've read the reports. Why lie about it? You've even stated that it was
> "Clearly stated," and "not something easily misconstrued."
Yah, that was me that said that.
> Why are you trying to refute your own words? Rather kooky behavior...
I guess it would be if I did. Certainly you are not one to birddog
kooky behavior.
> >> >> >if those guys could get to the
> >> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a fairly sad response...
> >> >
> >> > The dance continues...
> >>
> >>
> >> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
> >
> > I do.
>
> Then since you also accept what you called a "paraphrase", I've met your
> "challenge", haven't I?
I guess so, Ben. I have no interest in tracking down that train of
thought. I should have snipped this further up, theres nothing down
here worth commenting on.
> >Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
> >These things
> >would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
> >and here it is applied to what you said.
>
>
> I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
> that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
Sure, sure, sure. Except you neglected to mention what part of the
case you were applying it to.
> >Make your points, don`t hint at them.
>
> I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
So you say. Why do I have to hound the information from you?
> >> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> >> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
> >> >>
> >>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> >> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
> >> >> that you lied.
> >> >
> >> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
> >>
> >> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
> >
> > Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
>
> Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
> was left in on purpose.
Yah, thats what I wanted to know, whether you gave it a thumbs up or
not. Idiot.
> I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
> the truth to do so.
Yah, thats what it is.
> >The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
> >suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
> >kook to be an alibi.
>
>
> What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
> show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
> testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
I`ll do that when you offer an alibi. The suggestion of one is a
less tangible, and more subjective thing.
>
> >> Lied, didn't
> >> you?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the facts.
Who is going to apply them for you?
> >> >Did Oz say anything
> >> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
> >> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
> >> >weak shit up as an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
> >
> > Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
>
>
> It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
Yah, parse a word to disregard the concept. Would Oz have offered
this thing of dw`s as an alibi had this gone to trial?
> >Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
> >an alibi had this gone to trial.
>
>
> That matters not at all.
<snicker> But what kooks on newgroups think are alibis are
significant. Go figure.
> I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
> have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
> him and his attorney.
"alibi" is a form of legal defense.
> I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
Excellent. That wasn`t too hard, but I`m exhausted dragging even
that much from you. Shall we discuss dw`s suggestion of an alibi, then?
> >> >You really should look into a common sense
> >> >implant.
> >> >
> >> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
> >>
> >> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
> >
> > <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
> >Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
> >you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
>
>
> Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
> refutation by you:
>
> "Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
> Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
> Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
You are looking at the wrong response, idiot. I told you I responded
to this exact offering you produced by dw. That response was to Peter
Fokes, or John Hill, If I remember correctly.
> Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
> officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
No, dw didn`t do *precisely* this. He interpreted a line in
Bookout`s report to mean a certain thing, is all.
> Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know that you
> dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
You again, Ben. I knew it was offered originally by dw, and reposted
Bud
I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> I provide it,
You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
worth of this tiresome dancing.
> you *deny* that I've provided it,
You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
> now
> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it. Are
your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
of the word.
> Can you quack any louder?
Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
elaboration. You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them. You want me to
expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
will. Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination. I lay my cards
on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
behavior makes *me* the coward.
> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> you?
> >
> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>
> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> facts here.
You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
> You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
words?
> >> >Just saying
> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >
> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >what they were in reference to.
>
>
> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> later.
Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
you thought it was an alibi?
> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >largely without comment.
>
>
> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an alibi -
> that you asserted didn't exist.
No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t. Then, after you
produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
thought this was. Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> >I`m
> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >this article?
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >
> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>
>
> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
address it.
> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
alibi.
> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >
> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>
>
> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
<guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
<heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
legal requirements of an alibi.
> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved in a
> discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
But, buety is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
the spitting image of one.
> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> not telling the truth.
> >
> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>
>
> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
person to be an alibi).
> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >
> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>
>
> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> repeating it.
You do just that.
> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >
> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >that".
> >>
> >>
> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >
> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>
>
> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the lunchroom?
A better question would be where did he?
> >> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >
> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >cut and ran.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >accurate.
>
>
> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>
> The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
>
> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case, or how any
understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case? If you
would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
> >
> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
> >back about a year, I think?
>
>
> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never rebutted *any* of
> the facts raised by Don.
I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
once again.
> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
> >> of your character.
> >
> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
> >responses ago,
>
> Yep... clearly did so.
Sure, sure, sure...
> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
> >while ago.
>
> No, you aren't interested in facts.
Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
>
> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
> >dozen times.
>
> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said: "I offer
> Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
suggestion of a alibi. I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
expend.
> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the essence
> of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually denying that
> I've stated it.
You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
> Been there... done that.
So you say.
> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >fuck up.
>
> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >watch you dance.
> >>
> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >
> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>
>
> You can't shame an honest man.
Nor was I addressing one.
> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> you claim I've never provided...
I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi. That seems a much
too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
produced is an alibi.
> When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
> Bud?
Thats why I have you to keep track of them for me.
> >> >> >Just more of your
> >> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >> >
> >> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> that Don "created"?
> >
> > "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
> >arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
> >reasoning person and ask them.
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
Why do you think I meant he created the components? One can arrange
building blocks in a number of ways, without altering the blocks. What
he produced is a creation. Why do you think it copywrited it?
> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
has no use for it.
> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >>
> >>
> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >
> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>
>
> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
I proceeded demolishing it.
> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >
> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >>
> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> an alibi is.
> >
> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>
> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> definition. LOL!!
When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
> >I`ve
> >challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
> >legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Well, thats just a lie. Surely you don`t think this submittal by dw
meets the legal requirements of an alibi, do you?
> >> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
> >
> > <chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
> >
> >> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
> >> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
> >>
> >> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
> >
> > From Fritz`s handwritten report...
> >
> > "I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
> >he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
> >wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
> >cab".
> >
> > Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
> >idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
> >evidence.
>
>
> So you take the hearsay evidence *THAT MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON WHALEY'S
> STATEMENTS* over that of Whaley?
<snicker> You`re a fucking idiot. It wasn`t based on Whaley
statements, it was based on the interrogation of Oz by the Dallas
Police. Let me run through the information, inserting the names of the
major players in brackets...
"I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab. Like I said,
it`s conflicting evidence. Now, you might say one carries more weight
than the other (the interrogation notes have the advantage of being
written contemporaneously), but they are still both evidence, and the
two accounts do conflict with one another.
> Once again, you lied, I cited.
Again, how would you know?
> >> >might be information
> >> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
> >> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
> >>
> >> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
> >> be honest?
> >
> > Why can`t you follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
> >tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
> >someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
> >*not* an alibi.
>
> It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
> actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
> clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
> that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
Man, that`s too much misconception on your part for me to clear up.
I`ll direct everyone to the exchange where you first used the phrase
"evidence tending to show", and I gave examples of the differences
between "evidence tending to show", and an actual alibi. The example I
gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
offering to give his cab. *If true*, it was evidence indicating
innocence, right? But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi. Therein,
I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
point again.
> >> >Stop with the
> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >
> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >dance.
>
> Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> exist?
Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> defend the impossible.
> >
> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>
>
> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
So you say.
> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>
>
> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
> You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now.
<guffaw> But when I ask you if dw`s submttal *is* an alibi, you
refuse comment. Finally, and recently, you called it the suggestion of
one, but that is all I was able to squeeze out after numerous requests.
Yah, it me thats the coward, Ben.
> Care to quack
> some more?
No, you done wore me down. You have nothing to say, no ideas to
exchange or discuss. Your only motivation is to mask your shortcomings
in reasoning and ideas.
> >> >> >It fails in a variety of
> >> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
> >> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
> >> >
> >> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
> >>
> >> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
> >> relate to LHO.
> >
> > Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
>
>
> Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't claim
> ignorance.
Discussions I had monthes or years ago do not allow you the option
not to identify them if you bring them into a discussion with me. This
is the stupidest shit I ever heard of, thinking hints are all you need
to supply. Just stop playing guessing games, and say clearly what you
mean, you fucking kook.
> I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
When and where did you specifically name an event and the players in
that event? Quit the fucking lying...
> Coward, aren't you?
So you say.
> >See, how
> >it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
>
>
> Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
If you ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness. You are
bankrupt of ideas and reasoning, so you try to pass of guessing games
and parsing as such. It`s not the same thing, you know.
> >You
> >aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
> >
> >> And you called it a "paraphrase".
> >
> > Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
> >the case this supposed "example" applied to.
>
>
> You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
*You* didn`t name the event you were refering to, kook. I`m not
interested in guessing, you aren`t interested in expressing your ideas
(such as they are) clearly.
> >> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
> >> LHO and the evidence?
> >
> > You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
> >supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
No, I`m not interested in playing guessing games. Why do you think
giving details about your points isn`t required?
> >> Or are you going to continue to lie?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence,
And couldn`t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
> and I'm perfectly
> aware that *YOU* know this too. So when you make statements contradicting what
> you *know* to be true, you're a liar.
So you say.
> >> >still without specificaly
> >> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
> >> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
> >> >skills.
> >> >
> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Instead
> >> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
> >> >
> >> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... you're speculating.
> >
> > No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
>
>
> When you are using a speculation to attempt to rebute the facts listed, it's not
> merely a "possibility".
When Norman said "I believe", he was allowing that it was possible
that it wasn`t true. Even the reason-challenged can see the difference
between saying "We went back in the building when the news said the
motorcade entered Main", and "I believe we went back in the building
when the news said the motorcade entered Main". Which is the more
definate statement, oh literate one?
> >> >Norman said "I believe" we
> >> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
> >> >true, that might be what he believed.
> >> >
> >> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> >> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
> >> >
> >> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
> >> >came until the shooting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
> >> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
> >
> > What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
> >is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
>
>
> This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If LHO saw
> the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time allowed by the
> testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to the 6th floor and get
> prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than the 9 minutes he would have if
> the motorcade was scheduled to go by at 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed
> someone there at 12:15, LHO is doing alot of running up and down the stairs,
> isn't he?
<hahahahaha> The assassination was at 12:30. This supposed sighting
is around 12:22ish. That gives Oz eight minutes to get into the nest.
The definition for alibi doesn`t say anything about the "scheduled time
of the crime", it says the time of the crime. We don`t know what events
might have thrown Oz off schedule, maybe someone was standing near
where rifle was hidden, and he needed to wait for them to move. He may
not have even known what time it was. Someone said the first floor
clock had the wrong time on it.
>
> >> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
> >
> > I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
> >on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
> >assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
> >time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
>
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Typical Ben response when confronted with actual thought, he employs
so little of it.
> >> >> But when you're
> >> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
> >> >> to look at your "truth".
> >> >
> >> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can't read, I can't help you.
> >
> > Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
> >is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
> >an alibi or not.
>
>
> I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
> facts, or be shown a coward.
Is that the whole menu?
> >> >> >before the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
> >> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
> >> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
> >> >
> >> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
> >>
> >> Name the reason.
> >
> > Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
> >unlikely to me that Oz came down.
>
>
> That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO below
> the 6th floor.
>
> You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th floor, that
> those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have been seeing things.
>
> It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
A sadder bit of logic would be to assert that witnesses are all
reliable, even when they relate completely different things. If my
interest in Shelley holds, I`ll check and see if I can piece together
his movements. I suspect he went out even before the flooring crew came
down. He left first from the 6th floor, and hardly ate before heading
out. None of the flooring crew mention seeing him on reaching the first
floor that I remember. Ofyen, you are left deciding what the
indications show to be the likeliest scenario.
> >> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
> >> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
> >
> > What am I trying to contradict?
>
> The WC's assertions that you agree with.
I don`t think so. I basically agree with the WC`s assertions I agree
with.
> >Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
>
>
> You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
Testimony isn`t a carved in stone accurate accounting of events.
Thats just an alternate reality created by kooks.
> >> >Certainly this creation
> >> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
> >
> > I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
> >with that offering?
>
>
> Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
> rebutted yet.
I said "no it`s not". Thats a more substantial rebuttal than is
needed.
> >>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> >>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> >> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
> >> >
> >> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
> >> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
> >> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
> >> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on *what* evidence?
> >
> > The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
> >on the first floor.
>
>
> Silly... as discussed above.
No, what is silly is the thought that during the course of a mundane
day, people note the times and places of the passing of their fellow
employees accurately.
> >> >> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
More hints? Spill it, kook.
> >> >There exists nothing from
> >> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
> >> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
> >> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
> >> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
> >> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
> >>
> >> Getting confused here, aren't you?
> >
> > No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
> >are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
> >he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
> >proceed...
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Kooks consider it done. What more needs to be said?
> >> >None of the parts
> >> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
> >> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
> >> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
> >> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
> >> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
> >> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
> >> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
> >
> > Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
> >said, what specifically you consider to be lies.
>
> You rebut yourself. You state that "There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
> that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated, this is
> not something easily misconstrued."
>
> Then you argue that you *CAN* misconstrue it.
>
> So which is it, Bud?
C, your an idiot. I never argued that what appears in the police
reports, that Oz ate with those colored co-workers, could be easily
misinterpreted or misconstrued. It`s a very simple and straightforward
concept, not prone to be mistaken. I think the most likely
explaination, by far, is that Oz *did* tell those cops (Frtiz and
Kelley, anyway) that he ate with Norman and Jarman.
> >Play it close to the
> >vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
> >to.
>
>
> As revealed above, my reasoning ability is clearly superior to your poor
> efforts.
>
> After all, *I* don't refute my own statements.
Whatever you say, Ben. I don`t even care to try and figure out your
mistaken impression this time.
> >> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >> >> >precious little to support that he was),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> >> >> lunch there...
> >> >
> >> > Quote him, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
> >
> > Quote Oz, kook.
>
>
> You've read the reports. Why lie about it? You've even stated that it was
> "Clearly stated," and "not something easily misconstrued."
Yah, that was me that said that.
> Why are you trying to refute your own words? Rather kooky behavior...
I guess it would be if I did. Certainly you are not one to birddog
kooky behavior.
> >> >> >if those guys could get to the
> >> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a fairly sad response...
> >> >
> >> > The dance continues...
> >>
> >>
> >> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
> >
> > I do.
>
> Then since you also accept what you called a "paraphrase", I've met your
> "challenge", haven't I?
I guess so, Ben. I have no interest in tracking down that train of
thought. I should have snipped this further up, theres nothing down
here worth commenting on.
> >Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
> >These things
> >would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
> >and here it is applied to what you said.
>
>
> I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
> that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
Sure, sure, sure. Except you neglected to mention what part of the
case you were applying it to.
> >Make your points, don`t hint at them.
>
> I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
So you say. Why do I have to hound the information from you?
> >> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> >> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
> >> >>
> >>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> >> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
> >> >> that you lied.
> >> >
> >> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
> >>
> >> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
> >
> > Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
>
> Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
> was left in on purpose.
Yah, thats what I wanted to know, whether you gave it a thumbs up or
not. Idiot.
> I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
> the truth to do so.
Yah, thats what it is.
> >The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
> >suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
> >kook to be an alibi.
>
>
> What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
> show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
> testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
I`ll do that when you offer an alibi. The suggestion of one is a
less tangible, and more subjective thing.
>
> >> Lied, didn't
> >> you?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the facts.
Who is going to apply them for you?
> >> >Did Oz say anything
> >> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
> >> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
> >> >weak shit up as an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
> >
> > Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
>
>
> It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
Yah, parse a word to disregard the concept. Would Oz have offered
this thing of dw`s as an alibi had this gone to trial?
> >Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
> >an alibi had this gone to trial.
>
>
> That matters not at all.
<snicker> But what kooks on newgroups think are alibis are
significant. Go figure.
> I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
> have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
> him and his attorney.
"alibi" is a form of legal defense.
> I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
Excellent. That wasn`t too hard, but I`m exhausted dragging even
that much from you. Shall we discuss dw`s suggestion of an alibi, then?
> >> >You really should look into a common sense
> >> >implant.
> >> >
> >> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
> >>
> >> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
> >
> > <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
> >Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
> >you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
>
>
> Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
> refutation by you:
>
> "Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
> Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
> Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
You are looking at the wrong response, idiot. I told you I responded
to this exact offering you produced by dw. That response was to Peter
Fokes, or John Hill, If I remember correctly.
> Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
> officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
No, dw didn`t do *precisely* this. He interpreted a line in
Bookout`s report to mean a certain thing, is all.
> Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know that you
> dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
You again, Ben. I knew it was offered originally by dw, and reposted
Bud
I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> I provide it,
You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
worth of this tiresome dancing.
> you *deny* that I've provided it,
You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
> now
> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it. Are
your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
of the word.
> Can you quack any louder?
Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
elaboration. You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them. You want me to
expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
will. Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination. I lay my cards
on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
behavior makes *me* the coward.
> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> you?
> >
> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>
> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> facts here.
You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
> You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
words?
> >> >Just saying
> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >
> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >what they were in reference to.
>
>
> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> later.
Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
you thought it was an alibi?
> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >largely without comment.
>
>
> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an alibi -
> that you asserted didn't exist.
No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t. Then, after you
produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
thought this was. Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> >I`m
> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >this article?
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >
> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>
>
> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
address it.
> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
alibi.
> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >
> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>
>
> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
<guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
<heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
legal requirements of an alibi.
> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved in a
> discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
But, buety is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
the spitting image of one.
> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> not telling the truth.
> >
> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>
>
> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
person to be an alibi).
> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >
> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>
>
> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> repeating it.
You do just that.
> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >
> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >that".
> >>
> >>
> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >
> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>
>
> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the lunchroom?
A better question would be where did he?
> >> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >
> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >cut and ran.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >accurate.
>
>
> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>
> The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
>
> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case, or how any
understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case? If you
would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
> >
> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
> >back about a year, I think?
>
>
> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never rebutted *any* of
> the facts raised by Don.
I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
once again.
> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
> >> of your character.
> >
> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
> >responses ago,
>
> Yep... clearly did so.
Sure, sure, sure...
> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
> >while ago.
>
> No, you aren't interested in facts.
Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
>
> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
> >dozen times.
>
> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said: "I offer
> Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
suggestion of a alibi. I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
expend.
> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the essence
> of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually denying that
> I've stated it.
You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
> Been there... done that.
So you say.
> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >fuck up.
>
> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >watch you dance.
> >>
> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >
> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>
>
> You can't shame an honest man.
Nor was I addressing one.
> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> you claim I've never provided...
I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi. That seems a much
too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
produced is an alibi.
> When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
> Bud?
Thats why I have you to keep track of them for me.
> >> >> >Just more of your
> >> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >> >
> >> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> that Don "created"?
> >
> > "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
> >arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
> >reasoning person and ask them.
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
Why do you think I meant he created the components? One can arrange
building blocks in a number of ways, without altering the blocks. What
he produced is a creation. Why do you think it copywrited it?
> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
has no use for it.
> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >>
> >>
> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >
> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>
>
> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
I proceeded demolishing it.
> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >
> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >>
> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> an alibi is.
> >
> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>
> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> definition. LOL!!
When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
> >I`ve
> >challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
> >legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Well, thats just a lie. Surely you don`t think this submittal by dw
meets the legal requirements of an alibi, do you?
> >> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
> >
> > <chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
> >
> >> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
> >> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
> >>
> >> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
> >
> > From Fritz`s handwritten report...
> >
> > "I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
> >he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
> >wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
> >cab".
> >
> > Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
> >idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
> >evidence.
>
>
> So you take the hearsay evidence *THAT MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON WHALEY'S
> STATEMENTS* over that of Whaley?
<snicker> You`re a fucking idiot. It wasn`t based on Whaley
statements, it was based on the interrogation of Oz by the Dallas
Police. Let me run through the information, inserting the names of the
major players in brackets...
"I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab. Like I said,
it`s conflicting evidence. Now, you might say one carries more weight
than the other (the interrogation notes have the advantage of being
written contemporaneously), but they are still both evidence, and the
two accounts do conflict with one another.
> Once again, you lied, I cited.
Again, how would you know?
> >> >might be information
> >> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
> >> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
> >>
> >> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
> >> be honest?
> >
> > Why can`t you follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
> >tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
> >someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
> >*not* an alibi.
>
> It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
> actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
> clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
> that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
Man, that`s too much misconception on your part for me to clear up.
I`ll direct everyone to the exchange where you first used the phrase
"evidence tending to show", and I gave examples of the differences
between "evidence tending to show", and an actual alibi. The example I
gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
offering to give his cab. *If true*, it was evidence indicating
innocence, right? But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi. Therein,
I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
point again.
> >> >Stop with the
> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >
> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >dance.
>
> Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> exist?
Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> defend the impossible.
> >
> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>
>
> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
So you say.
> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>
>
> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
> You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now.
<guffaw> But when I ask you if dw`s submttal *is* an alibi, you
refuse comment. Finally, and recently, you called it the suggestion of
one, but that is all I was able to squeeze out after numerous requests.
Yah, it me thats the coward, Ben.
> Care to quack
> some more?
No, you done wore me down. You have nothing to say, no ideas to
exchange or discuss. Your only motivation is to mask your shortcomings
in reasoning and ideas.
> >> >> >It fails in a variety of
> >> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
> >> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
> >> >
> >> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
> >>
> >> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
> >> relate to LHO.
> >
> > Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
>
>
> Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't claim
> ignorance.
Discussions I had monthes or years ago do not allow you the option
not to identify them if you bring them into a discussion with me. This
is the stupidest shit I ever heard of, thinking hints are all you need
to supply. Just stop playing guessing games, and say clearly what you
mean, you fucking kook.
> I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
When and where did you specifically name an event and the players in
that event? Quit the fucking lying...
> Coward, aren't you?
So you say.
> >See, how
> >it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
>
>
> Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
If you ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness. You are
bankrupt of ideas and reasoning, so you try to pass of guessing games
and parsing as such. It`s not the same thing, you know.
> >You
> >aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
> >
> >> And you called it a "paraphrase".
> >
> > Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
> >the case this supposed "example" applied to.
>
>
> You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
*You* didn`t name the event you were refering to, kook. I`m not
interested in guessing, you aren`t interested in expressing your ideas
(such as they are) clearly.
> >> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
> >> LHO and the evidence?
> >
> > You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
> >supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
No, I`m not interested in playing guessing games. Why do you think
giving details about your points isn`t required?
> >> Or are you going to continue to lie?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence,
And couldn`t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
> and I'm perfectly
> aware that *YOU* know this too. So when you make statements contradicting what
> you *know* to be true, you're a liar.
So you say.
> >> >still without specificaly
> >> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
> >> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
> >> >skills.
> >> >
> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Instead
> >> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
> >> >
> >> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... you're speculating.
> >
> > No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
>
>
> When you are using a speculation to attempt to rebute the facts listed, it's not
> merely a "possibility".
When Norman said "I believe", he was allowing that it was possible
that it wasn`t true. Even the reason-challenged can see the difference
between saying "We went back in the building when the news said the
motorcade entered Main", and "I believe we went back in the building
when the news said the motorcade entered Main". Which is the more
definate statement, oh literate one?
> >> >Norman said "I believe" we
> >> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
> >> >true, that might be what he believed.
> >> >
> >> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> >> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
> >> >
> >> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
> >> >came until the shooting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
> >> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
> >
> > What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
> >is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
>
>
> This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If LHO saw
> the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time allowed by the
> testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to the 6th floor and get
> prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than the 9 minutes he would have if
> the motorcade was scheduled to go by at 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed
> someone there at 12:15, LHO is doing alot of running up and down the stairs,
> isn't he?
<hahahahaha> The assassination was at 12:30. This supposed sighting
is around 12:22ish. That gives Oz eight minutes to get into the nest.
The definition for alibi doesn`t say anything about the "scheduled time
of the crime", it says the time of the crime. We don`t know what events
might have thrown Oz off schedule, maybe someone was standing near
where rifle was hidden, and he needed to wait for them to move. He may
not have even known what time it was. Someone said the first floor
clock had the wrong time on it.
>
> >> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
> >
> > I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
> >on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
> >assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
> >time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
>
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Typical Ben response when confronted with actual thought, he employs
so little of it.
> >> >> But when you're
> >> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
> >> >> to look at your "truth".
> >> >
> >> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can't read, I can't help you.
> >
> > Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
> >is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
> >an alibi or not.
>
>
> I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
> facts, or be shown a coward.
Is that the whole menu?
> >> >> >before the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
> >> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
> >> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
> >> >
> >> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
> >>
> >> Name the reason.
> >
> > Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
> >unlikely to me that Oz came down.
>
>
> That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO below
> the 6th floor.
>
> You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th floor, that
> those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have been seeing things.
>
> It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
A sadder bit of logic would be to assert that witnesses are all
reliable, even when they relate completely different things. If my
interest in Shelley holds, I`ll check and see if I can piece together
his movements. I suspect he went out even before the flooring crew came
down. He left first from the 6th floor, and hardly ate before heading
out. None of the flooring crew mention seeing him on reaching the first
floor that I remember. Ofyen, you are left deciding what the
indications show to be the likeliest scenario.
> >> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
> >> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
> >
> > What am I trying to contradict?
>
> The WC's assertions that you agree with.
I don`t think so. I basically agree with the WC`s assertions I agree
with.
> >Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
>
>
> You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
Testimony isn`t a carved in stone accurate accounting of events.
Thats just an alternate reality created by kooks.
> >> >Certainly this creation
> >> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
> >
> > I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
> >with that offering?
>
>
> Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
> rebutted yet.
I said "no it`s not". Thats a more substantial rebuttal than is
needed.
> >>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> >>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> >> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
> >> >
> >> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
> >> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
> >> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
> >> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on *what* evidence?
> >
> > The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
> >on the first floor.
>
>
> Silly... as discussed above.
No, what is silly is the thought that during the course of a mundane
day, people note the times and places of the passing of their fellow
employees accurately.
> >> >> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
More hints? Spill it, kook.
> >> >There exists nothing from
> >> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
> >> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
> >> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
> >> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
> >> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
> >>
> >> Getting confused here, aren't you?
> >
> > No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
> >are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
> >he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
> >proceed...
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Kooks consider it done. What more needs to be said?
> >> >None of the parts
> >> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
> >> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
> >> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
> >> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
> >> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
> >> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
> >> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
> >
> > Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
> >said, what specifically you consider to be lies.
>
> You rebut yourself. You state that "There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
> that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated, this is
> not something easily misconstrued."
>
> Then you argue that you *CAN* misconstrue it.
>
> So which is it, Bud?
C, your an idiot. I never argued that what appears in the police
reports, that Oz ate with those colored co-workers, could be easily
misinterpreted or misconstrued. It`s a very simple and straightforward
concept, not prone to be mistaken. I think the most likely
explaination, by far, is that Oz *did* tell those cops (Frtiz and
Kelley, anyway) that he ate with Norman and Jarman.
> >Play it close to the
> >vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
> >to.
>
>
> As revealed above, my reasoning ability is clearly superior to your poor
> efforts.
>
> After all, *I* don't refute my own statements.
Whatever you say, Ben. I don`t even care to try and figure out your
mistaken impression this time.
> >> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >> >> >precious little to support that he was),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> >> >> lunch there...
> >> >
> >> > Quote him, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
> >
> > Quote Oz, kook.
>
>
> You've read the reports. Why lie about it? You've even stated that it was
> "Clearly stated," and "not something easily misconstrued."
Yah, that was me that said that.
> Why are you trying to refute your own words? Rather kooky behavior...
I guess it would be if I did. Certainly you are not one to birddog
kooky behavior.
> >> >> >if those guys could get to the
> >> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a fairly sad response...
> >> >
> >> > The dance continues...
> >>
> >>
> >> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
> >
> > I do.
>
> Then since you also accept what you called a "paraphrase", I've met your
> "challenge", haven't I?
I guess so, Ben. I have no interest in tracking down that train of
thought. I should have snipped this further up, theres nothing down
here worth commenting on.
> >Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
> >These things
> >would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
> >and here it is applied to what you said.
>
>
> I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
> that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
Sure, sure, sure. Except you neglected to mention what part of the
case you were applying it to.
> >Make your points, don`t hint at them.
>
> I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
So you say. Why do I have to hound the information from you?
> >> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> >> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
> >> >>
> >>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> >> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
> >> >> that you lied.
> >> >
> >> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
> >>
> >> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
> >
> > Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
>
> Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
> was left in on purpose.
Yah, thats what I wanted to know, whether you gave it a thumbs up or
not. Idiot.
> I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
> the truth to do so.
Yah, thats what it is.
> >The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
> >suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
> >kook to be an alibi.
>
>
> What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
> show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
> testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
I`ll do that when you offer an alibi. The suggestion of one is a
less tangible, and more subjective thing.
>
> >> Lied, didn't
> >> you?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the facts.
Who is going to apply them for you?
> >> >Did Oz say anything
> >> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
> >> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
> >> >weak shit up as an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
> >
> > Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
>
>
> It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
Yah, parse a word to disregard the concept. Would Oz have offered
this thing of dw`s as an alibi had this gone to trial?
> >Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
> >an alibi had this gone to trial.
>
>
> That matters not at all.
<snicker> But what kooks on newgroups think are alibis are
significant. Go figure.
> I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
> have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
> him and his attorney.
"alibi" is a form of legal defense.
> I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
Excellent. That wasn`t too hard, but I`m exhausted dragging even
that much from you. Shall we discuss dw`s suggestion of an alibi, then?
> >> >You really should look into a common sense
> >> >implant.
> >> >
> >> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
> >>
> >> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
> >
> > <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
> >Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
> >you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
>
>
> Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
> refutation by you:
>
> "Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
> Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
> Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
You are looking at the wrong response, idiot. I told you I responded
to this exact offering you produced by dw. That response was to Peter
Fokes, or John Hill, If I remember correctly.
> Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
> officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
No, dw didn`t do *precisely* this. He interpreted a line in
Bookout`s report to mean a certain thing, is all.
> Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know that you
> dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
You again, Ben. I knew it was offered originally by dw, and reposted
Bud
I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> I provide it,
You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
worth of this tiresome dancing.
> you *deny* that I've provided it,
You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
> now
> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it. Are
your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
of the word.
> Can you quack any louder?
Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
elaboration. You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them. You want me to
expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
will. Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination. I lay my cards
on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
behavior makes *me* the coward.
> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> you?
> >
> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>
> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> facts here.
You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
> You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
words?
> >> >Just saying
> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >
> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >what they were in reference to.
>
>
> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> later.
Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
you thought it was an alibi?
> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >largely without comment.
>
>
> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an alibi -
> that you asserted didn't exist.
No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t. Then, after you
produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
thought this was. Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> >I`m
> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >this article?
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >
> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>
>
> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
address it.
> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
alibi.
> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >
> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>
>
> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
<guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
<heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
legal requirements of an alibi.
> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved in a
> discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
But, buety is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
the spitting image of one.
> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> not telling the truth.
> >
> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>
>
> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
person to be an alibi).
> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >
> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>
>
> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> repeating it.
You do just that.
> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >
> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >that".
> >>
> >>
> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >
> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>
>
> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the lunchroom?
A better question would be where did he?
> >> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >
> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >cut and ran.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >accurate.
>
>
> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>
> The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
>
> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case, or how any
understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case? If you
would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
> >
> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
> >back about a year, I think?
>
>
> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never rebutted *any* of
> the facts raised by Don.
I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
once again.
> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
> >> of your character.
> >
> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
> >responses ago,
>
> Yep... clearly did so.
Sure, sure, sure...
> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
> >while ago.
>
> No, you aren't interested in facts.
Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
>
> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
> >dozen times.
>
> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said: "I offer
> Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
suggestion of a alibi. I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
expend.
> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the essence
> of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually denying that
> I've stated it.
You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
> Been there... done that.
So you say.
> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >fuck up.
>
> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >watch you dance.
> >>
> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >
> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>
>
> You can't shame an honest man.
Nor was I addressing one.
> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> you claim I've never provided...
I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi. That seems a much
too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
produced is an alibi.
> When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
> Bud?
Thats why I have you to keep track of them for me.
> >> >> >Just more of your
> >> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >> >
> >> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> that Don "created"?
> >
> > "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
> >arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
> >reasoning person and ask them.
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
Why do you think I meant he created the components? One can arrange
building blocks in a number of ways, without altering the blocks. What
he produced is a creation. Why do you think it copywrited it?
> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
has no use for it.
> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >>
> >>
> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >
> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>
>
> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
I proceeded demolishing it.
> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >
> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >>
> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> an alibi is.
> >
> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>
> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> definition. LOL!!
When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
> >I`ve
> >challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
> >legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Well, thats just a lie. Surely you don`t think this submittal by dw
meets the legal requirements of an alibi, do you?
> >> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
> >
> > <chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
> >
> >> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
> >> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
> >>
> >> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
> >
> > From Fritz`s handwritten report...
> >
> > "I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
> >he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
> >wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
> >cab".
> >
> > Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
> >idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
> >evidence.
>
>
> So you take the hearsay evidence *THAT MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON WHALEY'S
> STATEMENTS* over that of Whaley?
<snicker> You`re a fucking idiot. It wasn`t based on Whaley
statements, it was based on the interrogation of Oz by the Dallas
Police. Let me run through the information, inserting the names of the
major players in brackets...
"I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab. Like I said,
it`s conflicting evidence. Now, you might say one carries more weight
than the other (the interrogation notes have the advantage of being
written contemporaneously), but they are still both evidence, and the
two accounts do conflict with one another.
> Once again, you lied, I cited.
Again, how would you know?
> >> >might be information
> >> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
> >> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
> >>
> >> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
> >> be honest?
> >
> > Why can`t you follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
> >tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
> >someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
> >*not* an alibi.
>
> It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
> actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
> clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
> that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
Man, that`s too much misconception on your part for me to clear up.
I`ll direct everyone to the exchange where you first used the phrase
"evidence tending to show", and I gave examples of the differences
between "evidence tending to show", and an actual alibi. The example I
gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
offering to give his cab. *If true*, it was evidence indicating
innocence, right? But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi. Therein,
I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
point again.
> >> >Stop with the
> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >
> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >dance.
>
> Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> exist?
Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> defend the impossible.
> >
> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>
>
> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
So you say.
> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>
>
> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
> You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now.
<guffaw> But when I ask you if dw`s submttal *is* an alibi, you
refuse comment. Finally, and recently, you called it the suggestion of
one, but that is all I was able to squeeze out after numerous requests.
Yah, it me thats the coward, Ben.
> Care to quack
> some more?
No, you done wore me down. You have nothing to say, no ideas to
exchange or discuss. Your only motivation is to mask your shortcomings
in reasoning and ideas.
> >> >> >It fails in a variety of
> >> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
> >> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
> >> >
> >> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
> >>
> >> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
> >> relate to LHO.
> >
> > Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
>
>
> Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't claim
> ignorance.
Discussions I had monthes or years ago do not allow you the option
not to identify them if you bring them into a discussion with me. This
is the stupidest shit I ever heard of, thinking hints are all you need
to supply. Just stop playing guessing games, and say clearly what you
mean, you fucking kook.
> I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
When and where did you specifically name an event and the players in
that event? Quit the fucking lying...
> Coward, aren't you?
So you say.
> >See, how
> >it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
>
>
> Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
If you ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness. You are
bankrupt of ideas and reasoning, so you try to pass of guessing games
and parsing as such. It`s not the same thing, you know.
> >You
> >aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
> >
> >> And you called it a "paraphrase".
> >
> > Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
> >the case this supposed "example" applied to.
>
>
> You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
*You* didn`t name the event you were refering to, kook. I`m not
interested in guessing, you aren`t interested in expressing your ideas
(such as they are) clearly.
> >> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
> >> LHO and the evidence?
> >
> > You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
> >supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
No, I`m not interested in playing guessing games. Why do you think
giving details about your points isn`t required?
> >> Or are you going to continue to lie?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence,
And couldn`t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
> and I'm perfectly
> aware that *YOU* know this too. So when you make statements contradicting what
> you *know* to be true, you're a liar.
So you say.
> >> >still without specificaly
> >> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
> >> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
> >> >skills.
> >> >
> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Instead
> >> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
> >> >
> >> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... you're speculating.
> >
> > No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
>
>
> When you are using a speculation to attempt to rebute the facts listed, it's not
> merely a "possibility".
When Norman said "I believe", he was allowing that it was possible
that it wasn`t true. Even the reason-challenged can see the difference
between saying "We went back in the building when the news said the
motorcade entered Main", and "I believe we went back in the building
when the news said the motorcade entered Main". Which is the more
definate statement, oh literate one?
> >> >Norman said "I believe" we
> >> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
> >> >true, that might be what he believed.
> >> >
> >> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> >> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
> >> >
> >> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
> >> >came until the shooting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
> >> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
> >
> > What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
> >is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
>
>
> This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If LHO saw
> the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time allowed by the
> testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to the 6th floor and get
> prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than the 9 minutes he would have if
> the motorcade was scheduled to go by at 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed
> someone there at 12:15, LHO is doing alot of running up and down the stairs,
> isn't he?
<hahahahaha> The assassination was at 12:30. This supposed sighting
is around 12:22ish. That gives Oz eight minutes to get into the nest.
The definition for alibi doesn`t say anything about the "scheduled time
of the crime", it says the time of the crime. We don`t know what events
might have thrown Oz off schedule, maybe someone was standing near
where rifle was hidden, and he needed to wait for them to move. He may
not have even known what time it was. Someone said the first floor
clock had the wrong time on it.
>
> >> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
> >
> > I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
> >on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
> >assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
> >time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
>
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Typical Ben response when confronted with actual thought, he employs
so little of it.
> >> >> But when you're
> >> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
> >> >> to look at your "truth".
> >> >
> >> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can't read, I can't help you.
> >
> > Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
> >is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
> >an alibi or not.
>
>
> I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
> facts, or be shown a coward.
Is that the whole menu?
> >> >> >before the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
> >> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
> >> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
> >> >
> >> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
> >>
> >> Name the reason.
> >
> > Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
> >unlikely to me that Oz came down.
>
>
> That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO below
> the 6th floor.
>
> You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th floor, that
> those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have been seeing things.
>
> It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
A sadder bit of logic would be to assert that witnesses are all
reliable, even when they relate completely different things. If my
interest in Shelley holds, I`ll check and see if I can piece together
his movements. I suspect he went out even before the flooring crew came
down. He left first from the 6th floor, and hardly ate before heading
out. None of the flooring crew mention seeing him on reaching the first
floor that I remember. Ofyen, you are left deciding what the
indications show to be the likeliest scenario.
> >> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
> >> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
> >
> > What am I trying to contradict?
>
> The WC's assertions that you agree with.
I don`t think so. I basically agree with the WC`s assertions I agree
with.
> >Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
>
>
> You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
Testimony isn`t a carved in stone accurate accounting of events.
Thats just an alternate reality created by kooks.
> >> >Certainly this creation
> >> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
> >
> > I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
> >with that offering?
>
>
> Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
> rebutted yet.
I said "no it`s not". Thats a more substantial rebuttal than is
needed.
> >>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> >>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> >> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
> >> >
> >> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
> >> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
> >> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
> >> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on *what* evidence?
> >
> > The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
> >on the first floor.
>
>
> Silly... as discussed above.
No, what is silly is the thought that during the course of a mundane
day, people note the times and places of the passing of their fellow
employees accurately.
> >> >> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
More hints? Spill it, kook.
> >> >There exists nothing from
> >> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
> >> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
> >> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
> >> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
> >> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
> >>
> >> Getting confused here, aren't you?
> >
> > No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
> >are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
> >he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
> >proceed...
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Kooks consider it done. What more needs to be said?
> >> >None of the parts
> >> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
> >> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
> >> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
> >> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
> >> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
> >> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
> >> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
> >
> > Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
> >said, what specifically you consider to be lies.
>
> You rebut yourself. You state that "There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
> that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated, this is
> not something easily misconstrued."
>
> Then you argue that you *CAN* misconstrue it.
>
> So which is it, Bud?
C, your an idiot. I never argued that what appears in the police
reports, that Oz ate with those colored co-workers, could be easily
misinterpreted or misconstrued. It`s a very simple and straightforward
concept, not prone to be mistaken. I think the most likely
explaination, by far, is that Oz *did* tell those cops (Frtiz and
Kelley, anyway) that he ate with Norman and Jarman.
> >Play it close to the
> >vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
> >to.
>
>
> As revealed above, my reasoning ability is clearly superior to your poor
> efforts.
>
> After all, *I* don't refute my own statements.
Whatever you say, Ben. I don`t even care to try and figure out your
mistaken impression this time.
> >> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >> >> >precious little to support that he was),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> >> >> lunch there...
> >> >
> >> > Quote him, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
> >
> > Quote Oz, kook.
>
>
> You've read the reports. Why lie about it? You've even stated that it was
> "Clearly stated," and "not something easily misconstrued."
Yah, that was me that said that.
> Why are you trying to refute your own words? Rather kooky behavior...
I guess it would be if I did. Certainly you are not one to birddog
kooky behavior.
> >> >> >if those guys could get to the
> >> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a fairly sad response...
> >> >
> >> > The dance continues...
> >>
> >>
> >> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
> >
> > I do.
>
> Then since you also accept what you called a "paraphrase", I've met your
> "challenge", haven't I?
I guess so, Ben. I have no interest in tracking down that train of
thought. I should have snipped this further up, theres nothing down
here worth commenting on.
> >Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
> >These things
> >would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
> >and here it is applied to what you said.
>
>
> I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
> that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
Sure, sure, sure. Except you neglected to mention what part of the
case you were applying it to.
> >Make your points, don`t hint at them.
>
> I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
So you say. Why do I have to hound the information from you?
> >> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> >> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
> >> >>
> >>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> >> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
> >> >> that you lied.
> >> >
> >> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
> >>
> >> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
> >
> > Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
>
> Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
> was left in on purpose.
Yah, thats what I wanted to know, whether you gave it a thumbs up or
not. Idiot.
> I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
> the truth to do so.
Yah, thats what it is.
> >The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
> >suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
> >kook to be an alibi.
>
>
> What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
> show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
> testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
I`ll do that when you offer an alibi. The suggestion of one is a
less tangible, and more subjective thing.
>
> >> Lied, didn't
> >> you?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the facts.
Who is going to apply them for you?
> >> >Did Oz say anything
> >> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
> >> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
> >> >weak shit up as an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
> >
> > Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
>
>
> It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
Yah, parse a word to disregard the concept. Would Oz have offered
this thing of dw`s as an alibi had this gone to trial?
> >Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
> >an alibi had this gone to trial.
>
>
> That matters not at all.
<snicker> But what kooks on newgroups think are alibis are
significant. Go figure.
> I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
> have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
> him and his attorney.
"alibi" is a form of legal defense.
> I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
Excellent. That wasn`t too hard, but I`m exhausted dragging even
that much from you. Shall we discuss dw`s suggestion of an alibi, then?
> >> >You really should look into a common sense
> >> >implant.
> >> >
> >> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
> >>
> >> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
> >
> > <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
> >Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
> >you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
>
>
> Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
> refutation by you:
>
> "Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
> Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
> Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
You are looking at the wrong response, idiot. I told you I responded
to this exact offering you produced by dw. That response was to Peter
Fokes, or John Hill, If I remember correctly.
> Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
> officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
No, dw didn`t do *precisely* this. He interpreted a line in
Bookout`s report to mean a certain thing, is all.
> Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know that you
> dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
You again, Ben. I knew it was offered originally by dw, and reposted
Bud
I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> I provide it,
You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
worth of this tiresome dancing.
> you *deny* that I've provided it,
You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
> now
> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it. Are
your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
of the word.
> Can you quack any louder?
Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
elaboration. You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them. You want me to
expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
will. Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination. I lay my cards
on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
behavior makes *me* the coward.
> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> you?
> >
> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>
> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> facts here.
You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
> You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
words?
> >> >Just saying
> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >
> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >what they were in reference to.
>
>
> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> later.
Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
you thought it was an alibi?
> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >largely without comment.
>
>
> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an alibi -
> that you asserted didn't exist.
No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t. Then, after you
produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
thought this was. Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> >I`m
> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >this article?
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >
> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>
>
> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
address it.
> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
alibi.
> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
So you say.
> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >
> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>
>
> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
<guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
<heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
legal requirements of an alibi.
> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved in a
> discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
But, buety is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
the spitting image of one.
> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> not telling the truth.
> >
> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>
>
> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
person to be an alibi).
> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >
> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>
>
> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> repeating it.
You do just that.
> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >
> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >that".
> >>
> >>
> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >
> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>
>
> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the lunchroom?
A better question would be where did he?
> >> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >
> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >cut and ran.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue.
> >
> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >accurate.
>
>
> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>
> The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
>
> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case, or how any
understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case? If you
would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
> >
> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
> >back about a year, I think?
>
>
> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never rebutted *any* of
> the facts raised by Don.
I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
once again.
> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
> >> of your character.
> >
> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
> >responses ago,
>
> Yep... clearly did so.
Sure, sure, sure...
> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
> >while ago.
>
> No, you aren't interested in facts.
Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
>
> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
> >dozen times.
>
> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said: "I offer
> Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
suggestion of a alibi. I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
expend.
> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the essence
> of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually denying that
> I've stated it.
You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
> Been there... done that.
So you say.
> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >fuck up.
>
> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >watch you dance.
> >>
> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >
> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>
>
> You can't shame an honest man.
Nor was I addressing one.
> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> you claim I've never provided...
I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi. That seems a much
too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
produced is an alibi.
> When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
> Bud?
Thats why I have you to keep track of them for me.
> >> >> >Just more of your
> >> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >> >
> >> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> that Don "created"?
> >
> > "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
> >arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
> >reasoning person and ask them.
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
Why do you think I meant he created the components? One can arrange
building blocks in a number of ways, without altering the blocks. What
he produced is a creation. Why do you think it copywrited it?
> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
has no use for it.
> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >>
> >>
> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >
> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>
>
> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
I proceeded demolishing it.
> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during the
> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >
> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >>
> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> an alibi is.
> >
> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>
> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> definition. LOL!!
When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
> >I`ve
> >challenged you numerous times to offer an alibi for Oz that meets the
> >legal requirements of an alibi. So far, nothing but dancing.
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Well, thats just a lie. Surely you don`t think this submittal by dw
meets the legal requirements of an alibi, do you?
> >> I have no interest in continuing to point out your ignorance.
> >
> > <chuckle> Of course you have the interest.
> >
> >> >Oz offering the cab to that lady
> >> >(which there is conflicting evidence about)
> >>
> >> Yep... you *LIED*, I cited.
> >
> > From Fritz`s handwritten report...
> >
> > "I asked him about his conversation with the cab driver, and he said
> >he remembered that when he got in the cab, a lady came up who also
> >wanted a cab, and he told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another
> >cab".
> >
> > Fritz has Oz telling him that it was the cab driver, Whaley, who`s
> >idea it was that the lady take another cab. Like I said, conflicting
> >evidence.
>
>
> So you take the hearsay evidence *THAT MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON WHALEY'S
> STATEMENTS* over that of Whaley?
<snicker> You`re a fucking idiot. It wasn`t based on Whaley
statements, it was based on the interrogation of Oz by the Dallas
Police. Let me run through the information, inserting the names of the
major players in brackets...
"I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab. Like I said,
it`s conflicting evidence. Now, you might say one carries more weight
than the other (the interrogation notes have the advantage of being
written contemporaneously), but they are still both evidence, and the
two accounts do conflict with one another.
> Once again, you lied, I cited.
Again, how would you know?
> >> >might be information
> >> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
> >> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
> >>
> >> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
> >> be honest?
> >
> > Why can`t you follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
> >tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
> >someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
> >*not* an alibi.
>
> It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
> actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
> clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
> that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
Man, that`s too much misconception on your part for me to clear up.
I`ll direct everyone to the exchange where you first used the phrase
"evidence tending to show", and I gave examples of the differences
between "evidence tending to show", and an actual alibi. The example I
gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
offering to give his cab. *If true*, it was evidence indicating
innocence, right? But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi. Therein,
I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
point again.
> >> >Stop with the
> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >
> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >dance.
>
> Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> exist?
Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> defend the impossible.
> >
> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>
>
> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
So you say.
> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>
>
> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
> You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now.
<guffaw> But when I ask you if dw`s submttal *is* an alibi, you
refuse comment. Finally, and recently, you called it the suggestion of
one, but that is all I was able to squeeze out after numerous requests.
Yah, it me thats the coward, Ben.
> Care to quack
> some more?
No, you done wore me down. You have nothing to say, no ideas to
exchange or discuss. Your only motivation is to mask your shortcomings
in reasoning and ideas.
> >> >> >It fails in a variety of
> >> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
> >> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
> >> >
> >> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
> >>
> >> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
> >> relate to LHO.
> >
> > Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
>
>
> Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't claim
> ignorance.
Discussions I had monthes or years ago do not allow you the option
not to identify them if you bring them into a discussion with me. This
is the stupidest shit I ever heard of, thinking hints are all you need
to supply. Just stop playing guessing games, and say clearly what you
mean, you fucking kook.
> I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
When and where did you specifically name an event and the players in
that event? Quit the fucking lying...
> Coward, aren't you?
So you say.
> >See, how
> >it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
>
>
> Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
If you ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness. You are
bankrupt of ideas and reasoning, so you try to pass of guessing games
and parsing as such. It`s not the same thing, you know.
> >You
> >aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
> >
> >> And you called it a "paraphrase".
> >
> > Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
> >the case this supposed "example" applied to.
>
>
> You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
*You* didn`t name the event you were refering to, kook. I`m not
interested in guessing, you aren`t interested in expressing your ideas
(such as they are) clearly.
> >> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
> >> LHO and the evidence?
> >
> > You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
> >supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
No, I`m not interested in playing guessing games. Why do you think
giving details about your points isn`t required?
> >> Or are you going to continue to lie?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence,
And couldn`t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
> and I'm perfectly
> aware that *YOU* know this too. So when you make statements contradicting what
> you *know* to be true, you're a liar.
So you say.
> >> >still without specificaly
> >> >mentioning what part of the case you were applying it to. More of you
> >> >hiding behind hints and guessing games to mask your horrible reasoning
> >> >skills.
> >> >
> >> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Instead
> >> >> >of having this become a distraction, let me first quote an idiot...
> >> >> >"Example: When a person describes a scene in time place and persons,
> >> >> >that he *COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT* had he been committing the crime he is
> >> >> >accussed of. The time frame for this scenario, which there is very
> >> >> >little to support ever happened, is as much as 20 minutes
> >> >>
> >> >> 12:20 is hardly 20 minutes before 12:30.
> >> >
> >> > I think it possible they went in earlier.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... you're speculating.
> >
> > No, I`m mentioning it as a possibility.
>
>
> When you are using a speculation to attempt to rebute the facts listed, it's not
> merely a "possibility".
When Norman said "I believe", he was allowing that it was possible
that it wasn`t true. Even the reason-challenged can see the difference
between saying "We went back in the building when the news said the
motorcade entered Main", and "I believe we went back in the building
when the news said the motorcade entered Main". Which is the more
definate statement, oh literate one?
> >> >Norman said "I believe" we
> >> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
> >> >true, that might be what he believed.
> >> >
> >> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
> >> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
> >> >
> >> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
> >> >came until the shooting.
> >>
> >>
> >> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
> >> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
> >
> > What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
> >is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
>
>
> This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If LHO saw
> the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time allowed by the
> testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to the 6th floor and get
> prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than the 9 minutes he would have if
> the motorcade was scheduled to go by at 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed
> someone there at 12:15, LHO is doing alot of running up and down the stairs,
> isn't he?
<hahahahaha> The assassination was at 12:30. This supposed sighting
is around 12:22ish. That gives Oz eight minutes to get into the nest.
The definition for alibi doesn`t say anything about the "scheduled time
of the crime", it says the time of the crime. We don`t know what events
might have thrown Oz off schedule, maybe someone was standing near
where rifle was hidden, and he needed to wait for them to move. He may
not have even known what time it was. Someone said the first floor
clock had the wrong time on it.
>
> >> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
> >
> > I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
> >on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
> >assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
> >time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
>
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Typical Ben response when confronted with actual thought, he employs
so little of it.
> >> >> But when you're
> >> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
> >> >> to look at your "truth".
> >> >
> >> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can't read, I can't help you.
> >
> > Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
> >is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
> >an alibi or not.
>
>
> I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
> facts, or be shown a coward.
Is that the whole menu?
> >> >> >before the assassination.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
> >> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
> >> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
> >> >
> >> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
> >>
> >> Name the reason.
> >
> > Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
> >unlikely to me that Oz came down.
>
>
> That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO below
> the 6th floor.
>
> You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th floor, that
> those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have been seeing things.
>
> It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
A sadder bit of logic would be to assert that witnesses are all
reliable, even when they relate completely different things. If my
interest in Shelley holds, I`ll check and see if I can piece together
his movements. I suspect he went out even before the flooring crew came
down. He left first from the 6th floor, and hardly ate before heading
out. None of the flooring crew mention seeing him on reaching the first
floor that I remember. Ofyen, you are left deciding what the
indications show to be the likeliest scenario.
> >> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
> >> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
> >
> > What am I trying to contradict?
>
> The WC's assertions that you agree with.
I don`t think so. I basically agree with the WC`s assertions I agree
with.
> >Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
>
>
> You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
Testimony isn`t a carved in stone accurate accounting of events.
Thats just an alternate reality created by kooks.
> >> >Certainly this creation
> >> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
> >
> > I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
> >with that offering?
>
>
> Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
> rebutted yet.
I said "no it`s not". Thats a more substantial rebuttal than is
needed.
> >>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
> >>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then run
> >> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
> >> >
> >> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
> >> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
> >> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
> >> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on *what* evidence?
> >
> > The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
> >on the first floor.
>
>
> Silly... as discussed above.
No, what is silly is the thought that during the course of a mundane
day, people note the times and places of the passing of their fellow
employees accurately.
> >> >> But why bother? You don't let facts influence you on other details...
More hints? Spill it, kook.
> >> >There exists nothing from
> >> >any source that says "Suspect claims to have been eating lunch in the
> >> >domino room when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the
> >> >building, and cross the room towards the elevators". Or anything
> >> >remotely like. If Fritz`s note means this, and that ambiguous blurb
> >> >from Bookout means that, then viola, Oz had an alibi.
> >>
> >> Getting confused here, aren't you?
> >
> > No, thats an accurate chracterization. The bit from Fritz`s notes
> >are (from memory) "two negrs came in". Establish what Fritz meant when
> >he wrote that. Not offer something, but establish something. Then
> >proceed...
>
>
> Been there, done that.
Kooks consider it done. What more needs to be said?
> >> >None of the parts
> >> >established, just offered, and put together into this montage. Read the
> >> >full line in Bookout`s report, and it states that Oz said the two men
> >> >walked through the domino room. A room with one door, which the men
> >> >said they hasn`t entered upon returning to the building. This is all
> >> >just a rehash, and offered just to cause a distraction from your
> >> >inability to supply the alibi that *Oz* gave. I`m not interested in
> >> >ones kooks think they`ve produced.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well... you began without lying... It's a start.
> >
> > Yah, don`t hurt yourself by offering an actual rebuttal to what I
> >said, what specifically you consider to be lies.
>
> You rebut yourself. You state that "There exists in two reports a claim by Oz
> that he ate lunch with these guys, Norman and Jarman. Clearly stated, this is
> not something easily misconstrued."
>
> Then you argue that you *CAN* misconstrue it.
>
> So which is it, Bud?
C, your an idiot. I never argued that what appears in the police
reports, that Oz ate with those colored co-workers, could be easily
misinterpreted or misconstrued. It`s a very simple and straightforward
concept, not prone to be mistaken. I think the most likely
explaination, by far, is that Oz *did* tell those cops (Frtiz and
Kelley, anyway) that he ate with Norman and Jarman.
> >Play it close to the
> >vest, Ben, don`t expose that reasoning ability any more than you have
> >to.
>
>
> As revealed above, my reasoning ability is clearly superior to your poor
> efforts.
>
> After all, *I* don't refute my own statements.
Whatever you say, Ben. I don`t even care to try and figure out your
mistaken impression this time.
> >> >> >In other words, even if Oz was there (and there is
> >> >> >precious little to support that he was),
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Other than his psychic prediction of precisely those two individuals who ate
> >> >> lunch there...
> >> >
> >> > Quote him, kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> You've read the reports. Why lie about it?
> >
> > Quote Oz, kook.
>
>
> You've read the reports. Why lie about it? You've even stated that it was
> "Clearly stated," and "not something easily misconstrued."
Yah, that was me that said that.
> Why are you trying to refute your own words? Rather kooky behavior...
I guess it would be if I did. Certainly you are not one to birddog
kooky behavior.
> >> >> >if those guys could get to the
> >> >> >5th floor in time to see the shooting, Oz could get to the sixth in
> >> >> >time to do the shooting. Now, are we finished with the dancing, and are
> >> >> >you ready to produce an alibi by Oz that meets legal standards?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a fairly sad response...
> >> >
> >> > The dance continues...
> >>
> >>
> >> When will you accept the meaning of alibi that *YOU YOURSELF* quoted?
> >
> > I do.
>
> Then since you also accept what you called a "paraphrase", I've met your
> "challenge", haven't I?
I guess so, Ben. I have no interest in tracking down that train of
thought. I should have snipped this further up, theres nothing down
here worth commenting on.
> >Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
> >These things
> >would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
> >and here it is applied to what you said.
>
>
> I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
> that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
Sure, sure, sure. Except you neglected to mention what part of the
case you were applying it to.
> >Make your points, don`t hint at them.
>
> I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
So you say. Why do I have to hound the information from you?
> >> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
> >> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
> >> >>
> >>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
> >> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
> >> >> that you lied.
> >> >
> >> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
> >>
> >> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
> >
> > Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
>
> Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
> was left in on purpose.
Yah, thats what I wanted to know, whether you gave it a thumbs up or
not. Idiot.
> I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
> the truth to do so.
Yah, thats what it is.
> >The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
> >suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
> >kook to be an alibi.
>
>
> What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
> show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
> testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
I`ll do that when you offer an alibi. The suggestion of one is a
less tangible, and more subjective thing.
>
> >> Lied, didn't
> >> you?
> >
> > How would you know?
>
>
> Because I know the facts.
Who is going to apply them for you?
> >> >Did Oz say anything
> >> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
> >> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
> >> >weak shit up as an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
> >
> > Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
>
>
> It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
Yah, parse a word to disregard the concept. Would Oz have offered
this thing of dw`s as an alibi had this gone to trial?
> >Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
> >an alibi had this gone to trial.
>
>
> That matters not at all.
<snicker> But what kooks on newgroups think are alibis are
significant. Go figure.
> I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
> have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
> him and his attorney.
"alibi" is a form of legal defense.
> I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
Excellent. That wasn`t too hard, but I`m exhausted dragging even
that much from you. Shall we discuss dw`s suggestion of an alibi, then?
> >> >You really should look into a common sense
> >> >implant.
> >> >
> >> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
> >>
> >> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
> >
> > <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
> >Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
> >you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
>
>
> Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
> refutation by you:
>
> "Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
> Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
> Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
You are looking at the wrong response, idiot. I told you I responded
to this exact offering you produced by dw. That response was to Peter
Fokes, or John Hill, If I remember correctly.
> Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
> officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
No, dw didn`t do *precisely* this. He interpreted a line in
Bookout`s report to mean a certain thing, is all.
> Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know that you
> dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
You again, Ben. I knew it was offered originally by dw, and reposted
Ben Holmes
This is why you keep lying about what I've already stated?
I give what is clearly the suggestion of an alibi, BACKED BY THE FACTS, and
you've been busy denying that I've done so.
>So, for example, when I said Oz didn`t have the suggestion of an alibi,
>and you leapt at the word (but of course not the concept expressed),
Nope. The word isn't important, you could just as easily have said that LHO
didn't even have a "hint" of an alibi, and you'd STILL BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Why you'd try to steer this away from your statement is understandable, but you
lied about this - and I'm happy to point it out.
>I thought "Oh-oh, that was a bad choice of a word, I`m in a newsgroup
>full of kooks who can suggest anything". You see, someone could suggest
>that Oz was never in the TSBD the day of the assassination, that it was
>a double of him there that day. They might even be able to back this
>premise up with bits and pieces from the evidence. Other suggested
>alibis I`ve seen for Oz are that it was him on the steps in the
>Altgen`s photo, that he couldn`t make it from the 6th floor to the 2nd
>in time to have that confrontation with Baker, ect. Someone could even
>suggest Oz was on the roof when the assassination took place, or in the
>basement (if one exists).
Yep... argue anything and everything except for the *actual* 'hint' of an alibi
that is supported by the evidence.
How cowardly of you...
>Note, the musing of kooks are not alibis. For
>something to be an alibi *for* Oz, it would need to be selected *by*
>Oz.
Nope. Untrue, as I've repeatedly pointed out. You keep confusing an "alibi
defense" with "alibi".
You've *STILL* been unable to cite any authoritative source that states that an
alibi is required to be asserted by the defendent.
But, as we all know, a liar lies.
>Anyway, I realized it was a poor choice of a word to use
>"suggestion", because once a word can mean anything, it doesn`t mean
>very much. So I tried to withdraw "suggestion", and replace it with
>"resembling", as in "Oz didn`t have anything resembling an alibi".
And still *just* as much a lie, since you are well aware of the facts in this
particular instance.
It really matters not at all your choice of words, if the meaning is the same.
>Another horrible choice of a word, because it is so subjective. A cloud
>can resemble a bunny to someone, that doesn`t make it a bunny. So, if I
>can say that something is nothing like an alibi, and you can claim a
>certain thing is like an alibi, then "resembling" doesn`t mean a whole
>lot either. So, it really comes down to is, either a particular thing
>is an alibi, or it isn`t.
Ah! But you didn't assert that LHO didn't have an alibi. Even *that* statement
could be argued, but it wouldn't be the massive lie that *you* perpetrated.
You tried to lie that LHO didn't even have a 'hint' of one.
>So, let me ask a new question, so you can
>start a new dance. Do you think there is anything in this case that
>meets the legal requirements to be called an alibi?
Yep... *YOU* called it a paraphrase.
>> >> it's clear that Bud doesn't know what an alibi consists of, and it's
>> >> clear that Bud was so confused about judicial procedure that he thought
>> >> the defense was required to fully disclose evidence pretrial to the
>> >> prosecution.
>> >
>> > Without saying any of that.
>>
>>
>> Tut, tut... it's the truth, Bud.
>
> No Ben, it can`t possibly be true. I`ve never said "pretrail", or
>"full disclosure" in this discussion.
I merely use the appropriate words. Your meaning was quite clear. Ignorant,
aren't you?
>I produced something that someone
>on the other board claimed was taken from a legal website. It said, in
>part, that notification of the prosecutor was a requirement.
No, it didn't.
>> Rather embarrassing, I'm sure. Even people
>> who watch popular movies such as "My Cousin Vinnie" have learned better...
>
> Pesci`s acting in that was better than the performance his
>performance in "JFK". And both were based as much in reality.
No-one who so much as watched that movie would come away with the impression
that the defense is required to reveal their evidence to the prosecution
pretrial.
>> >> Paraphrase, remember?
>> >
>> > Yah, I do remember you playing games with words to distract from
>> >the fact that you haven`t supplied what this alibi of Oz`s is supposed
>> >to be. Still haven`t.
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that. And YOU called it a "paraphrase". Embarrassing,
>> wasn't it?
>
> You called it an example, without providing what aspect of the case
>it was supposed to be addressing.
I can't help it if you can't note the facts, and do some basic reasoning.
>> But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists,
>> and won't answer, reposted again:
>
> A supposed event at 12:20 is an alibi for a murder at 12:30? I`ve
>thoughly critiqued this "alibi" elsewhere (even dw admitted that it was
>only "close"). Basically, it says "if this means this, and that means
>that, than this could mean this." Stellar.
Your "though" critique wasn't.
And matters little, since you didn't assert that LHO didn't have an alibi, but
that he didn't have a "suggestion" or "resemblance" of one.
And he clearly does. You lied.
>> Repost of an excellent synopsis by Don Willis:
Quick, Bud! Snip this before lurkers read it!
Bud
> >> If by merely stating what alibi LHO suggested constitutes the "proof" needed
> >> that you lied about LHO not having even the suggestion of an alibi, then the
> >> matter is already solved.
> >>
> >> I've already so stated, therefore; You lied.
> >
> > I didn`t ask you to go into that elaborate chicken dance routine
> >again, I`ve seen enough of that. But I think I`ll use this opportunity
> >to illustrate a difference between us in these discussions. I`m not
> >hung up on parsing words and second-guessing definitions, I`m more
> >interested in expressing ideas and applying reason (which you avoid
> >whenever possible, being devoid of any reasoning skills whatsoever).
>
> This is why you keep lying about what I've already stated?
Practice makes perfect.
> I give what is clearly the suggestion of an alibi,
That is one way to put it. My version is that after days of
badgering, you finally produced this article by dw, without saying how
it fit the bill of what I was requesting.
> BACKED BY THE FACTS,
Backed by kook readings of the facts.
> and
> you've been busy denying that I've done so.
Spent a lot of time pointing out that you hadn`t done so. You never
specifically stated what events or people you were refering to. After
numerous requests, you produced this offering of dw`s, and it took many
more requests before I could squeeze out of you what you thought it
was. Finally, you said it was "the suggestion of an alibi". Now, way
back when I said that Oz didn`t have the suggestion of an alibi, you
could have said "Yes he did", and referred me to this theory of dw`s.
Instead, you opted to go into an elaborate and ridiculous chicken
dance. You just can`t bring yourself to clearly and fully express your
points, and refuse my requests for elaboration. This makes me cautious,
because I don`t want to make a wrong assumption about what you are
refering to, only to hear you squalk like a chicken being plucked if I
assume wrong.
> >So, for example, when I said Oz didn`t have the suggestion of an alibi,
> >and you leapt at the word (but of course not the concept expressed),
> Nope. The word isn't important, you could just as easily have said that LHO
> didn't even have a "hint" of an alibi, and you'd STILL BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Or I could have said (which I also did) that he had "nothing
resembling an alibi". Or I could have said he had "nothing like an
alibi". Almost any subjective phrase would be subjective. Just because
a kook suggests something as an alibi doesn`t mean that it is the
suggestion of an alibi.
> Why you'd try to steer this away from your statement is understandable, but you
> lied about this - and I'm happy to point it out.
Whatever floats your boat, Benny boy, I`m glad to be a source of
happiness for you.
> >I thought "Oh-oh, that was a bad choice of a word, I`m in a newsgroup
> >full of kooks who can suggest anything". You see, someone could suggest
> >that Oz was never in the TSBD the day of the assassination, that it was
> >a double of him there that day. They might even be able to back this
> >premise up with bits and pieces from the evidence. Other suggested
> >alibis I`ve seen for Oz are that it was him on the steps in the
> >Altgen`s photo, that he couldn`t make it from the 6th floor to the 2nd
> >in time to have that confrontation with Baker, ect. Someone could even
> >suggest Oz was on the roof when the assassination took place, or in the
> >basement (if one exists).
>
> Yep... argue anything and everything except for the *actual* 'hint' of an alibi
> that is supported by the evidence.
I argued against this "actual hint of an alibi" for months (have you
located where I responded to this offering by dw yet? I did, you know,
althouh you falsely claimed I couldn`t). It would need several key
components established to qualify as an alibi. "hints of alibis" and
"suggestions of alibis" are too subjective to argue. Either it is or it
isn`t one. And that concoction by dw most definately isn`t one.
> How cowardly of you...
So you say.
> >Note, the musing of kooks are not alibis. For
> >something to be an alibi *for* Oz, it would need to be selected *by*
> >Oz.
>
> Nope. Untrue, as I've repeatedly pointed out. You keep confusing an "alibi
> defense" with "alibi".
And I keep pointing out that the term "alibi", in jurisprudence, is
a form of
legal defense.
> You've *STILL* been unable to cite any authoritative source that states that an
> alibi is required to be asserted by the defendent.
This is part of one of the definitions I provided. "The defendant
need not prove that he was elsewhere when the crime happened, he need
only notify the Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi (and a list
of eyewitnesses)."
> But, as we all know, a liar lies.
You do.
> >Anyway, I realized it was a poor choice of a word to use
> >"suggestion", because once a word can mean anything, it doesn`t mean
> >very much. So I tried to withdraw "suggestion", and replace it with
> >"rese"mbling", as in "Oz didn`t have anything resembling an alibi".
>
> And still *just* as much a lie, since you are well aware of the facts in this
> particular instance.
Yah, I am aware of the facts surrounding this offering by dw. It`s a
pinch of this, and a pinch of that, and kooks come running. "That
smells great, dw, what you cooking?" Eat up kooks, it resembles shit to
me.
> It really matters not at all your choice of words, if the meaning is the same.
Correct. And my choice of words is sometimes imperfect, but I do
know the point I`m trying to make. And that point was that what dw
produced was nothing like an alibi. What good are subjective terms like
"suggested" and "resembling" in a debate? You say this thing resembles
an alibi. I say it doesn`t. So what? Like arguing whether a cloud
resembles a bunny. One person could say it does, another could say it
doesn`t. Only an idiot would say something like "You`re a liar, it does
resemble a bunny". And you are just that type of idiot.
> >Another horrible choice of a word, because it is so subjective. A cloud
> >can resemble a bunny to someone, that doesn`t make it a bunny. So, if I
> >can say that something is nothing like an alibi, and you can claim a
> >certain thing is like an alibi, then "resembling" doesn`t mean a whole
> >lot either. So, it really comes down to is, either a particular thing
> >is an alibi, or it isn`t.
>
>
> Ah! But you didn't assert that LHO didn't have an alibi. Even *that* statement
> could be argued, but it wouldn't be the massive lie that *you* perpetrated.
>
> You tried to lie that LHO didn't even have a 'hint' of one.
What exactly is the criteria before something is considered to be
the "hint of an alibi"? How much information is required to be
considered such, what does that information need to show before it is
considered to be the "hint of an alibi"? These are worthless phrasings
in a dispute. The only thing that can be determined is whether it is
one or not. And this thing of dw`s is not.
> >So, let me ask a new question, so you can
> >start a new dance. Do you think there is anything in this case that
> >meets the legal requirements to be called an alibi?
>
>
> Yep... *YOU* called it a paraphrase.
*YOU* called it an example. You just neglected to mention what
specific part of the case it related to.
> >> >> it's clear that Bud doesn't know what an alibi consists of, and it's
> >> >> clear that Bud was so confused about judicial procedure that he thought
> >> >> the defense was required to fully disclose evidence pretrial to the
> >> >> prosecution.
> >> >
> >> > Without saying any of that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tut, tut... it's the truth, Bud.
> >
> > No Ben, it can`t possibly be true. I`ve never said "pretrail", or
> >"full disclosure" in this discussion.
>
> I merely use the appropriate words.
Jesus Christ, I have to drag your words from you, yet you freely
supply them for me.
> Your meaning was quite clear.
Then how can you explain your missing it?
> Ignorant,
> aren't you?
So you say.
> >I produced something that someone
> >on the other board claimed was taken from a legal website. It said, in
> >part, that notification of the prosecutor was a requirement.
>
> No, it didn't.
Yah, it did, supplied it again above. "...he need only notify the
Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi.."
> >> Rather embarrassing, I'm sure. Even people
> >> who watch popular movies such as "My Cousin Vinnie" have learned better...
> >
> > Pesci`s acting in that was better than the performance his
> >performance in "JFK". And both were based as much in reality.
>
> No-one who so much as watched that movie would come away with the impression
> that the defense is required to reveal their evidence to the prosecution
> pretrial.
Now Ben speaks for the people who watched "My Cousin Vinny". What
next, are you going to claim the natives of the Amazon think you`re a
great guy?
> >> >> Paraphrase, remember?
> >> >
> >> > Yah, I do remember you playing games with words to distract from
> >> >the fact that you haven`t supplied what this alibi of Oz`s is supposed
> >> >to be. Still haven`t.
> >>
> >>
> >> Been there, done that. And YOU called it a "paraphrase". Embarrassing,
> >> wasn't it?
> >
> > You called it an example, without providing what aspect of the case
> >it was supposed to be addressing.
>
>
> I can't help it if you can't note the facts, and do some basic reasoning.
I can`t help it you won`t clearly state what you are referring to.
> >> But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists,
> >> and won't answer, reposted again:
> >
> > A supposed event at 12:20 is an alibi for a murder at 12:30? I`ve
> >thoughly critiqued this "alibi" elsewhere (even dw admitted that it was
> >only "close"). Basically, it says "if this means this, and that means
> >that, than this could mean this." Stellar.
>
> Your "though" critique wasn't.
Was it through? I guess you found it then, eh? And I guess you
realize that although you claimed I couldn`t resond to it, that I
actually already had.
> And matters little, since you didn't assert that LHO didn't have an alibi, but
> that he didn't have a "suggestion" or "resemblance" of one.
In what way does what dw produced resemble an alibi? Does it have
the texture of one, does it smell like one, does it contain words that
an actual alibi might use?
> And he clearly does. You lied.
You think what dw offered does resemble an alibi? That it is the
suggestion of an alibi? Well, your opinion is noted.
> >> Repost of an excellent synopsis by Don Willis:
>
>
> Quick, Bud! Snip this before lurkers read it!
OK. <SNIP> (if anyone is interested, you can find it in probably a
hundred responses on the two assassination boards. I snip only because
I have a lesser chance of getting a server error with smaller
submittals. And Ben is an idiot.)
Bud
> In article <1123290332....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >
> >> Go ahead, Bud - assert right here and now that you have no idea of the time,
> >> people and places.
> >
> > I`ve had many discussions, and seen many things offered by CT, that
> >they felt were alibis for Oz. I`m not interested in guessing games.
> >Either you supply what you think this alibi of Oz`s is and how it meets
> >the legal requirements of an alibi, or keep dancing, I could care less.
>
> Repost of an excellent synopsis by Don Willis:
Ben seems to think I should address this "alibi" once again. I`m
bored enough, my apologies to dw for once again attacking his creation.
> Oswald's Alibi Checked Out, Gave Fritz Fits
Fairly dishonest header, nothing to suggest that Fritz was even
aware of this
supposed alibi, let alone had any reaction to it.
> If on 11/22/63 one wanted to give Lee Oswald a fair chance to exonerate himself,
> this fair-minded person might have asked him if could tell him something re the
> movements of his fellow employees within the building,
Who was stopping him from relating any information he wished?
> something which he could
> not have known had he been ensconced in the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" at
> 12:30pm.
Why would an event at 22:22ish (if it happened then) prevent him
from being in the sniper`s nest at 12:30?
> In fact, as it happens, Oswald did tell his interrogators something
> which--unless he had second sight--he could not have known....
The only way to know something is to witness it?
> The moderately curious, if they want to learn a little something re the JFK
> assassination, will take a look at the Warren Report. There, they will find, in
> the text, that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with fellow depository worker
> James Jarman Jr., & that "Junior" said that he did not have lunch with Oswald
> (p182). Those a little more curious will dig a little deeper, into the WR
> footnotes, & see that Oswald claimed to have had lunch with *two* fellow
> employees, "Junior" & "Shorty" (pp605, 626/Fritz, Kelley [Secret Service],
> resp.). The truly industrious will keep on digging & find that a third,
> unfootnoted report on the interview in question (included in the appendices of
> the WR) actually stated that Oswald claimed only to have *seen* these two
> particular other employees (p622/Bookhout [FBI]).
Walking through the domino room, a room neither man said they had
entered upon re-entering the building.
> And, finally, at the very
> center of the earth, the most dedicated diggers will come to this resonant note
> from DPD Captain Will Fritz's notes re the 10:30am 11/23/63 interview of Oswald:
> say[s] two negr came in.
Yah. And the only way possible to establish what that notation meant
to Fritz would be direct testimony from Fritz explaining what it meant.
> As it happens, Fritz's five little words here (or Oswald's four) could in fact
> describe a scene played out downstairs in the depository sometime after 12:15pm
> the day before. With those five words--which did not make it to Fritz's final
> report--
In a way dw recognises them. Of course, he has no idea what they
signified to Fritz.
>Fritz helps clear Oswald of the shooting of the President, helps
> reconcile Oswald's version of events with that of co-workers Jarman and Harold
> "Shorty" Norman,
Can anyone produce anything that says Norman was known as "Shorty"?
> & helps give us a clearer picture of Oswald's movements between
> 11:45am & 12:30pm. Dynamite five words....
If only dw could establish their meaning.
> Just before noon, several depository employees--including Bonnie Ray Williams
> (v3p168), Danny Arce (v6p364), & Charles Givens (WR p143)--saw, or heard, Oswald
> on the fifth and/or sixth floors. Meanwhile--between 11:45 & about
> 12:10--Norman was on the first floor, in the washroom & lunch room, or "domino
> room," where he ate lunch (v3pp188-89), & Jarman was on his own, too, mainly on
> the first floor, eating lunch while "walking around" (v3p201).
Note that these guys don`t even eat *together*, let alone together
with Oz, as Oz told the interrogators.
> Between about
> 11:55 (when Givens says that he last saw Oswald upstairs)
Givens testifies to seeing Oz on the 6th floor at 12:05, when he
returned to get his cigarettes.
> & 12:10, then, we
> cannot be sure exactly where Oswald was, & Jarman & Norman had not yet joined
> forces. But the scene which Fritz's words seem to describe took place a bit
> *later*,
Note the qualifier "seem to". To a conspiracy kook, they seem to.
Stellar.
> & uncannily featured the same two players specified by Oswald....
If it can be established the short negro he described was Norman.
> By about 12:20pm, we know that Oswald was in or around the first-floor domino
> room because (a) at 12:20, Jarman (p202) & Norman (p190), out front, heard that
> the motorcade was on Main
I didn`t see it in Norman`s testimony that they went in when the
motorcade reached Main (although I may have missed it). What I did see
is him saying they went in about 12:20-12:25. Jarman said "he believed"
they went in when the news reported the motorcade entering Main.
> [12:21, as per "Death of a President" p137],
Conspiracy book source.
> &
> re-entered the depository through the "back of the building" (Jarman p202)--this
> was not a planned route which Oswald could have foreseen (Counsel: "You didn't
> go through & cross the first floor?"/Jarman: "No, sir, there was too many people
> standing on the stairway there" (p202)
Oz may not have foreseen they would cross the first floor, but he
could surmise it by seeing them enter the building, and hear them come
into the fifth floor below him.
> (b) anyone coming in the back, or north, door, & walking to the freight
> elevators would have been seen from the door of the domino room (WR diagram
> p148)
This is a gross overstatement. They wouldn`t have to be seen, in
fact it is unlikely they would be seen from the domino room unless Oz
was around the doorway.
> (c) "Oswald stated that... he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the TSBD,
> alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during
> this period. (WR p622/Bookhout), &, best for last,
A strict reading of this passage yields Oz saying that the two
walked *through the domino room*. A room with one door!
> (d) Oswald [as per Fritz] "say[s] two negr came in. One Jr. + short negro."
Who was the short negro?
> In other words--contrary to the Fritz & Kelley reports--Oswald was *not*
> claiming to have gone downstairs, around noon, to join Jarman & Norman at a
> table.
The reports don`t say he was to join them. The reposts say Oz told
them he ate with those two guys.
> Between his earlier notes & his report, Fritz changed his phraseology,
Not even close. His notes might reflect Oz saying the two negroes
came into the domino room. A room the two men say the didn`t enter upon
returning to the building.
> &
> the seemingly slight, but really pretty radical revision permitted Jarman to
> handily nullify Oswald's (Fritz-revised) alibi: "[Oswald] said he ate lunch
> with some of the colored boys" (WR p605). Bookhout, unambiguously, said
> *alone*,
In the same sentence he mentions others being in the room.
> however, & Fritz's original "came in" echoes Bookhout's "walking
> through,"
Yes, both could easily refer to the domino room. In fact, that is
the room mentioned in Bookout`s report.
> & suggests that what Fritz actually heard Oswald say was closer,
> ironically, to the Bookhout report than to his own! Both phrases suggest,
> further, that Oswald was already on the first floor of the depository--in or
> near the domino room--when Jarman & Norman entered.
And they just didn`t see him.
> Pretty clearly,
Pure conjecture follows...
> then--in between the time that Fritz did his notes & the time
> that he put them into report form--he discovered that Jarman & Norman indeed
> "came in" the back way--too near the domino room for (Fritz's) comfort--and the
> phrases "came in," "walked through" & "alone"--or anything which might seem to
> synchronize Oswald with Jarman & Norman around 12:25--had to go, to be replaced
> (in both Fritz's report & Tweedledum Kelley's undated report) by the easily
> contradicted "ate lunch with". If you read only the final reports of Fritz,
> Kelley, & Bookhout, it sounds as if it were odd-man-out Bookhout who had the bum
> ear here;
He is the one who relates information in an awkward, ambiguous
sentence. The other two are clearly written.
> but Fritz's original, discarded "came in"
Came in where?
> reconciles Fritz with
> Bookhout, & leaves *Kelley* out in the cold, with Fritz's now-suspect "ate lunch
> with" & Kelley's own "ate his lunch with".
Not suspect. There is no reason from what is offered here to
question eother man`s account of what Oz told them.
> Because "two negr came in" implies
> in fact that Oswald **was alone**, & "alone" brings us back to Bookhout &
> 12:25....
They`d have to come into the lunchroom in order to eat with him. And
he did tell the interrogators he ate with those men.
> Speculate as you wish as to why his lunch was delayed about 20 minutes--
Frazier said he brought no lunch. What was he eating in the
lunchroom?
>there
> are both innocent & not-so-innocent possible explanations--but Oswald was on the
> floor to see, however briefly, Jarman & Norman, about 12:25--whether or not
> *they* saw *him* at this point (they were not asked)
They were asked to relate all the times they saw Oz during the day.
>--& he would have had to
> dodge the latter two (going up) & Williams (coming down) to get to the "sniper's
> nest" by 12:30.
Wouldn`t need to dodge any of them if he took the steps, only avoid
being seen by them. Those three took elevators.
> He saw, & said he saw, Jarman & Norman
Eating lunch with him.
>(not, say, Williams &
> Givens) come in....
Or Jarman and Norman come in, either.
> copr 2004 Donald Willis
Ben Holmes
Ah! But I *DID*. Here it is, requoted:
"But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists, and
won't answer, reposted again:"
Liar, aren't you?
>> you *deny* that I've provided it,
>
> You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
>said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
>was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
You *are* quite clear now? Where's your rebuttal?
>> now
>> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
>
> Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it.
No, you're just quacking some more.
You lied, I've pointed it out, and gone to the effort of proving it.
>Are
>your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
>opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
>we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
>an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
>offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
>as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
>only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
>of the word.
If there really isn't any such thing as a "suggestion of an alibi", then your
statement must be correct.
A rather convenient stance for you to take.
But as usual, you're wrong.
>> Can you quack any louder?
>
> Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
>elaboration.
Of material *already* provided. How cowardly of you...
>You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
>you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
>in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them.
Okay... expand on the requirement of the defense to provide to the prosecution
the alibi defense that they are going to use. Be sure to provide citations for
this requirement.
>You want me to
>expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
>will.
You see? Illiteracy. And cowardice.
>Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
>that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
>first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination.
I've already *asked* for your evidence, you couldn't provide any.
>I lay my cards
>on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
>information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
>behavior makes *me* the coward.
Don't be shy, Bud... you know you're a coward.
>> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
>> >> you?
>> >
>> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
>> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>>
>> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
>> facts here.
>
> You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
>say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
Yep... it's off topic to *change* the topic. I'm dealing with your lie that
there wasn't even the "suggestion" of an alibi.
That there wasn't even the 'hint' of an alibi.
That there wasn't even the "resemblance" of an alibi.
That there wasn't even the 'beginnings' of an alibi.
That there wasn't even the 'known possibility' of an alibi.
That there wasn't even a 'smidgen' of an alibi.
...
>>You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
>
> What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
>call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
>a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
>words?
Don't bother, Bud. I'm dealing with your meaning here, not the word.
You lied.
>> >> >Just saying
>> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
>> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
>> >
>> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
>> >what they were in reference to.
>>
>>
>> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
>> later.
>
> Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
>an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
>repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
>you thought it was an alibi?
"But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists, and
won't answer, reposted again:"
>> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
>> >largely without comment.
>>
>>
>> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an
>> alibi - that you asserted didn't exist.
>
> No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
>you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t.
Untrue. When you finally noticed my statements - IMMEDIATELY following your
quoted definitions of "alibi", you claimed to think it was a "paraphrase".
>Then, after you
>produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
>thought this was.
The title was left in. Illiterate, aren't you?
>Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
>think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
>discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
No, you're *STILL* too cowardly to explain or discuss the facts.
>> Lied, didn't you?
>
> So you say.
>
>> >> >I`m
>> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
>> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
>> >> >this article?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
>> >
>> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
>> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>>
>>
>> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
>> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
>
> Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
>is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
>address it.
How can I give an opinion on something that 'I've not provided'?
>> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
>
> I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
>think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
>suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
>or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
>So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
>alibi.
It's the proof that *your* statement is a lie.
>> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
>
> So you say.
>
>> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
>> >
>> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
>> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
>> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
>> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
>> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>>
>>
>> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
>
> <guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
>not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
>
>> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
>> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
>
> <heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
>How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
>four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
>legal requirements of an alibi.
No, *you* called it a "paraphrase". Why bother to lie about it?
>> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved
>> in a discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
>
> Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
>isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
Since you've repeatedly shown your ignorance of what the word means, who cares?
>But, buety is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
>the spitting image of one.
>
>
>> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
>> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
>> >> not telling the truth.
>> >
>> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
>> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>>
>>
>> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
>
> Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
>AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
>the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
>murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
>is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
>person to be an alibi).
12:20 is not an alibi for 12:30. But as you've so carefully pointed out, you
don't believe he was downstairs because of the way people were moving around, he
couldn't have gotten *back* upstairs at that time.
Why don't you believe your own argument?
>> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
>> >
>> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>>
>>
>> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
>> repeating it.
>
> You do just that.
>
>> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
>> >> >
>> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
>> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
>> >> >that".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I stand by the evidence.
>> >
>> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>>
>>
>> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the
>> lunchroom?
>
> A better question would be where did he?
In the notes of the DPD officers who were questioning him. But you knew the
answer, why bother to ask?
>>>> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
>> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
>> >> >
>> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
>> >> >cut and ran.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Untrue.
>> >
>> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
>> >accurate.
>>
>>
>> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>>
>>The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
>>
>> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
>
> The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case,
So precisely specific, that you were embarrassed when you found out that you'd
mistakenly called it a "paraphrase"... LOL!!
>or how any
>understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case?
"Paraphrase".... LOL!!
>If you
>would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
>wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
Can't help it if you can't read.
Or, more accurately, are a coward.
>> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
>> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
>> >
>> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
>> >back about a year, I think?
>>
>>
>> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never
>> rebutted *any* of the facts raised by Don.
>
> I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
>offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
>asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
>response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
>Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
>once again.
You haven't the first time. This is, perhaps, why you restricted any such
"rebuttal" to the censored group, rather than here where people aren't
constrained in telling the truth.
>> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
>> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
>> >> of your character.
>> >
>> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
>> >responses ago,
>>
>> Yep... clearly did so.
>
> Sure, sure, sure...
>
>> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
>> >while ago.
>>
>> No, you aren't interested in facts.
>
> Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
>
>> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
>> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
>>
>> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
>
> You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
>
>> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
>> >dozen times.
>>
>> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said:
>> "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
>
> Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
>suggestion of a alibi.
It is, the only topic we've been talking about.
It was *YOU* that stated that LHO didn't have even the "suggestion" of an alibi,
and I've been proving that you lied.
>I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
>something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
>dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
>expend.
There's nothing vague and subjective about it. LHO did *indeed* have far more
than the suggestion of an alibi.
>> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the
>> essence of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually
>> denying that I've stated it.
>
> You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
Embarrassed that you called it a "paraphrase", aren't you?
>> Been there... done that.
>
> So you say.
>
>> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
>> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
>> >fuck up.
>>
>> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
>
> I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
>recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
You'd be lying to so state.
I provided it IMMEDIATELY after you quoted alibi definitions from the Internet,
as you well know.
Liar, aren't you?
I provided full and complete detail, by quoting Don Willis' excellent synopsis,
and you *STILL* lie about it.
>> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
>> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
>> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
>> >> >watch you dance.
>> >>
>> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
>> >
>> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
>> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>>
>>
>> You can't shame an honest man.
>
> Nor was I addressing one.
>
>> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
>> you claim I've never provided...
>
> I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
Sorry, that's simply not true. You're asking for my opinion on the "suggestion"
of an alibi that you keep asserting I've never produced.
>Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
>badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi.
Untrue. Why lie?
>That seems a much
>too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
>produced is an alibi.
Good of you to admit the obvious.
Lied, didn't you?
Can't support that lie, can you?
>> >> >> >is no more an
>> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
>> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
>> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
>> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
>> >
>> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
>> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>>
>>
>> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
>
> No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
>produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
>could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
>accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
>I proceeded demolishing it.
Coward, aren't you?
And, as proven by your inability to refute Don's article, you lied when you
asserted that LHO didn't even have a "suggestion" of an alibi. Don clearly
discusses something that is far more than a mere hint of an alibi.
>> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
>
> Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
>
>>>>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during
>>the
>> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
>> >> >
>> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
>> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
>> >>
>> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
>> >> an alibi is.
>> >
>> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
>> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
>> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>>
>> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
>> definition. LOL!!
>
> When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
*YOU* called it a paraphrase, not me! LOL!!
Speaking of idiots... feel free to point out the contradictions between these
statements.
> "I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
>[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
>lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
>Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
>
> So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
>Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab.
Yep... that's what Whaley said.
>Like I said,
>it`s conflicting evidence.
Where?
>Now, you might say one carries more weight
>than the other (the interrogation notes have the advantage of being
>written contemporaneously), but they are still both evidence, and the
>two accounts do conflict with one another.
Nope.
>> Once again, you lied, I cited.
>
> Again, how would you know?
>
>> >> >might be information
>> >> >tending to indicate his innocence. It isn`t an alibi.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nor was it offered as one. You made a statement about his "actions"
>> >> after the assassination, I referred to several of them.
>> >>
>> >> Why do you need to continually lie to make a point? Why can't you
>> >> be honest?
>> >
>> > Why can`t you follow simple points? You used the phrase "evidence
>> >tending to show". I offered this episode as a example of something
>> >someone could consider "evidence tending to show" innocence which was
>> >*not* an alibi.
>>
>> It's *YOU* that can't follow simple points. You tried to argue that LHO's
>> actions after the assassination showed him guilty - I named two of them that
>> clearly shows the opposite - you then *LIED* about one of them, and then lied
>> that I'd been using these statements as an alibi.
>
> Man, that`s too much misconception on your part for me to clear up.
Or, more accurately, too much truth to cover up with BS.
>I`ll direct everyone to the exchange where you first used the phrase
>"evidence tending to show", and I gave examples of the differences
>between "evidence tending to show", and an actual alibi.
Nope. We have *NEVER* discussed whether LHO had an "actual alibi" or not.
Your a liar to state otherwise.
>The example I
>gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
>offering to give his cab.
Actually, as I recall, it was *MY* example, not yours. You've denied this
episode.
>*If true*, it was evidence indicating
>innocence, right?
Actions that you denied existed. Your comment was that LHO's actions after the
assassination showed guilt. I've given a couple of examples of his actions
after the assassination that *DO NOT SHOW GUILT*.
>But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi.
Nor have I ever claimed it was. We went through this once before, liar.
>Therein,
>I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
>point again.
Considering that you lied about who brought up what, your point has been missed
again.
How can you support the "truth" with lies?
>> >> >Stop with the
>> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
>> >
>> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
>> >
>> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
>> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
>> >dance.
>>
>>Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
>> exist?
>
> Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
Because it's meaningless to the larger picture that *YOU LIED* about LHO having
even the "suggestion" of an alibi.
I have no intention of letting the topic drift from this, until you admit it.
>> >> >or continue this ridiculous
>> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
>> >> defend the impossible.
>> >
>> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
>> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>>
>>
>> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
>
> So you say.
So did Whaley. It was non-verbal, but an offering nontheless.
>> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
>
> No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
>"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
Coward, aren't you? Liar too, since you can't list any fact that Don
"contrived".
>> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
> Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
I've already stated what it is - it's the proof that you lied when you stated
that LHO didn't have even a "suggestion" of an alibi.
>> You asked for an alibi, I've provided it a number of times now.
>
> <guffaw> But when I ask you if dw`s submttal *is* an alibi, you
>refuse comment. Finally, and recently, you called it the suggestion of
>one, but that is all I was able to squeeze out after numerous requests.
>Yah, it me thats the coward, Ben.
How can I comment on something you claim I've never provided?
>> Care to quack
>> some more?
>
> No, you done wore me down. You have nothing to say, no ideas to
>exchange or discuss. Your only motivation is to mask your shortcomings
>in reasoning and ideas.
>
>> >> >> >It fails in a variety of
>> >> >> >ways, which I explained in the thread(s) this was drawn from.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep... it "fails", yet when I referred to it in relation to your
>> >> >> definition of an alibi - you accused me of "paraphrasing"!
>> >> >
>> >> > Yah, you reworded the definition,
>> >>
>> >> Nope... didn't reword it at all. I referred to the circumstances that
>> >> relate to LHO.
>> >
>> > Without specifically stating what those circumstances were.
>>
>>
>> Since you've been involved in a discussion on that very topic, you can't
>> claim ignorance.
>
> Discussions I had monthes or years ago do not allow you the option
>not to identify them if you bring them into a discussion with me.
Oh? Are you now claiming that you're simply forgetful?
And yet, you aren't forgetful enough to be able to lie about whether LHO had the
"suggestion" of an alibi or not.
>This
>is the stupidest shit I ever heard of, thinking hints are all you need
>to supply. Just stop playing guessing games, and say clearly what you
>mean, you fucking kook.
Oh, I've been quite clear enough... you're a kid who's not grown up, and who
doesn't understand basic honesty.
>> I gave all the detail you could possibly want, and you deny it's existence.
>
> When and where did you specifically name an event and the players in
>that event? Quit the fucking lying...
Immediately after you quoted alibi definitions.
All the information needed to compare an event with a definition was supplied.
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
> So you say.
>
>> >See, how
>> >it works is you spell out the idea, then we discuss that idea.
>>
>>
>> Done so repeatedly... coward, aren't you?
>
> If you ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness. You are
>bankrupt of ideas and reasoning, so you try to pass of guessing games
>and parsing as such. It`s not the same thing, you know.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >You
>> >aren`t interested in that, because the idea has no merit. So you dance.
>> >
>> >> And you called it a "paraphrase".
>> >
>> > Did that. You called it an "example", without stating what part of
>> >the case this supposed "example" applied to.
>>
>>
>> You can't claim ignorance, Bud. If you do, I'll *QUOTE* you on the topic.
>
> *You* didn`t name the event you were refering to, kook.
So well did I, that you referred to it as a "paraphrase"...
>I`m not
>interested in guessing, you aren`t interested in expressing your ideas
>(such as they are) clearly.
Stating that you are a lying coward is all that's needed.
It's clear enough to any lurkers reading...
>> >> Now are you going to attempt to show how those words don't relate to
>> >> LHO and the evidence?
>> >
>> > You didn`t say what evidence of the case you were applting this
>> >supposed example to. And I wasn`t keen to guess.
>>
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
> No, I`m not interested in playing guessing games. Why do you think
>giving details about your points isn`t required?
Listing the facts is all that's needed. Proving that you lied is all thats
needed.
>> >> Or are you going to continue to lie?
>> >
>> > How would you know?
>>
>>
>> Because I know the *facts* of this case, I know the evidence,
>
> And couldn`t reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
And yet, I manage to peg you every time, don't I?
Yep... using a speculation... assuming, in other words...
>> >> >Norman said "I believe" we
>> >> >went in when the news said the motorcade went onto Main. That may be
>> >> >true, that might be what he believed.
>> >> >
>> >> >> And since the parade was *scheduled*
>> >> >> to pass by at 12:25, as I recall - there's even *less* time.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, there is the exact same amount of time from Norman and Jarman
>> >> >came until the shooting.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your stupidity is quite amazing... they clearly came to the lunchroom
>> >> *BEFORE* 12:25 - and 12:25 is 5 minutes *shorter* than 12:30.
>> >
>> > What does the schedule of the motorcade have to do with whether this
>> >is an alibi? How does it make "*less* time"?
>>
>>
>> This isn't rocket science, Bud, despite your attempt to make it so. If
>> LHO saw the two men at 12:20, which appears to be the earliest time
>> allowed by the testimony, then he had just 4 minutes to run back up to
>> the 6th floor and get prepared to shoot. Four minutes is *LESS* than
>> the 9 minutes he would have if the motorcade was scheduled to go by at
>> 12:30. But, since eyewitnesses placed someone there at 12:15, LHO is
>> doing alot of running up and down the stairs, isn't he?
>
> <hahahahaha> The assassination was at 12:30. This supposed sighting
>is around 12:22ish. That gives Oz eight minutes to get into the nest.
Then who was seen at the window at 12:15?
>The definition for alibi doesn`t say anything about the "scheduled time
>of the crime", it says the time of the crime. We don`t know what events
>might have thrown Oz off schedule, maybe someone was standing near
>where rifle was hidden, and he needed to wait for them to move. He may
>not have even known what time it was. Someone said the first floor
>clock had the wrong time on it.
The improbabilities that LNT'ers are forced to believe boggle the mind...
>> >> When you have to lie to support the "truth"...
>> >
>> > I just didn`t see how the schedule of the motorcade had an effect
>> >on the ammount of time from those guys crossing that floor and the
>> >assassination. You say it makes for less time. I think the ammount of
>> >time is uneffected by the motorcade schedule.
>>
>>
>> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
>
> Typical Ben response when confronted with actual thought, he employs
>so little of it.
Oh, I corrected your misunderstanding of time above. Don't need to do it again.
>> >> >> But when you're
>> >> >> forced to lie about the evidence to support the "truth", it's time
>> >> >> to look at your "truth".
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you claiming this concoction by Don Willis is an alibi?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you can't read, I can't help you.
>> >
>> > Have you said somewhere that you believe that this offering of dw`s
>> >is an alibi? I don`t think you have expressed whether you think this is
>> >an alibi or not.
>>
>>
>> I have no intention of changing the subject to my "opinion". Deal with the
>> facts, or be shown a coward.
>
> Is that the whole menu?
The "menu" is your false assertion that LHO didn't have even the "suggestion" of
an alibi.
>> >> >> >before the assassination.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Unfortunately, the WC never believed *any* of the eyewitnesses that
>> >> >> reported LHO coming down from the 6th floor at any time after 11:50
>> >> >> or so, and prior to 12:31.
>> >> >
>> >> > There was reason to believe he did stay up.
>> >>
>> >> Name the reason.
>> >
>> > Like we haven`t gone over this. People moving all over makes it seem
>> >unlikely to me that Oz came down.
>>
>>
>> That "reason" hardly overcomes the multiple eyewitness sightings of LHO
>> below the 6th floor.
>>
>> You are arguing that because no-one *saw* him come down from the 6th
>> floor, that those who *DID* see him on the 1st and 2nd floor must have
>> been seeing things.
>>
>> It's a sad sad bit of logic, Bud. Surely you can do better...
>
> A sadder bit of logic would be to assert that witnesses are all
>reliable, even when they relate completely different things. If my
>interest in Shelley holds, I`ll check and see if I can piece together
>his movements. I suspect he went out even before the flooring crew came
>down. He left first from the 6th floor, and hardly ate before heading
>out. None of the flooring crew mention seeing him on reaching the first
>floor that I remember. Ofyen, you are left deciding what the
>indications show to be the likeliest scenario.
Yep, we have sightings *below* the 6th floor at roughly 11:50, 12:15, 12:22, and
12:31-32... yet you hold firm to your belief.
>> >> What evidence can you cite that contradicts the eyewitnesses
>> >> who saw him between 11:50 and 12:30.
>> >
>> > What am I trying to contradict?
>>
>> The WC's assertions that you agree with.
>
> I don`t think so. I basically agree with the WC`s assertions I agree
>with.
>
>> >Don`t give me a position and tell me to prove it.
>>
>>
>> You can't prove *your* position, you can't disprove the actual evidence.
>
> Testimony isn`t a carved in stone accurate accounting of events.
>Thats just an alternate reality created by kooks.
Yep... there it is in a nutshell folks, LNT'ers don't believe in evidence...
everything is just shades of 'grey'.
>> >> >Certainly this creation
>> >> >of dw`s is no reason to believe he went downstairs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And yet, you refuse to explain LHO's psychic ability...
>> >
>> > I wonder what that means to a kook. Has dw established anything
>> >with that offering?
>>
>>
>> Yep... he's established the "suggestion" of an alibi. One that you haven't
>> rebutted yet.
>
> I said "no it`s not". Thats a more substantial rebuttal than is
>needed.
Actually, that's about as "substantial" as you ever get.
>>>>>> You are so bound by the WC theory - that if you are forced by the evidence,
>>>>>> you'll simply allow LHO to duck down to the first floor, eat lunch, then
>>run
>> >> >> back up to the 6th floor to commit his murder.
>> >> >
>> >> > I offered what I thought could require a trip to the first floor, to
>> >> >get the bullets out of the jacket Truly saw him put in the domino room.
>> >> >I really don`t think that happened, I think it`s more likely Oz stayed
>> >> >on the 6th floor like the WC concluded.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Based on *what* evidence?
>> >
>> > The evidence of the movements of various people known to have been
>> >on the first floor.
>>
>>
>> Silly... as discussed above.
>
> No, what is silly is the thought that during the course of a mundane
>day, people note the times and places of the passing of their fellow
>employees accurately.
Ah! So all those sightings between 11:50 and 12:32 were really hours earlier,
right?
No hint at all. It was an outright statement of fact.
Of course you didn't. You stated that "this is not something easily
misconstrued".
Of course, you then go on to do *exactly* that - with an argument that no-one
could understand what Fritz meant in his notes.
>It`s a very simple and straightforward
>concept, not prone to be mistaken. I think the most likely
>explaination, by far, is that Oz *did* tell those cops (Frtiz and
>Kelley, anyway) that he ate with Norman and Jarman.
And if he did, and it's an accurate statement, then you're stuck.
For then LHO would have far more than merely a "suggestion" of an alibi, he'd
*have* an alibi.
Perhaps this was too obvious for you.
You supplied a definition of an alibi that YOU AGREED WITH.
I suppled an example using the known facts in this case, THAT AGREED WITH THE
DEFINITION.
So closely did it agree, that you labeled it a "paraphrase".
Now, you're stuck with either showing that my example had nothing to do with the
facts, or admitting that you made *MY* case for me.
Which will it be, coward?
>> >Why do you make me ask you where you think I show I don`t?
>> >These things
>> >would go much smoother if you said here is the definition you supplied,
>> >and here it is applied to what you said.
>>
>>
>>I did. You lied about it. Then somehow "found" the replies later, and asserted
>> that you hadn't seen them when first posted.
>
> Sure, sure, sure. Except you neglected to mention what part of the
>case you were applying it to.
They were statements in response to your definition of alibi.
Did you somehow think we were discussing UFO's?
Or Lincoln's murder?
Or perhaps how to knit doilies?
>> >Make your points, don`t hint at them.
>>
>> I have... over and over. Coward, aren't you?
>
> So you say. Why do I have to hound the information from you?
You won't. I plan on sticking to the topic, until you admit the truth.
>>>> >> But I thank you for it - since it's clear you've been refusing to answer
>> >> >> previously. And everyone can see *why* now...
>> >> >>
>>>>>> And everyone who read your original statement that LHO didn't have even the
>> >> >> "suggestion" of an alibi - will be completely convinced by my assertion
>> >> >> that you lied.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is this Don Willis production an "alibi", Ben?
>> >>
>> >> It is certainly the "suggestion" of one that you denied existed.
>> >
>> > Ouch. Finally, Ben says what he regards this submittal by dw to be.
>>
>> Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the
>> title was left in on purpose.
>
> Yah, thats what I wanted to know, whether you gave it a thumbs up or
>not. Idiot.
Did so originally. Stated that it was an "excellent" synopsis, and the title
was left in on purpose.
>>I can't help it if you can't read, Bud. Or more accurately, are too afraid of
>> the truth to do so.
>
> Yah, thats what it is.
>
>> >The suggestion of an alibi. So let me rebut. I don`t think it is the
>> >suggestion of an ablibi, although it may be something suggested by a
>> >kook to be an alibi.
>>
>>
>>What you *think* is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is to list the facts supplied,
>> show why other facts are more likely to be correct, listing the eyewitness
>> testimony and evidence that is in favor of your viewpoint.
>
> I`ll do that when you offer an alibi.
Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
>The suggestion of one is a
>less tangible, and more subjective thing.
It's what *YOU* denied existed. Lied, didn't you?
>> >> Lied, didn't
>> >> you?
>> >
>> > How would you know?
>>
>>
>> Because I know the facts.
>
> Who is going to apply them for you?
>
>> >> >Did Oz say anything
>> >> >like "I couldn`t have committed this murder, I can prove I was on the
>> >> >first floor, ect? Had this gone to trial, would Oz have offered up this
>> >> >weak shit up as an alibi?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's not weak at all. In fact, it's quite strong.
>> >
>> > Yah, Ben, focus on the subjective "weak-strong" chracterization.
>>
>>
>> It was *your* word. I merely correct it.
>
> Yah, parse a word to disregard the concept. Would Oz have offered
>this thing of dw`s as an alibi had this gone to trial?
Who knows? Who cares? It's not a part of this discussion. I'm not discussing
an alibi defense.
>> >Don`t address the main concept, whether Oz would have offered this as
>> >an alibi had this gone to trial.
>>
>>
>> That matters not at all.
>
> <snicker> But what kooks on newgroups think are alibis are
>significant. Go figure.
>
>> I don't confuse an "alibi defense" with an alibi. I
>>have no idea what alibi defense LHO would have used. That would have been up to
>> him and his attorney.
>
> "alibi" is a form of legal defense.
But the two are *not* identical. Rather stupid, aren't you?
>> I'm discussing the "suggestion" of an alibi that you refuse to admit exists.
>
> Excellent. That wasn`t too hard, but I`m exhausted dragging even
>that much from you.
You mean you've been posting this long and didn't know what you were defending?
How stupid of you!
>Shall we discuss dw`s suggestion of an alibi, then?
Go ahead... I've already pointed out that you're a coward for not dealing with
it earlier.
>> >> >You really should look into a common sense
>> >> >implant.
>> >> >
>> >> > <snipping Don`s Willis`s "excellent synopsis" for brevity>
>> >>
>> >> Yep... by all means, snip it. You can't respond to it. Coward.
>> >
>> > <snicker> Go to the censored board. Look up "Oswald`s Alibi Checked
>> >Out, Gave Fritz Fits (repost). I responded to this very offering by dw
>> >you produced here. Over seven monthes ago, on Jan. 22nd. Idiot.
>>
>>
>> Yes... let's examine this 'rebuttal' here... let me quote the *ENTIRE*
>> refutation by you:
>>
>> "Then it would seem a simple thing to supply testimony attributed to
>> Oz that he was sitting in the domino room and saw those guys walk by.
>> Endlessly asserting it exists with producing it is also silly."
>
> You are looking at the wrong response, idiot.
Feel free to quote any response made by you in that thread dated Jan 22nd, 2005.
My crystal ball is whispering to me again...
>I told you I responded
>to this exact offering you produced by dw. That response was to Peter
>Fokes, or John Hill, If I remember correctly.
Oh, don't try to remember, go ahead and *QUOTE* what you said on Jan 22nd in
that thread.
That way, lurkers can check the date and see who the "idiot" is.
>> Since Don Willis did *PRECISELY* this - with his quotes of the various DPD
>> officer's notes, you have nothing... nothing at all.
>
> No, dw didn`t do *precisely* this. He interpreted a line in
>Bookout`s report to mean a certain thing, is all.
Oh? Then you have nothing to worry about, right?
Of course, you *are* incorrect, yet again...
>> Of course, if you knew how to look up your own words, you'd also know
>> that you dealt with this the previous year also. Who's the idiot?
>
> You again, Ben. I knew it was offered originally by dw, and reposted
>by Peter Fokes afterwards. I directed you to the repost because it was
>there that I addressed the very submittal you produced by dw here. The
>very one you said I couldn`t respond to.
Oh? So now someone who demonstrates *more* knowledge, and points it out, is
more stupid that someone who has forgotten?
And I've pointed out why you can't refute Don's offerings here.
Ben Holmes
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>>> If by merely stating what alibi LHO suggested constitutes the "proof" needed
>>>> that you lied about LHO not having even the suggestion of an alibi, then the
>> >> matter is already solved.
>> >>
>> >> I've already so stated, therefore; You lied.
>> >
>> > I didn`t ask you to go into that elaborate chicken dance routine
>> >again, I`ve seen enough of that. But I think I`ll use this opportunity
>> >to illustrate a difference between us in these discussions. I`m not
>> >hung up on parsing words and second-guessing definitions, I`m more
>> >interested in expressing ideas and applying reason (which you avoid
>> >whenever possible, being devoid of any reasoning skills whatsoever).
>>
>> This is why you keep lying about what I've already stated?
>
> Practice makes perfect.
>
>> I give what is clearly the suggestion of an alibi,
>
> That is one way to put it. My version is that after days of
>badgering, you finally produced this article by dw, without saying how
>it fit the bill of what I was requesting.
Illiteracy can be cured. Just keep working at it.
>> BACKED BY THE FACTS,
>
> Backed by kook readings of the facts.
>
>> and
>> you've been busy denying that I've done so.
>
> Spent a lot of time pointing out that you hadn`t done so.
Lied, didn't you?
>You never
>specifically stated what events or people you were refering to.
Yep... must have been embarrassing to think that an example backed by the facts
in this case was a "paraphrase"...
>After
>numerous requests, you produced this offering of dw`s, and it took many
>more requests before I could squeeze out of you what you thought it
>was.
Actually, that was in my very first repost of it. I stated that it was an
"excellent synopsis".
If you can't figure out what that means, try a dictionary.
>Finally, you said it was "the suggestion of an alibi".
Yep... surprise surprise... the very topic of these posts.
>Now, way
>back when I said that Oz didn`t have the suggestion of an alibi, you
>could have said "Yes he did",
I did.
>and referred me to this theory of dw`s.
I did.
>Instead, you opted to go into an elaborate and ridiculous chicken
>dance. You just can`t bring yourself to clearly and fully express your
>points, and refuse my requests for elaboration. This makes me cautious,
>because I don`t want to make a wrong assumption about what you are
>refering to, only to hear you squalk like a chicken being plucked if I
>assume wrong.
Ignorance of the facts in this case really hurts, doesn't it?
You could *start* by reading the testimony in the 26 volumes.
>> >So, for example, when I said Oz didn`t have the suggestion of an alibi,
>> >and you leapt at the word (but of course not the concept expressed),
>
>> Nope. The word isn't important, you could just as easily have said that LHO
>> didn't even have a "hint" of an alibi, and you'd STILL BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
>
> Or I could have said (which I also did) that he had "nothing
>resembling an alibi". Or I could have said he had "nothing like an
>alibi". Almost any subjective phrase would be subjective. Just because
>a kook suggests something as an alibi doesn`t mean that it is the
>suggestion of an alibi.
Don merely compiled certain facts together.
>>Why you'd try to steer this away from your statement is understandable, but you
>> lied about this - and I'm happy to point it out.
>
> Whatever floats your boat, Benny boy, I`m glad to be a source of
>happiness for you.
>
>> >I thought "Oh-oh, that was a bad choice of a word, I`m in a newsgroup
>> >full of kooks who can suggest anything". You see, someone could suggest
>> >that Oz was never in the TSBD the day of the assassination, that it was
>> >a double of him there that day. They might even be able to back this
>> >premise up with bits and pieces from the evidence. Other suggested
>> >alibis I`ve seen for Oz are that it was him on the steps in the
>> >Altgen`s photo, that he couldn`t make it from the 6th floor to the 2nd
>> >in time to have that confrontation with Baker, ect. Someone could even
>> >suggest Oz was on the roof when the assassination took place, or in the
>> >basement (if one exists).
>>
>>Yep... argue anything and everything except for the *actual* 'hint' of an alibi
>> that is supported by the evidence.
>
> I argued against this "actual hint of an alibi" for months (have you
>located where I responded to this offering by dw yet?
Yep... you denied that it was the one. I'll wait for you to quote it.
>I did, you know,
>althouh you falsely claimed I couldn`t). It would need several key
>components established to qualify as an alibi. "hints of alibis" and
>"suggestions of alibis" are too subjective to argue. Either it is or it
>isn`t one.
That didn't stop you from falsely making the point that LHO didn't have even the
"suggestion" of an alibi.
Now you're trying to argue that there is no such thing. Why were you making a
statement about something non-existent?
> And that concoction by dw most definately isn`t one.
Well, if it's non-existent, then no matter *what* Don came up with, it wouldn't
suddenly exist, now would it?
>> How cowardly of you...
>
> So you say.
>
>> >Note, the musing of kooks are not alibis. For
>> >something to be an alibi *for* Oz, it would need to be selected *by*
>> >Oz.
>>
>> Nope. Untrue, as I've repeatedly pointed out. You keep confusing an "alibi
>> defense" with "alibi".
>
> And I keep pointing out that the term "alibi", in jurisprudence, is
>a form of
>legal defense.
"a form of"... not identical to.
Red is a color, but color is not only red.
>>You've *STILL* been unable to cite any authoritative source that states that an
>> alibi is required to be asserted by the defendent.
>
> This is part of one of the definitions I provided. "The defendant
>need not prove that he was elsewhere when the crime happened, he need
>only notify the Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi (and a list
>of eyewitnesses)."
That is not the definition of "alibi".
Sorta like saying, "The definition of the color red is when I say that this is
the color red"
>> But, as we all know, a liar lies.
>
> You do.
>
>> >Anyway, I realized it was a poor choice of a word to use
>> >"suggestion", because once a word can mean anything, it doesn`t mean
>> >very much. So I tried to withdraw "suggestion", and replace it with
>> >"rese"mbling", as in "Oz didn`t have anything resembling an alibi".
>>
>> And still *just* as much a lie, since you are well aware of the facts in this
>> particular instance.
>
> Yah, I am aware of the facts surrounding this offering by dw. It`s a
>pinch of this, and a pinch of that, and kooks come running. "That
>smells great, dw, what you cooking?" Eat up kooks, it resembles shit to
>me.
I'll defer to your obviously superior culinary knowledge here.
>>It really matters not at all your choice of words, if the meaning is the same.
>
> Correct. And my choice of words is sometimes imperfect, but I do
>know the point I`m trying to make. And that point was that what dw
>produced was nothing like an alibi.
When you don't know what an alibi is, then your statement is meaningless.
>What good are subjective terms like
>"suggested" and "resembling" in a debate? You say this thing resembles
>an alibi. I say it doesn`t. So what? Like arguing whether a cloud
>resembles a bunny. One person could say it does, another could say it
>doesn`t. Only an idiot would say something like "You`re a liar, it does
>resemble a bunny". And you are just that type of idiot.
So you are saying that you were an idiot for making such a statement?
I'd agree.
>> >Another horrible choice of a word, because it is so subjective. A cloud
>> >can resemble a bunny to someone, that doesn`t make it a bunny. So, if I
>> >can say that something is nothing like an alibi, and you can claim a
>> >certain thing is like an alibi, then "resembling" doesn`t mean a whole
>> >lot either. So, it really comes down to is, either a particular thing
>> >is an alibi, or it isn`t.
>>
>>
>>Ah! But you didn't assert that LHO didn't have an alibi. Even *that* statement
>> could be argued, but it wouldn't be the massive lie that *you* perpetrated.
>>
>> You tried to lie that LHO didn't even have a 'hint' of one.
>
> What exactly is the criteria before something is considered to be
>the "hint of an alibi"? How much information is required to be
>considered such, what does that information need to show before it is
>considered to be the "hint of an alibi"? These are worthless phrasings
>in a dispute. The only thing that can be determined is whether it is
>one or not. And this thing of dw`s is not.
Who cares what you think?
>> >So, let me ask a new question, so you can
>> >start a new dance. Do you think there is anything in this case that
>> >meets the legal requirements to be called an alibi?
>>
>>
>> Yep... *YOU* called it a paraphrase.
>
> *YOU* called it an example. You just neglected to mention what
>specific part of the case it related to.
Yep... it *was* an example. It was based on the facts in the JFK assassination,
and you were too ignorant to recognize that simple fact.
Now that this has been pointed out, it illustrates the silliness of your
assertion that LHO didn't have even the 'hint' of an alibi, *YOU* thought it was
so close as to be a paraphrase of the definition for "alibi"! ROTFLMAO!!
>> >> >> it's clear that Bud doesn't know what an alibi consists of, and it's
>> >> >> clear that Bud was so confused about judicial procedure that he thought
>> >> >> the defense was required to fully disclose evidence pretrial to the
>> >> >> prosecution.
>> >> >
>> >> > Without saying any of that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tut, tut... it's the truth, Bud.
>> >
>> > No Ben, it can`t possibly be true. I`ve never said "pretrail", or
>> >"full disclosure" in this discussion.
>>
>> I merely use the appropriate words.
>
> Jesus Christ, I have to drag your words from you, yet you freely
>supply them for me.
Ignorant, weren't you?
>> Your meaning was quite clear.
>
> Then how can you explain your missing it?
I didn't. You even now continue to say it.
In fact, you now deny that the concept even exists.
>> Ignorant,
>> aren't you?
>
> So you say.
>
>> >I produced something that someone
>> >on the other board claimed was taken from a legal website. It said, in
>> >part, that notification of the prosecutor was a requirement.
>>
>> No, it didn't.
>
> Yah, it did, supplied it again above. "...he need only notify the
>Prosecutor of his intent to claim an alibi.."
That is not the definition of "alibi".
Presumably, you'd go to a zoo, and say "I intend to look at an elephant", and
instantly, anyone who did not know what an elephant was would now know.
>> >> Rather embarrassing, I'm sure. Even people
>> >> who watch popular movies such as "My Cousin Vinnie" have learned better...
>> >
>> > Pesci`s acting in that was better than the performance his
>> >performance in "JFK". And both were based as much in reality.
>>
>> No-one who so much as watched that movie would come away with the impression
>> that the defense is required to reveal their evidence to the prosecution
>> pretrial.
>
> Now Ben speaks for the people who watched "My Cousin Vinny". What
>next, are you going to claim the natives of the Amazon think you`re a
>great guy?
Merely pointing out that you made a mistake in a bit of rather common knowledge.
So common, that it's a major plot line in popular movies.
>> >> >> Paraphrase, remember?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yah, I do remember you playing games with words to distract from
>> >> >the fact that you haven`t supplied what this alibi of Oz`s is supposed
>> >> >to be. Still haven`t.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Been there, done that. And YOU called it a "paraphrase". Embarrassing,
>> >> wasn't it?
>> >
>> > You called it an example, without providing what aspect of the case
>> >it was supposed to be addressing.
>>
>>
>> I can't help it if you can't note the facts, and do some basic reasoning.
>
> I can`t help it you won`t clearly state what you are referring to.
Been there, done that.
>> >> But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists,
>> >> and won't answer, reposted again:
>> >
>> > A supposed event at 12:20 is an alibi for a murder at 12:30? I`ve
>> >thoughly critiqued this "alibi" elsewhere (even dw admitted that it was
>> >only "close"). Basically, it says "if this means this, and that means
>> >that, than this could mean this." Stellar.
>>
>> Your "though" critique wasn't.
>
> Was it through? I guess you found it then, eh?
Already posted it. You've denied that it was the correct one. I'll wait for
you to post the Jan 22nd post.
>And I guess you
>realize that although you claimed I couldn`t resond to it, that I
>actually already had.
Refute, not respond. You could respond to *anything*, you can refute virtually
nothing.
>>And matters little, since you didn't assert that LHO didn't have an alibi, but
>> that he didn't have a "suggestion" or "resemblance" of one.
>
> In what way does what dw produced resemble an alibi? Does it have
>the texture of one, does it smell like one, does it contain words that
>an actual alibi might use?
Yep... so well, in fact, that you referred to a mention of facts contained in
Don's post as a "paraphrase" of an alibi's definition.
>> And he clearly does. You lied.
>
> You think what dw offered does resemble an alibi?
You thought it did. You called it a "paraphrase"
>That it is the
>suggestion of an alibi? Well, your opinion is noted.
>
>> >> Repost of an excellent synopsis by Don Willis:
>>
>>
>> Quick, Bud! Snip this before lurkers read it!
>
> OK. <SNIP> (if anyone is interested, you can find it in probably a
>hundred responses on the two assassination boards. I snip only because
>I have a lesser chance of getting a server error with smaller
>submittals. And Ben is an idiot.)
So much of an "idiot", that I could predict you'd snip it, and refuse to respond
to it.
Bud
<SNIP>
> >> > Apparentlly I must, because you neglect to give your opinion of it.
> >>
> >> First, you want the alibi...
> >
> > I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> >
> >> I provide it,
> >
> > You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
> >you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
> >worth of this tiresome dancing.
>
>
> Ah! But I *DID*. Here it is, requoted:
>
> "But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists, and
> won't answer, reposted again:"
Yes, the second time you produced the offering bt dw, you included
that line. Had you done it the first time, it would have saved a few
more responses of this tiresome dancing. My complaint is that it
requires a few responses to get from you what should have been included
the first time you produced this offering from dw.
> Liar, aren't you?
Just pointing out once again that I need to drag things out of you.
That line
explaining what you thought you were producing wasn`t included the
first time, was it?
> >> you *deny* that I've provided it,
> >
> > You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
> >said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
> >was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
>
>
> You *are* quite clear now? Where's your rebuttal?
Given. It`s up.
> >> now
> >> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
> >
> > Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it.
>
>
> No, you're just quacking some more.
>
> You lied, I've pointed it out, and gone to the effort of proving it.
I`m tired of the "yousaid-I said", you thrive on this crap, it only
tires me out. All this noise comes down to is that you regard dw`s
offering to be the suggestion of an alibi. I do not.
> >Are
> >your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
> >opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
> >we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
> >an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
> >offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
> >as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
> >only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
> >of the word.
>
>
> If there really isn't any such thing as a "suggestion of an alibi", then your
> statement must be correct.
Define what a "suggestion of an alibi" is, what is the criria
before it is considered such. It`s different things to different
people, it`s subjective. In my opinion, there is nothing in dw`s
submittal that can be regarded as "alibi-like". I think to be the
suggestion of an alibi, he would have to establish what the two key
components mean or refer to, Fritz`s notes, and Bookout`s report.
> A rather convenient stance for you to take.
The truth always is.
> But as usual, you're wrong.
As usual, just a claim.
> >> Can you quack any louder?
> >
> > Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
> >elaboration.
>
>
> Of material *already* provided. How cowardly of you...
Usually not the material I am not requesting. Something you claim
meets the requirements of what I`m asking for.
> >You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
> >you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
> >in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them.
>
> Okay... expand on the requirement of the defense to provide to the prosecution
> the alibi defense that they are going to use. Be sure to provide citations for
> this requirement.
I cited the definition of alibi that had as a component that the
defendant muct notify the prosecutor of his intent to invoke an alibi.
It didn`t write that, so I can`t expand on it. I will say that at some
point it seems to me that someone must give voice to this concept
"alibi". It can`t be something that just is, that everyone associated
with the trial is aware of without it being spoken of.
> >You want me to
> >expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
> >will.
>
>
> You see? Illiteracy. And cowardice.
Well, Ben, it`s been you that has been the weasal and the coward all
through this discussion. You know this article by dw isn`t an alibi,
but have cowardly ducked the issue every time I directly asked you to
state such. Like a weasal, you apply the legal definitions I provide
for "alibi" to the offering by dw, but refuse to say whether you even
think it is an "alibi". You point out that dw called it one, so what?
You don`t have the guts to call it one.
>
> >Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
> >that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
> >first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination.
>
> I've already *asked* for your evidence, you couldn't provide any.
Well, I looked up some, and found that Shelley reported seeing Oz on
the first floor at 11:45-11:50ish. Some of the flooring guys have Oz on
the upper floors at 11:50. Piper has him on the first floor at noon.
Givens has him on the 6th floor at 12:05. So the evidence suggests
"down,up,down,up", which doesn`t make a lot of sense. But Piper said to
Oz "It`s about lunchtime, I think I`ll have lunch". It doesn`t seem
that anyone goes to lunch at 12 in the TSBD, it seems pretty lax. If
Piper saw Shelley eating at 11:45, he might figure it`s lunchtime. So,
if both Shelley and Piper saw Oz on the first floor, he may have
returned to the upper floors after. You say "... then Shelley *sees*
him were he implied he was going". That assumes he saw Oz after he came
down, after the flooring crew came down. That makes no sense, Shelley
was very likely out by then, and it certainly is 11:45.
> >I lay my cards
> >on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
> >information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
> >behavior makes *me* the coward.
>
>
> Don't be shy, Bud... you know you're a coward.
Wasn`t me that latched onto a subjective phrase like "suggestion of
an alibi" and made a big fuss over it. You wanted to distract attention
from my original assertion to Charles that "Oz had no alibi". You would
much rather parse a vague, subjective opinion then address a clearly
stated fact. That is how you operate, Ben, I`ve figured that much out
about you. You have no ideas or reasoning ability, so you split hairs
and nit-pick wording. You lay childish little traps to score points,
which only bog down the discussion, but the discussion of ideas is
never a priority of yours. All your crys of "liar" and "coward" are
just a diversion to mask your inadequacies.
> >> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> >> you?
> >> >
> >> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
> >>
> >> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> >> facts here.
> >
> > You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
> >say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
>
>
> Yep... it's off topic to *change* the topic.
Who died and left you keeper of the topics?
> I'm dealing with your lie that
> there wasn't even the "suggestion" of an alibi.
Please, tell me what I think the criteria of something is before I
consider it to be "the suggestion of an alibi".
> That there wasn't even the 'hint' of an alibi.
>
> That there wasn't even the "resemblance" of an alibi.
>
> That there wasn't even the 'beginnings' of an alibi.
>
> That there wasn't even the 'known possibility' of an alibi.
>
> That there wasn't even a 'smidgen' of an alibi.
>
> ...
What about my question to you about whether dw`s offering *WAS* an
alibi?
> >>You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an alibi.
> >
> > What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
> >call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
> >a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
> >words?
>
>
> Don't bother, Bud. I'm dealing with your meaning here, not the word.
Then what does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to me?
> You lied.
You think it impossible that I couldn`t regard dw`s offering not to
be the suggestion of an alibi? Based on what?
> >> >> >Just saying
> >> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >> >
> >> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >> >what they were in reference to.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> >> later.
> >
> > Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
> >an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
> >repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
> >you thought it was an alibi?
>
>
> "But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists, and
> won't answer, reposted again:"
"Only after repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation...".
Obviously I`m refering to the first time you produced it, I didn`t ask
for it the second time, when you inserted that line.
> >> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >> >largely without comment.
> >>
> >>
> >> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an
> >> alibi - that you asserted didn't exist.
> >
> > No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
> >you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t.
>
> Untrue. When you finally noticed my statements - IMMEDIATELY following your
> quoted definitions of "alibi", you claimed to think it was a "paraphrase".
I also claimed you hadn`t clearly applied them to any specific and
identified part of the case. You apply the definitions of "alibi" to
dw`s work, without ever saying you think dw`s work is an alibi. Very
craven.
> >Then, after you
> >produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
> >thought this was.
>
> The title was left in. Illiterate, aren't you?
Did you write the header? What dw wrote in the header a year or more
ago doesn`t tell me what you think this offering by dw is to the
discussion I`m having with you now. I subsequently found out that it is
you opinion that this is the suggestion of an alibi. Very good, your
opinion is noted.
> >Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
> >think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
> >discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
>
> No, you're *STILL* too cowardly to explain or discuss the facts.
It was the 29th of July when I used the phrase "suggestion of an
alibi". It was the 7th of August when you produced this offering by dw
as such, something like 18 of your responses later. I was only saying
it would have saved a lot of time if back then you would have just
said "dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi". Thats all.
> >> Lied, didn't you?
> >
> > So you say.
> >
> >> >> >I`m
> >> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >> >this article?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >> >
> >> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> >> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
> >
> > Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
> >is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
> >address it.
>
>
> How can I give an opinion on something that 'I've not provided'?
You produced this offering by dw. I asked you questions regarding
it, trying to nail down your feelings about it. Of course, you make me
drag them out of you.
> >> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
> >
> > I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
> >think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
> >suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
> >or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
> >So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
> >alibi.
>
>
> It's the proof that *your* statement is a lie.
That is proof that you are too much of a coward to answer a direct
question.
> >> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
> >
> > So you say.
> >
> >> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >> >
> >> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
> >
> > <guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
> >not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> >
> >> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> >> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
> >
> > <heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
> >How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
> >four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
> >legal requirements of an alibi.
>
>
> No, *you* called it a "paraphrase". Why bother to lie about it?
Another cowardly duck. When you are beat on a point, you bring up
something meaningless from somewhere else. In trying to narrow down
exactly what the "suggestion of an alibi" is you use further ambiguous
and meaningless terminology like "far from" like dw`s offering is "far
from the suggestion of an alibi". How does adding more subjectivity
help define the phrase? The Gettysburg address is "far from the
suggestion of an alibi" also.
> >> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved
> >> in a discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
> >
> > Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
> >isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
>
>
> Since you've repeatedly shown your ignorance of what the word means, who cares?
Quite right, who cares, it is only the gist of what you`ve been
braying about for a week. My opinion, stated as "Oz didn`t have the
suggestion of an alibi". Who cares indeed. Why all the fuss about this
stated opinion? To distract from you not being able to produce an
actual alibi for Oz perhaps?
<SNIP> Hopefully to be continued...
Bud
<SNIP> Conitinued from an earlier response at this point, I believe.
> >But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
> >the spitting image of one.
> >
> >
> >> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> >> not telling the truth.
> >> >
> >> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
> >>
> >>
> >> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
> >
> > Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
> >AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
> >the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
> >murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
> >is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
> >person to be an alibi).
>
>
> 12:20 is not an alibi for 12:30.
Good of you to admit that. This offering by dw is *not* an alibi.
> But as you've so carefully pointed out, you
> don't believe he was downstairs because of the way people were moving around, he
> couldn't have gotten *back* upstairs at that time.
No, you misunderstood the point. I don`t think Oz could come down to
the first floor and in time to be seen by Shelley (who went out early)
and not be seen by all the other people going to and fro. It seems
likely Shelley went out before the flooring crew even came down, or
very shortly after they had.
> Why don't you believe your own argument?
I use different arguments to make different points, I don`t need to
believe them to attack another person`s assertions with them. For
instance, I mentioned in my rebuttal to dw`s work that Oz could have
looked out the window and saw those guys going around back, heard them
come in under him, and surmised that this journey would take them
across the first floor in front of the domino room. I don`t think that
happened, I don`t think what dw offered even establishes Oz saying he
saw them walking to the elevators. But I still mention that idea as an
argument against his premise.
> >> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >> >
> >> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
> >>
> >>
> >> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> >> repeating it.
> >
> > You do just that.
> >
> >> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >> >that".
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Whatever that means to a kook.
> >>
> >>
> >> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the
> >> lunchroom?
> >
> > A better question would be where did he?
>
>
> In the notes of the DPD officers who were questioning him. But you knew the
> answer, why bother to ask?
He named two individuals in the lunchroom with him eating lunch
with him. The individuals say they didn`t do that. That is conflict,
not confirmation.
> >>>> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother of
> >> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >> >cut and ran.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Untrue.
> >> >
> >> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >> >accurate.
> >>
> >>
> >> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
> >>
> >>The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were made.
> >>
> >> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
> >
> > The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case,
>
> So precisely specific, that you were embarrassed when you found out that you'd
> mistakenly called it a "paraphrase"... LOL!!
Doesn`t change the fact that you were vague about what specific part
of the case you were applying that definition to.
> >or how any
> >understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case?
>
> "Paraphrase".... LOL!!
Heres a real funny one... in the post that started this thread,
Charles Wallace offers...
"What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of
JFK?
1. Oswald himself exclaims, "I`m just a patsy!" when questioned
by the media after the shooting in Dealy Plaza."
I disputed that this was evidence, and clueless Ben got involved,
only to make this claim a few responses in...
"No-one I know of is claiming that because LHO claimed to be a
patsy, that that statement is evidence of innocence."
> >If you
> >would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
> >wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
>
> Can't help it if you can't read.
>
> Or, more accurately, are a coward.
If you had any guts, you would have addressed whether dw`s offering
was an alibi, instead of skirting the issue. Grow a pair, and just
admit it isn`t. I can.
> >> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
> >> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
> >> >
> >> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
> >> >back about a year, I think?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never
> >> rebutted *any* of the facts raised by Don.
> >
> > I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
> >offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
> >asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
> >response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
> >Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
> >once again.
>
> You haven't the first time. This is, perhaps, why you restricted any such
> "rebuttal" to the censored group, rather than here where people aren't
> constrained in telling the truth.
Or, perhaps, you are full of shit. Perhaps it used to be my habit
to go there first, and also my habit to respond whenever and wherever I
saw something I wanted to respond to. I had a lot of discussion with dw
here, much of which never appeared over there. Do you think saying
stupid shit like this does you any credit?
> >> >> The fact that I've previously asserted this material, and that you
> >> >> *LIED* about me doing so, is nothing more than a pathetic reflection
> >> >> of your character.
> >> >
> >> > If you clearly stated what you were refering to a half dozen
> >> >responses ago,
> >>
> >> Yep... clearly did so.
> >
> > Sure, sure, sure...
> >
> >> >instead of all that dancing, we could have proceeded a
> >> >while ago.
> >>
> >> No, you aren't interested in facts.
> >
> > Worthless unless they are tempered by reason.
> >
> >> >If you had said "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >> >(which you still haven`t done, coward),
> >>
> >> I *also* haven't said that you're a very poor liar, although clearly you are.
> >
> > You`d think with all my practicle, i would be, wouldn`t you?
> >
> >> >I wouldn`t have needed to ask a
> >> >dozen times.
> >>
> >> And yet, you now accept what I've posted, despite that I've not said:
> >> "I offer Don Willis`s theory as an alibi"
> >
> > Well, you finally and recently said that dw`s submittal was the
> >suggestion of a alibi.
>
> It is, the only topic we've been talking about.
Liar.
> It was *YOU* that stated that LHO didn't have even the "suggestion" of an alibi,
> and I've been proving that you lied.
I wonder how you intend to show what I regard the "suggestion of an
alibi" to be. That should be interesting, because I`m not sure myself
what my criteria is. I only know something is or isn`t when I see it.
And dw`s offering isn`t.
> >I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
> >something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
> >dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
> >expend.
>
>
> There's nothing vague and subjective about it. LHO did *indeed* have far more
> than the suggestion of an alibi.
So you seek to narrow down the meaning of subjective phrase
"suggestion of an alibi" by including the more subjective phrase "far
more". Stellar.
> >> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the
> >> essence of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually
> >> denying that I've stated it.
> >
> > You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
>
>
> Embarrassed that you called it a "paraphrase", aren't you?
Which has what to do with your childish hints and guessing games?
> >> Been there... done that.
> >
> > So you say.
> >
> >> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >> >fuck up.
> >>
> >> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
> >
> > I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
> >recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
>
>
> You'd be lying to so state.
>
> I provided it IMMEDIATELY after you quoted alibi definitions from the Internet,
> as you well know.
I know you played childish hint and guessing games, never clearly
applying the definition to any specific and specified aspect of the
case. If you would have clearly said you were applying the legal
definitions of alibi to dw`s work, I would have pointed out that dw`s
work is not an alibi.
> Liar, aren't you?
So you say.
> I provided full and complete detail, by quoting Don Willis' excellent synopsis,
> and you *STILL* lie about it.
Not only is dw`s "excellent synopsis" not an alibi, I regard it to
be not even the suggestion of one.
> >> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >> >watch you dance.
> >> >>
> >> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >> >
> >> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
> >>
> >>
> >> You can't shame an honest man.
> >
> > Nor was I addressing one.
> >
> >> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> >> you claim I've never provided...
> >
> > I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
>
>
> Sorry, that's simply not true.
Yah, it is. You produced dw`s offering. I asked your position on it.
Try not to lie so blatently.
> You're asking for my opinion on the "suggestion"
> of an alibi that you keep asserting I've never produced.
I`ve never asked for a "suggestion of an alibi" from you, I`ve no
interest in such a thing.
> >Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
> >badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi.
>
> Untrue. Why lie?
Anyone following the discussion were witness to both the badgering,
and the producing of dw`s work. Wasn`t what I wanted, I wanted
something that met the legal requirements of an alibi. This isn`t even
the suggestion of an alibi, althouh dw suggests it is.
> >That seems a much
> >too subjective point to argue. DW certainly suggests that what he
> >produced is an alibi.
>
>
> Good of you to admit the obvious.
Yah, but it`s as much an elephant as it is an alibi.
> >> When you can't remember your own lies, it really gets confusing, doesn't it,
> >> Bud?
> >
> > Thats why I have you to keep track of them for me.
> >
> >> >> >> >Just more of your
> >> >> >> >chickshit antics. I keep telling you that the musings of kooks on
> >> >> >> >newsgroups does not an alibi make. This creation of DW`s
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Creation? "Facts to a LNT'er is like Kryptonite to Superman".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Creation was accurate. A reasoning person knows that snippits of
> >> >> >information can be arranged in a variety of ways. All the facts in the
> >> >> >world wouldn`t do you any good, Ben.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> >> that Don "created"?
> >> >
> >> > "A reasoning person knows that snippits of information can be
> >> >arranged in a variety of ways". Don`t take my word on it, find a
> >> >reasoning person and ask them.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item
> >> that Don "created"?
> >
> > Why do you think I meant he created the components? One can arrange
> >building blocks in a number of ways, without altering the blocks. What
> >he produced is a creation. Why do you think it copywrited it?
>
>
> "Creation" is nothing more than a lie. Can you name a *single* item that Don
> "created"?
<chuckle> Can you show where I ever claimed that Don created a
single item contained within his article? "A reasoning person knows
that snippits of information can be arranged in a variety of ways."
"Why do you think it copywrited it"? You`re a stellar thinker, Mr
Holmes.
> >> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
> >
> > I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
> >of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
> >has no use for it.
>
>
> Lied, didn't you?
No, you still missed the point. Maybe I can dumb it down to your
grasp. Lets see, when you arrange musical notes, what you produce can
be called "a creation". That doesn`t mean the person who did the
arranging had anything to do with creating the B flat. They may use the
B flat in their creation, though.
> Can't support that lie, can you?
You challenged what I said, you show it to be a lie. Repeating the
same tired claims without offering anything to back them up is becoming
your trademark. But, of course I can, in a variety of ways. Lets see,
if I give two people a deck of cards, and ask each to build a house of
cards, the two creations might differ, although they both used the same
exact types of cards. The created something, but they didn`t create the
cards themselves. You asserted something stupid, and now you hope I`ll
supply you with an escape from the ridiculous position you`ve taken. My
advice is that you keep claiming that my characterization of dw`s work
as a "creation" is nothing more than a lie.
> >> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >> >
> >> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >> >elephant as it is an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
> >
> > No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
> >produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
> >could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
> >accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
> >I proceeded demolishing it.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
So you say.
> And, as proven by your inability to refute Don's article, you lied when you
> asserted that LHO didn't even have a "suggestion" of an alibi. Don clearly
> discusses something that is far more than a mere hint of an alibi.
He clearly does no such thing. I have refuted his work, in it`s
entirety. And
what he produced isn`t even the suggestion of an alibi for Oz (although
Don does suggest it is such).
> >> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
> >
> > Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >
> >>>>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during
> >>the
> >> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> >> an alibi is.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
> >>
> >> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> >> definition. LOL!!
> >
> > When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
>
>
> *YOU* called it a paraphrase, not me! LOL!!
You neglected to include the specific people and events your
"example" was refering to.
It`s testimony, there are always contradictions.
> > "I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
> >[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
> >lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
> >Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
> >
> > So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
> >Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab.
>
> Yep... that's what Whaley said.
No, Whaley said it was the woman`s idea that she take another cab.
In Oz`s account, it was Whaley who suggested the woman "take another
cab".
> >Like I said,
> >it`s conflicting evidence.
>
>
> Where?
Who`s idea was it was the for the lady to get another cab?
I didn`t state that. I said I was using some examples to point of
the differences between "evidence tending to show" and "alibi". You
brought the phrase "evidence tending to show" into the discussion, and
I pointed out that "evidence tending to show" is not an "alibi".
> >The example I
> >gave of "evidence tending to show" innocence was the episode with Oz
> >offering to give his cab.
>
> Actually, as I recall, it was *MY* example, not yours. You've denied this
> episode.
The version Oz related of the event does not include an offer by Oz
to the woman to take the cab.
> >*If true*, it was evidence indicating
> >innocence, right?
>
> Actions that you denied existed. Your comment was that LHO's actions after the
> assassination showed guilt. I've given a couple of examples of his actions
> after the assassination that *DO NOT SHOW GUILT*.
Only if you can show that giving up the cab would have significantly
increased his chance of being apprehended. Or that Oz felt one cab or
another gave him a better chance to avoid capture.
> >But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi.
>
> Nor have I ever claimed it was. We went through this once before, liar.
I thought I could use these events to illustrate a "completely
different point", and you were so distracted by the examples you
totally missed the point.
I can only point you any anyone else interested back to the genesis of
this dispute, I`ve already expended more effort on this point than it
was worth.
> >Therein,
> >I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
> >point again.
>
> Considering that you lied about who brought up what, your point has been missed
> again.
>
> How can you support the "truth" with lies?
You can`t tell the two apart.
> >> >> >Stop with the
> >> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >> >
> >> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >> >dance.
> >>
> >>Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> >> exist?
> >
> > Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
>
>
> Because it's meaningless to the larger picture that *YOU LIED* about LHO having
> even the "suggestion" of an alibi.
That is not a good enough reason to fear answering a question.
> I have no intention of letting the topic drift from this, until you admit it.
Well, Skipper, keep your hand on that tiller. Funny thing is, the
original topic was Charles offering the dw creation as an alibi, and me
pointing out that it wasn`t. You only leapt at my use of the pharse
"suggestion of an alibi" to divert attention from the original topic,
because you didn`t have a leg to stand on asserting dw`s creation was
an alibi, and you knew you didn`t. So you cowardly shifted focus from
the original clear point, to this subjective one.
> >> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> >> defend the impossible.
> >> >
> >> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
> >>
> >>
> >> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
> >
> > So you say.
>
>
> So did Whaley. It was non-verbal, but an offering nontheless.
He said so non-verbally?
> >> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
> >>
> >>
> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
> >"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
>
>
> Coward, aren't you? Liar too, since you can't list any fact that Don
> "contrived".
Nor can you point to anywhere I said that Don contrived facts. You
really are clueless when it comes to reason, you have your facts and
evidence, and you can`t apply the slightest bit of sense to any of it.
Yes, it is a fact that Fritz`s notes contain the phrase "two negroes
came in" (or something close, thats from memory). But it isn`t a fact
that dw`s reading of that as meaning "came into the TSBD" is correct.
The offering by dw, in it`s entirety, is contrived, even if he
contrives it from actual facts, there is still much conjecture and
opinion. It`s shocking to me that you don`t even have this basic
understanding of what dw actually produced.
> >> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
>
>
> I've already stated what it is - it's the proof that you lied when you stated
> that LHO didn't have even a "suggestion" of an alibi.
Why are you so afraid to answer simple questions? You produced this
offering by dw. Yet all questions about your stance or feelings or
opinions about it are out of bounds. To the untrained eye, that might
appear a tad bit chickenshit.
Well, it`s been fun, but I`m too tired to continue. Maybe continue
from her later, maybe not...
<SNIP>
Ben Holmes
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> >> > Apparentlly I must, because you neglect to give your opinion of it.
>> >>
>> >> First, you want the alibi...
>> >
>> > I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
>> >
>> >> I provide it,
>> >
>> > You produced an offering bu Don Willis, largely without comment. Had
>> >you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
>> >worth of this tiresome dancing.
>>
>>
>> Ah! But I *DID*. Here it is, requoted:
>>
>> "But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists,
>> and won't answer, reposted again:"
>
> Yes, the second time you produced the offering bt dw, you included
>that line. Had you done it the first time, it would have saved a few
>more responses of this tiresome dancing.
Wasn't needed. Don's title says it all. Illiterate, aren't you?
>My complaint is that it
>requires a few responses to get from you what should have been included
>the first time you produced this offering from dw.
And after all this time, you are *STILL* ducking the fact that you lied.
>> Liar, aren't you?
>
> Just pointing out once again that I need to drag things out of you.
>That line
>explaining what you thought you were producing wasn`t included the
>first time, was it?
Nope. You needed clarification of the obvious, I provided it.
When are you going to admit that you lied?
>> >> you *deny* that I've provided it,
>> >
>> > You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
>> >said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
>> >was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
>>
>>
>> You *are* quite clear now? Where's your rebuttal?
>
> Given. It`s up.
>
>> >> now
>> >> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
>> >
>> > Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it.
>>
>>
>> No, you're just quacking some more.
>>
>> You lied, I've pointed it out, and gone to the effort of proving it.
>
> I`m tired of the "yousaid-I said", you thrive on this crap, it only
>tires me out. All this noise comes down to is that you regard dw`s
>offering to be the suggestion of an alibi. I do not.
Feel free to describe just what it is, then.
>> >Are
>> >your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
>> >opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
>> >we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
>> >an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
>> >offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
>> >as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
>> >only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
>> >of the word.
>>
>>
>> If there really isn't any such thing as a "suggestion of an alibi", then
>> your statement must be correct.
>
> Define what a "suggestion of an alibi" is, what is the criria
>before it is considered such. It`s different things to different
>people, it`s subjective. In my opinion, there is nothing in dw`s
>submittal that can be regarded as "alibi-like". I think to be the
>suggestion of an alibi, he would have to establish what the two key
>components mean or refer to, Fritz`s notes, and Bookout`s report.
Quack.... quack... Why not simply type "quack" instead of so much fluff?
>> A rather convenient stance for you to take.
>
> The truth always is.
>
>> But as usual, you're wrong.
>
> As usual, just a claim.
>
>> >> Can you quack any louder?
>> >
>> > Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
>> >elaboration.
>>
>>
>> Of material *already* provided. How cowardly of you...
>
> Usually not the material I am not requesting. Something you claim
>meets the requirements of what I`m asking for.
So well you referred to it as a "paraphrase".
>> >You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
>> >you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
>> >in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them.
>>
>> Okay... expand on the requirement of the defense to provide to the
>> prosecution the alibi defense that they are going to use. Be sure to
>> provide citations for this requirement.
>
> I cited the definition of alibi
This is *NOT* what I just requested. You said you'd expand on "any of them".
Lied, didn't you?
>that had as a component that the
>defendant muct notify the prosecutor of his intent to invoke an alibi.
Not the "definition" of an alibi. Stupid, aren't you?
>It didn`t write that, so I can`t expand on it.
Nor did I *ask* you to expand on that. I asked you for your notion that the
defense is required to provide evidence to the prosecution pre-trial.
>I will say that at some
>point it seems to me that someone must give voice to this concept
>"alibi".
Yep... you went from pre-trial to ending arguments... lied, didn't you?
>It can`t be something that just is, that everyone associated
>with the trial is aware of without it being spoken of.
Now, care to get back to the question that you said you'd "expand" on?
>> >You want me to
>> >expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
>> >will.
>>
>>
>> You see? Illiteracy. And cowardice.
>
> Well, Ben, it`s been you that has been the weasal and the coward all
>through this discussion. You know this article by dw isn`t an alibi,
It is, however, the "suggestion" of an alibi that you claim doesn't exist.
Lied, didn't you?
>but have cowardly ducked the issue every time I directly asked you to
>state such.
Been there, done that. Illiterate, aren't you?
>Like a weasal, you apply the legal definitions I provide
>for "alibi" to the offering by dw,
Yep... so well that you called it a "paraphrase".
>but refuse to say whether you even
>think it is an "alibi".
You clearly thought so.
>You point out that dw called it one, so what?
>You don`t have the guts to call it one.
You don't have the guts to call your mother a whore, either.
>> >Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
>> >that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
>> >first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination.
>>
>> I've already *asked* for your evidence, you couldn't provide any.
>
> Well, I looked up some,
Yep... you were talking out of your ass, weren't you?
Now you've been embarrassed at your ignorance enough to actually go *read*
eyewitness testimony... Good!
>and found that Shelley reported seeing Oz on
>the first floor at 11:45-11:50ish. Some of the flooring guys have Oz on
>the upper floors at 11:50. Piper has him on the first floor at noon.
>Givens has him on the 6th floor at 12:05. So the evidence suggests
>"down,up,down,up", which doesn`t make a lot of sense.
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>But Piper said to
>Oz "It`s about lunchtime, I think I`ll have lunch". It doesn`t seem
>that anyone goes to lunch at 12 in the TSBD, it seems pretty lax. If
>Piper saw Shelley eating at 11:45, he might figure it`s lunchtime. So,
>if both Shelley and Piper saw Oz on the first floor, he may have
>returned to the upper floors after. You say "... then Shelley *sees*
>him were he implied he was going". That assumes he saw Oz after he came
>down, after the flooring crew came down.
Nah... anyone with a twisted bit of logic would assume that Shelley saw Oswald
there *before* he could have been.
Silly, aren't you?
>That makes no sense, Shelley
>was very likely out by then, and it certainly is 11:45.
Shelley couldn't have seen what he says he saw... CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've
solved the case!
But this solution will only satisfy the lazy LNT'ers. The more thoughtful ones
are going to want a little bit more than this sad attempt.
>> >I lay my cards
>> >on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
>> >information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
>> >behavior makes *me* the coward.
>>
>>
>> Don't be shy, Bud... you know you're a coward.
>
> Wasn`t me that latched onto a subjective phrase like "suggestion of
>an alibi" and made a big fuss over it.
Then have the balls to repudiate it.
>You wanted to distract attention
>from my original assertion to Charles that "Oz had no alibi".
Why? He didn't. Not one that will satisfy even a large minority. We simply
don't have enough information.
The WC was far too effective at covering things up. But LHO *DID* have the
suggestion of one, and you lied.
>You would
>much rather parse a vague, subjective opinion then address a clearly
>stated fact.
A "clearly stated fact" that isn't a part of this discussion. We are discussing
your *LIE* that LHO didn't have even the "suggestion" of an alibi. It's simply
untrue, and you've known this fact even when you made your statement.
>That is how you operate, Ben, I`ve figured that much out
>about you. You have no ideas or reasoning ability, so you split hairs
>and nit-pick wording.
Words have meanings. Lied, didn't you?
>You lay childish little traps
You mean "paraphrase", perhaps?
Only the ignorant can "fall into" a "trap" such as that.
>to score points,
>which only bog down the discussion, but the discussion of ideas is
>never a priority of yours. All your crys of "liar" and "coward" are
>just a diversion to mask your inadequacies.
Lied, didn't you?
>> >> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
>> >> >> you?
>> >> >
>> >> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
>> >> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
>> >>
>>>> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
>> >> facts here.
>> >
>> > You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
>> >say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
>>
>>
>> Yep... it's off topic to *change* the topic.
>
> Who died and left you keeper of the topics?
For the quite simple reason that you cannot force me to talk about a topic of
*your* desire.
And I *can* force you to defend your own lies.
>> I'm dealing with your lie that
>> there wasn't even the "suggestion" of an alibi.
>
> Please, tell me what I think the criteria of something is before I
>consider it to be "the suggestion of an alibi".
>
>> That there wasn't even the 'hint' of an alibi.
>>
>> That there wasn't even the "resemblance" of an alibi.
>>
>> That there wasn't even the 'beginnings' of an alibi.
>>
>> That there wasn't even the 'known possibility' of an alibi.
>>
>> That there wasn't even a 'smidgen' of an alibi.
>>
>> ...
>
> What about my question to you about whether dw`s offering *WAS* an
>alibi?
Already answered. Kids shouldn't have memory problems.
>>>>You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an
>>alibi.
>> >
>> > What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
>> >call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
>> >a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
>> >words?
>>
>>
>> Don't bother, Bud. I'm dealing with your meaning here, not the word.
>
> Then what does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to me?
Embarrassment, no doubt.
If you understood that you must be accurate with your statements in a forum
where people know the facts, and are willing to call a spade a spade (unlike the
censored group), you wouldn't make carelessly false statements.
>> You lied.
>
> You think it impossible that I couldn`t regard dw`s offering not to
>be the suggestion of an alibi? Based on what?
Ignorance, nothing better...
>> >> >> >Just saying
>> >> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>>> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
>> >> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
>> >> >
>> >> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
>> >> >what they were in reference to.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
>> >> later.
>> >
>> > Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
>> >an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
>> >repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
>> >you thought it was an alibi?
>>
>>
>>"But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists, and
>> won't answer, reposted again:"
>
> "Only after repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation...".
>Obviously I`m refering to the first time you produced it, I didn`t ask
>for it the second time, when you inserted that line.
Try quoting Don's title, coward...
>> >> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
>> >> >largely without comment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an
>> >> alibi - that you asserted didn't exist.
>> >
>> > No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
>> >you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t.
>>
>> Untrue. When you finally noticed my statements - IMMEDIATELY following your
>> quoted definitions of "alibi", you claimed to think it was a "paraphrase".
>
> I also claimed you hadn`t clearly applied them to any specific and
>identified part of the case.
Untrue, isn't it?
>You apply the definitions of "alibi" to
>dw`s work, without ever saying you think dw`s work is an alibi. Very
>craven.
Coward, aren't you?
>> >Then, after you
>> >produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
>> >thought this was.
>>
>> The title was left in. Illiterate, aren't you?
>
> Did you write the header? What dw wrote in the header a year or more
>ago doesn`t tell me what you think this offering by dw is to the
>discussion I`m having with you now. I subsequently found out that it is
>you opinion that this is the suggestion of an alibi. Very good, your
>opinion is noted.
Lied about LHO not having even the "suggestion" of an alibi, didn't you?
>> >Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
>> >think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
>> >discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
>>
>> No, you're *STILL* too cowardly to explain or discuss the facts.
>
> It was the 29th of July when I used the phrase "suggestion of an
>alibi". It was the 7th of August when you produced this offering by dw
>as such, something like 18 of your responses later.
You were well aware of it... or are you willing to lie that you had no idea?
>I was only saying
>it would have saved a lot of time if back then you would have just
>said "dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi". Thats all.
No, it wouldn't. You've now known for how many posts??? And you are *STILL*
ducking the issue.
>> >> Lied, didn't you?
>> >
>> > So you say.
>> >
>> >> >> >I`m
>> >> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
>> >> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
>> >> >> >this article?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
>> >> >
>> >> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
>> >> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
>> >> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
>> >
>> > Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
>> >is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
>> >address it.
>>
>>
>> How can I give an opinion on something that 'I've not provided'?
>
> You produced this offering by dw.
You claim I didn't.
>I asked you questions regarding
>it, trying to nail down your feelings about it. Of course, you make me
>drag them out of you.
When are you going to tell the truth, Bud?
>> >> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
>> >
>> > I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
>> >think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
>> >suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
>> >or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
>> >So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
>> >alibi.
>>
>>
>> It's the proof that *your* statement is a lie.
>
> That is proof that you are too much of a coward to answer a direct
>question.
That *was* the answer. Too stupid to get it?
>> >> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
>> >
>> > So you say.
>> >
>> >> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
>> >> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
>> >> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
>> >> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
>> >> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
>> >
>> > <guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
>> >not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
>> >
>> >> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
>> >> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
>> >
>> > <heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
>> >How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
>> >four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
>> >legal requirements of an alibi.
>>
>>
>> No, *you* called it a "paraphrase". Why bother to lie about it?
>
> Another cowardly duck. When you are beat on a point, you bring up
>something meaningless from somewhere else.
It's hardly "meaningless"... you quoted the definition of an "alibi", I provided
an "example" based on the known facts in this case, and you thought it was so
close that you called it a "paraphrase".
*NOW* you want to state otherwise.
Change your mind, Bud?
>In trying to narrow down
>exactly what the "suggestion of an alibi"
Your words... use 'em, or repudiate them. Don't try to do both.
>is you use further ambiguous
>and meaningless terminology like "far from" like dw`s offering is "far
>from the suggestion of an alibi". How does adding more subjectivity
>help define the phrase? The Gettysburg address is "far from the
>suggestion of an alibi" also.
Repudiate what you said, or stand by it. It matters not at all to me.
>> >> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved
>> >> in a discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
>> >
>> > Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
>> >isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
>>
>>
>>Since you've repeatedly shown your ignorance of what the word means, who cares?
>
> Quite right, who cares, it is only the gist of what you`ve been
>braying about for a week. My opinion, stated as "Oz didn`t have the
>suggestion of an alibi".
is a lie.
>Who cares indeed. Why all the fuss about this
>stated opinion? To distract from you not being able to produce an
>actual alibi for Oz perhaps?
You really don't *have* to call your mother a whore, you know.
Ben Holmes
>
>
> <SNIP> Conitinued from an earlier response at this point, I believe.
>
>> >But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
>> >the spitting image of one.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
>> >> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
>> >> >> not telling the truth.
>> >> >
>> >> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
>> >> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
>> >
>> > Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
>> >AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
>> >the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
>> >murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
>> >is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
>> >person to be an alibi).
>>
>>
>> 12:20 is not an alibi for 12:30.
>
> Good of you to admit that. This offering by dw is *not* an alibi.
It is, however, far more than the "suggestion" of one that you deny exists.
Lied, didn't you?
>> But as you've so carefully pointed out, you
>>don't believe he was downstairs because of the way people were moving around, he
>> couldn't have gotten *back* upstairs at that time.
>
> No, you misunderstood the point. I don`t think Oz could come down to
>the first floor and in time to be seen by Shelley (who went out early)
Even though Shelley *SAYS* he saw LHO. When the eyewitnesses say things that
are inconvenient... just toss 'em out.
Right, Bud?
>and not be seen by all the other people going to and fro.
Ah... but he *was* seen by others.
>It seems
>likely Shelley went out before the flooring crew even came down, or
>very shortly after they had.
"I don't think..." "It seems likely..."
Speculating, again, I see...
>> Why don't you believe your own argument?
>
> I use different arguments to make different points, I don`t need to
>believe them to attack another person`s assertions with them. For
>instance, I mentioned in my rebuttal to dw`s work that Oz could have
>looked out the window and saw those guys going around back, heard them
>come in under him, and surmised that this journey would take them
>across the first floor in front of the domino room. I don`t think that
>happened, I don`t think what dw offered even establishes Oz saying he
>saw them walking to the elevators. But I still mention that idea as an
>argument against his premise.
The improbabilities that LNT'ers must believe everyday simply boggle the mind.
>> >> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
>> >> >
>> >> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
>> >> repeating it.
>> >
>> > You do just that.
>> >
>> >> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
>> >> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
>> >> >> >that".
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I stand by the evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > Whatever that means to a kook.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the
>> >> lunchroom?
>> >
>> > A better question would be where did he?
>>
>>
>> In the notes of the DPD officers who were questioning him. But you knew the
>> answer, why bother to ask?
>
> He named two individuals in the lunchroom with him eating lunch
>with him. The individuals say they didn`t do that. That is conflict,
>not confirmation.
Oh? They didn't eat lunch? News to me.
>>>>>> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother
>>of
>> >> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
>> >> >> >cut and ran.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Untrue.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
>> >> >accurate.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
>> >>
>>>>The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were
>>made.
>> >>
>> >> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
>> >
>> > The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case,
>>
>>So precisely specific, that you were embarrassed when you found out that you'd
>> mistakenly called it a "paraphrase"... LOL!!
>
> Doesn`t change the fact that you were vague about what specific part
>of the case you were applying that definition to.
Nothing vague at all. You were simply asleep and stupid.
>> >or how any
>> >understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case?
>>
>> "Paraphrase".... LOL!!
>
> Heres a real funny one... in the post that started this thread,
>Charles Wallace offers...
>
> "What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of
>JFK?
>
> 1. Oswald himself exclaims, "I`m just a patsy!" when questioned
>by the media after the shooting in Dealy Plaza."
>
> I disputed that this was evidence, and clueless Ben got involved,
>only to make this claim a few responses in...
>
> "No-one I know of is claiming that because LHO claimed to be a
>patsy, that that statement is evidence of innocence."
Already answered. Do you have the balls to quote my comments on this, Bud?
>> >If you
>> >would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
>> >wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
>>
>> Can't help it if you can't read.
>>
>> Or, more accurately, are a coward.
>
> If you had any guts, you would have addressed whether dw`s offering
>was an alibi,
Already did. Repeatedly.
>instead of skirting the issue. Grow a pair, and just
>admit it isn`t. I can.
>
>> >> >> I've previously asserted what Don Willis goes into great detail. Why
>> >> >> should I attempt to repeat what Don has already done (so well, too!)
>> >> >
>> >> > And why should I repeat the rebuttals to this article I made going
>> >> >back about a year, I think?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's not that you "should", it's whether you *can*. You never
>> >> rebutted *any* of the facts raised by Don.
>> >
>> > I was waiting for you to specifically and clearly endorse his
>> >offering as an alibi. Had you done that any of the numerous times I
>> >asked, we wouldn`t be engaging in this tiresome exercise. Now, last
>> >response, you say that dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi.
>> >Well, that might be close enough to prompt me to dismantle his creation
>> >once again.
>>
>> You haven't the first time. This is, perhaps, why you restricted any such
>> "rebuttal" to the censored group, rather than here where people aren't
>> constrained in telling the truth.
>
> Or, perhaps, you are full of shit. Perhaps it used to be my habit
>to go there first, and also my habit to respond whenever and wherever I
>saw something I wanted to respond to. I had a lot of discussion with dw
>here, much of which never appeared over there. Do you think saying
>stupid shit like this does you any credit?
Actually, I'm using known facts. Don's synopsis appeared here first, you posted
some rather tentative questions on the topic, but you did *nothing* that could
remotely be called a "rebuttal".
Then the thread was posted in the censored group. The "rebuttal" that you claim
you did *YOU YOURSELF STATE IS LOCATED IN THE CENSORED GROUP*
So, let me repeat myself: You haven't the first time. This is, perhaps, why you
restricted any such "rebuttal" to the censored group, rather than here where
people aren't constrained in telling the truth.
The dictionary has always been fine by me. If you want, I'll stop calling you a
liar, and simply state that you are English Impaired.
But sadly... it wouldn't be the truth.
>> >I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
>> >something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
>> >dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
>> >expend.
>>
>>
>>There's nothing vague and subjective about it. LHO did *indeed* have far more
>> than the suggestion of an alibi.
>
> So you seek to narrow down the meaning of subjective phrase
>"suggestion of an alibi" by including the more subjective phrase "far
>more". Stellar.
Repudiate what you said, or stand by it. You can't do both.
>> >> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the
>> >> essence of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually
>> >> denying that I've stated it.
>> >
>> > You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
>>
>>
>> Embarrassed that you called it a "paraphrase", aren't you?
>
> Which has what to do with your childish hints and guessing games?
Nothing at all. It has *everything* to do with your lie about LHO not having
even the "suggestion" of an alibi - for by your *OWN WORDS*, you referred to an
example (using the known facts in this case) as a "paraphrase" of the definition
of alibi.
Embarrassed to be caught arguing my point, Bud?
>> >> Been there... done that.
>> >
>> > So you say.
>> >
>> >> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
>> >> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
>> >> >fuck up.
>> >>
>> >> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
>> >
>> > I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
>> >recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
>>
>>
>> You'd be lying to so state.
>>
>>I provided it IMMEDIATELY after you quoted alibi definitions from the Internet,
>> as you well know.
>
> I know you played childish hint and guessing games, never clearly
>applying the definition to any specific and specified aspect of the
>case. If you would have clearly said you were applying the legal
>definitions of alibi to dw`s work, I would have pointed out that dw`s
>work is not an alibi.
It is, however, the suggestion of an alibi that you claim doesn't exist. Lied,
didn't you?
>> Liar, aren't you?
>
> So you say.
>
>>I provided full and complete detail, by quoting Don Willis' excellent synopsis,
>> and you *STILL* lie about it.
>
> Not only is dw`s "excellent synopsis" not an alibi, I regard it to
>be not even the suggestion of one.
Yep... still lying. Even when faced with the facts in front of you. "Brazen"
liar, would be the appropriate description, I suspect.
>> >> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
>>>> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
>> >> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
>> >> >> >watch you dance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
>> >> >
>> >> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
>> >> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You can't shame an honest man.
>> >
>> > Nor was I addressing one.
>> >
>> >> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
>> >> you claim I've never provided...
>> >
>> > I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, that's simply not true.
>
> Yah, it is. You produced dw`s offering. I asked your position on it.
>Try not to lie so blatently.
>
>> You're asking for my opinion on the "suggestion"
>> of an alibi that you keep asserting I've never produced.
>
> I`ve never asked for a "suggestion of an alibi" from you, I`ve no
>interest in such a thing.
Interested enough to lie repeatedly about it... Grow up, kid.
>> >Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
>> >badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi.
>>
>> Untrue. Why lie?
>
> Anyone following the discussion were witness to both the badgering,
>and the producing of dw`s work. Wasn`t what I wanted, I wanted
>something that met the legal requirements of an alibi. This isn`t even
>the suggestion of an alibi, althouh dw suggests it is.
Liar, aren't you?
Lied, didn't you?
>"A reasoning person knows
>that snippits of information can be arranged in a variety of ways."
>"Why do you think it copywrited it"? You`re a stellar thinker, Mr
>Holmes.
Lied about Don, didn't you? Attempted to imply that Don 'created' anything in
his synopsis, yet can't name a single factoid.
>> >> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
>> >
>> > I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
>> >of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
>> >has no use for it.
>>
>>
>> Lied, didn't you?
>
> No, you still missed the point. Maybe I can dumb it down to your
>grasp. Lets see, when you arrange musical notes, what you produce can
>be called "a creation". That doesn`t mean the person who did the
>arranging had anything to do with creating the B flat. They may use the
>B flat in their creation, though.
Lied, didn't you?
Faced with the facts, and you *STILL* lie about it!
>> Can't support that lie, can you?
>
> You challenged what I said, you show it to be a lie. Repeating the
>same tired claims without offering anything to back them up is becoming
>your trademark. But, of course I can, in a variety of ways. Lets see,
>if I give two people a deck of cards, and ask each to build a house of
>cards, the two creations might differ, although they both used the same
>exact types of cards. The created something, but they didn`t create the
>cards themselves. You asserted something stupid, and now you hope I`ll
>supply you with an escape from the ridiculous position you`ve taken. My
>advice is that you keep claiming that my characterization of dw`s work
>as a "creation" is nothing more than a lie.
Quack... quack...
>> >> >> >> >is no more an
>> >> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
>> >> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
>> >> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
>> >> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
>> >> >
>> >> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
>> >> >elephant as it is an alibi.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
>> >
>> > No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
>> >produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
>> >could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
>> >accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
>> >I proceeded demolishing it.
>>
>>
>> Coward, aren't you?
>
> So you say.
>
>> And, as proven by your inability to refute Don's article, you lied when you
>> asserted that LHO didn't even have a "suggestion" of an alibi. Don clearly
>> discusses something that is far more than a mere hint of an alibi.
>
> He clearly does no such thing.
Your willingness to attempt to support your concept of the "truth" with brazen
lies is rather funny!
>I have refuted his work, in it`s
>entirety.
And yet, you refuse to quote this "refutation". How brave of you!
>And
>what he produced isn`t even the suggestion of an alibi for Oz (although
>Don does suggest it is such).
Liars lie. That's simply what they do.
>> >> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
>> >
>> > Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
>> >
>>>>>>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during
>> >>the
>> >> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
>> >> >> >
>>>> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
>> >> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
>> >> >> an alibi is.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
>> >> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
>> >> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
>> >>
>> >> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
>> >> definition. LOL!!
>> >
>> > When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
>>
>>
>> *YOU* called it a paraphrase, not me! LOL!!
>
> You neglected to include the specific people and events your
>"example" was refering to.
It's specific enough now, isn't it?
Changed your mind about it being a "paraphrase"? Why?
How does replacing "persons", for example, with specific *names* of persons -
change the meaning?
And yet, you don't seem capable of merely quoting the "contradictions", or
actually *mentioning* them.
Facts and you don't get along, do they?
>> > "I [Fritz] asked him [Oz] about his conversation with the cab driver
>> >[Whaley], and he [Oz] said he remembered that when he got in the cab, a
>> >lady [A Lady] came up who also wanted a cab, and he [Whaley] told
>> >Oswald [Oswald] to tell the lady [The Lady] to "take another cab"."
>> >
>> > So according to a first hand witness, Fritz, of Oz`s words, it was
>> >Whaley who told Oz to tell the lady to take another cab.
>>
>> Yep... that's what Whaley said.
>
> No, Whaley said it was the woman`s idea that she take another cab.
>In Oz`s account, it was Whaley who suggested the woman "take another
>cab".
Neither contradict the fact that LHO tacitly offered the cab to the lady.
>> >Like I said,
>> >it`s conflicting evidence.
>>
>>
>> Where?
>
> Who`s idea was it was the for the lady to get another cab?
The topic, Bud, is whether LHO offered the cab to another person - you know *HIS
ACTIONS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION THAT WOULD TEND TO SHOW GUILT OR INNOCENCE*
I understand that when the facts are against you, you'd prefer to shift the
topic, but try to stay on topic.
Oh? Quote his statement...
And admit that you lied about who's "example" this was.
>> >*If true*, it was evidence indicating
>> >innocence, right?
>>
>>Actions that you denied existed. Your comment was that LHO's actions after the
>> assassination showed guilt. I've given a couple of examples of his actions
>> after the assassination that *DO NOT SHOW GUILT*.
>
> Only if you can show that giving up the cab would have significantly
>increased his chance of being apprehended. Or that Oz felt one cab or
>another gave him a better chance to avoid capture.
Can lead a horse to water...
>> >But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi.
>>
>> Nor have I ever claimed it was. We went through this once before, liar.
>
> I thought I could use these events to illustrate a "completely
>different point", and you were so distracted by the examples you
>totally missed the point.
>I can only point you any anyone else interested back to the genesis of
>this dispute, I`ve already expended more effort on this point than it
>was worth.
Yep... all you *needed* to do was simply state that yes, LHO did indeed have the
"suggestion" of an alibi, but that you believed it has not risen to the level of
"alibi".
But the truth is an alien concept for most LNT'ers.
>> >Therein,
>> >I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
>> >point again.
>>
>>Considering that you lied about who brought up what, your point has been missed
>> again.
>>
>> How can you support the "truth" with lies?
>
> You can`t tell the two apart.
*YOU* can't, it's clear.
>> >> >> >Stop with the
>> >> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
>> >> >
>> >> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
>> >> >
>> >> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
>> >> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
>> >> >dance.
>> >>
>>>>Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
>> >> exist?
>> >
>> > Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
>>
>>
>>Because it's meaningless to the larger picture that *YOU LIED* about LHO having
>> even the "suggestion" of an alibi.
>
> That is not a good enough reason to fear answering a question.
It's good enough for me. I don't *need* a reason to avoid changing the topic.
>> I have no intention of letting the topic drift from this, until you admit it.
>
> Well, Skipper, keep your hand on that tiller. Funny thing is, the
>original topic was Charles offering the dw creation as an alibi, and me
>pointing out that it wasn`t. You only leapt at my use of the pharse
>"suggestion of an alibi" to divert attention from the original topic,
>because you didn`t have a leg to stand on asserting dw`s creation was
>an alibi, and you knew you didn`t. So you cowardly shifted focus from
>the original clear point, to this subjective one.
Repudiate your statement, or stand by it. You can't do both.
>> >> >> >or continue this ridiculous
>> >> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
>> >> >> defend the impossible.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
>> >> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
>> >
>> > So you say.
>>
>>
>> So did Whaley. It was non-verbal, but an offering nontheless.
>
> He said so non-verbally?
Whaley said so. LHO did so. Can't follow simple English?
>> >> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
>> >
>> > No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
>> >"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
>>
>>
>> Coward, aren't you? Liar too, since you can't list any fact that Don
>> "contrived".
>
> Nor can you point to anywhere I said that Don contrived facts.
"Without you saying what the significance of this article is, I`m not going to
assume. Just saying 'here is something contrived by Don Willis' isn`t saying
anything."
>You
>really are clueless when it comes to reason, you have your facts and
>evidence, and you can`t apply the slightest bit of sense to any of it.
>Yes, it is a fact that Fritz`s notes contain the phrase "two negroes
>came in" (or something close, thats from memory). But it isn`t a fact
>that dw`s reading of that as meaning "came into the TSBD" is correct.
>The offering by dw, in it`s entirety, is contrived, even if he
>contrives it from actual facts, there is still much conjecture and
>opinion. It`s shocking to me that you don`t even have this basic
>understanding of what dw actually produced.
What I'm *quite* aware of, is that these five sentences are the longest
discussion *YOU'VE* stated on Don's synopsis in dozens of posts.
>> >> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
>> >>
>> >> Coward, aren't you?
>> >
>> > Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
>>
>>
>> I've already stated what it is - it's the proof that you lied when you stated
>> that LHO didn't have even a "suggestion" of an alibi.
>
> Why are you so afraid to answer simple questions?
Been there, done that. Illiterate, aren't you?
>You produced this
>offering by dw. Yet all questions about your stance or feelings or
>opinions about it are out of bounds.
Why change the subject when you refuse to admit that you lied?
You've finally gotten to the point where you almost repudiate your statement,
but you *still* don't have the balls to do so.
Bud
> In article <1123719395....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >> >> > Apparentlly I must, because you neglect to give your opinion of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> First, you want the alibi...
> >> >
> >> > I sure did. Asked for it more than once.
> >> >
> >> >> I provide it,
> >> >
> >> >you said "here is an alibi", it would have saved a few more response
> >> >worth of this tiresome dancing.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah! But I *DID*. Here it is, requoted:
> >>
> >> "But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists,
> >> and won't answer, reposted again:"
> >
> >that line. Had you done it the first time, it would have saved a few
> >more responses of this tiresome dancing.
>
> Wasn't needed. Don's title says it all.
It was farsighted of dw to include your opinion of his work into the
header, even before you have ever read it.
> Illiterate, aren't you?
So you say. But, you just got caught didn`t you. You quoted a line
from the
*second* time you reposted dw`s work, when what I wrote made it clear I
was refering to the *first* time you produced dw`s ofering. Pretty
stupid *and* illiterate, wasn`t it?
> >My complaint is that it
> >requires a few responses to get from you what should have been included
> >the first time you produced this offering from dw.
>
>
> And after all this time, you are *STILL* ducking the fact that you lied.
So you say. Of course, your position is that you know what I regard
to be the suggestion of an alibi. And a silly position it is.
> >> Liar, aren't you?
> >
> > Just pointing out once again that I need to drag things out of you.
> >That line
> >explaining what you thought you were producing wasn`t included the
> >first time, was it?
>
>
> Nope.
Normally, I wouldn`t make a big deal if someone where mistaken about
a trivial point such as this. But since Ben is such a wad, this is my
official response...
"AHHHH! Fucking kook caught in a crack. Looking pretty dumb, Mr
Holmes. Can`t even weasal out of it because you just admitted you were
wrong. AHHH!!"
> You needed clarification of the obvious, I provided it.
Thanks.
> When are you going to admit that you lied?
What, about that "suggestion of an alibi" thing. I thought I
explained that to you using small enough words for you to understand. I
don`t consider that submittal by dw to be the suggestion of an alibi.
Are you going to argue that I do consider it to be the suggestion of an
alibi, kookster?
> >> >> you *deny* that I've provided it,
> >> >
> >> > You put something up without saying what you thought it was. Had you
> >> >said it was an alibi, I would have spent energy rebutting whether it
> >> >was, instead of trying to nail down your claim of what it was.
> >>
> >>
> >> You *are* quite clear now? Where's your rebuttal?
> >
> > Given. It`s up.
> >
> >> >> now
> >> >> you want my *opinion* of that alibi.
> >> >
> >> > Yah, I need your stance on this offering before I address it.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, you're just quacking some more.
> >>
> >> You lied, I've pointed it out, and gone to the effort of proving it.
> >
> > I`m tired of the "yousaid-I said", you thrive on this crap, it only
> >tires me out. All this noise comes down to is that you regard dw`s
> >offering to be the suggestion of an alibi. I do not.
>
>
> Feel free to describe just what it is, then.
I did. It`s a pinch of this, and a pinch of that. It`s CT stew. It`s
a montage, a patchwork of information crafted in a way as to produce an
offering that is extremely likely to be nothing like how the actual
disputed events transpired.
> >> >Are
> >> >your opinions identical to dw`s? Why would I address a third party`s
> >> >opinions who isn`t involved in this discussion? Tell me your opinions,
> >> >we`ll talk. I will admit, last post you did call this a "suggestion of
> >> >an alibi", which is a step towards letting me know what you think this
> >> >offering by dw is. only problem is, there really isn`t any such thing
> >> >as a "suggestion of an alibi", either it is, or it isn`t, "suggestion"
> >> >only lending ambiguity to the issue, which is why you leapt at my use
> >> >of the word.
> >>
> >>
> >> If there really isn't any such thing as a "suggestion of an alibi", then
> >> your statement must be correct.
> >
> > Define what a "suggestion of an alibi" is, what is the criteria
> >before it is considered such? It`s different things to different
> >people, it`s subjective. In my opinion, there is nothing in dw`s
> >submittal that can be regarded as "alibi-like". I think to be the
> >suggestion of an alibi, he would have to establish what the two key
> >components mean or refer to, Fritz`s notes, and Bookout`s report.
>
>
> Quack.... quack... Why not simply type "quack" instead of so much fluff?
I may as well quack, with the ability you show to understand the
points I make. Again, for interested and literate parties, the point
Ben ducked was "I think to be the suggestion of an alibi, he (dw) would
have to establish what the key components refer to, Fritz`s notes and
Bookout`s report."
> >> A rather convenient stance for you to take.
> >
> > The truth always is.
> >
> >> But as usual, you're wrong.
> >
> > As usual, just a claim.
> >
> >> >> Can you quack any louder?
> >> >
> >> > Almost all my responses are requests for clarification or
> >> >elaboration.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of material *already* provided. How cowardly of you...
> >
> > Usually not the material I am not requesting. Something you claim
> >meets the requirements of what I`m asking for.
>
>
> So well you referred to it as a "paraphrase".
Well, let us examine the exchange just prior to my use of the word
you now chose to distract from the fact that you have no ideas or
reasoning ability, shall we? I put up...
"ALIBI-Proof offered by a person accused of a crime that they were
in a different place from that where the crime was commited."
To which Ben replied...
"Example: When a person decribes a scene in time, place, and persons
that he *could not have been at* had he been committing the crime he is
accused of."
No, for these unfamiliar with the ways of a weasal, Ben has implied
dw`s premise is an alibi without actually stating that dw`s premise is
an alibi. He is comparing dw`s offering to the definition of the
"alibi", but is too chickshit to come out and say it is an alibi. And
to top it all off, he leaves all the particulars unidentified. Because
had he clearly claimed "Oz saw Jarman and Norman on the first floor at
12:22ish", I would have just pointed out that the assassination was not
at 12:22ish. So he words it in a chickenshit fashion, so I can`t
challenge the position he implies, but is too craven to state. And to
misdirect from his cowardly behavior, he wants to make a fuss over my
mistaken use of the word "paraphrase", as if that is the cause of his
cowardice.
> >> >You just have no confidence in your ability to reason, so
> >> >you fear expanding, or making clearer your ideas. Me, I have confidence
> >> >in my ability to reason, I`ll expand on any of them.
> >>
> >> Okay... expand on the requirement of the defense to provide to the
> >> prosecution the alibi defense that they are going to use. Be sure to
> >> provide citations for this requirement.
> >
> > I cited the definition of alibi
>
>
> This is *NOT* what I just requested. You said you'd expand on "any of them".
Yah, what do you suppose "them" meant? I will expand, or elaborate,
or clarify on any of the points I make. (up until I`m offered all my
thoughts on the point.) What you are asking an expansion of is an alibi
of alibi I presented. I didn`t write it, as k the person who did to
expand on it. I have offered ideas on it, but none resembled the point
you wish expanded on. In fact, if I remember correctly, most of my
ideas were ofered as questions, none as statements.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >that had as a component that the
> >defendant must notify the prosecutor of his intent to invoke an alibi.
>
>
> Not the "definition" of an alibi. Stupid, aren't you?
I was directing to you where the idea came from. It wasn`t my idea,
contest the idea with the person who wrote that definition for alibi.
> >I didn`t write that, so I can`t expand on it.
>
>
> Nor did I *ask* you to expand on that. I asked you for your notion that the
> defense is required to provide evidence to the prosecution pre-trial.
I can`t say that notion ever crossed my mind. I don`t recognise that
idea of anything I`ve expressed.
> >I will say that at some
> >point it seems to me that someone must give voice to this concept
> >"alibi".
>
> Yep... you went from pre-trial to ending arguments... lied, didn't you?
I stated when these things take place? Can you quote me?
> >It can`t be something that just is, that everyone associated
> >with the trial is aware of without it being spoken of.
>
>
> Now, care to get back to the question that you said you'd "expand" on?
Have expanded on my ideas about it. I`ve offered all my thoughts on
it. At some point, someone has to give voice to this concept, "alibi".
I can`t see it just being something that is "understood" by all the
participants in a trial. Two of the definitions I`ve produced name the
"defendant", and "the person accused of the crime" as the person who
does this. When exactly they do this, I`m not sure, none of the
definitions I supplied seem to say. The point I made about closing
arguments was that I couldn`t see a defendant being allowed to keep an
alibi to himself, and then just play it at the end of a trial.
> >> >You want me to
> >> >expand on my criticism of this offering by dw, fine, say the word, I
> >> >will.
> >>
> >>
> >> You see? Illiteracy. And cowardice.
> >
> > Well, Ben, it`s been you that has been the weasal and the coward all
> >through this discussion. You know this article by dw isn`t an alibi,
>
> It is, however, the "suggestion" of an alibi that you claim doesn't exist.
It seems to be your opinion that dw`s work is the "suggestion of an
alibi". Very good Ben, your opinion is noted. Now ask me mine.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >but have cowardly ducked the issue every time I directly asked you to
> >state such.
>
> Been there, done that. Illiterate, aren't you?
I do remember you saying "Yep... LHO did indeed supply an alibi".
That was it, despite my depeated requests from something from you that
could meet the legal requirements of an alibi. So, what is this alibi
that can this?
> >Like a weasal, you apply the legal definitions I provide
> >for "alibi" to the offering by dw,
>
> Yep... so well that you called it a "paraphrase".
So well you ommitted all the particulars about the evnt.
> >but refuse to say whether you even
> >think it is an "alibi".
>
> You clearly thought so.
I know what I think, Ben. It`s what you think that you are too
chickenshit to clearly state.
> >You point out that dw called it one, so what?
> >You don`t have the guts to call it one.
>
>
> You don't have the guts to call your mother a whore, either.
Why not? I think I can take her with the bum hip. (Glad to see you
display the same lack of imagination in your insults as you do in your
arguments).
> >> >Or Shelley seeing Oz on the first floor, you want to get into
> >> >that, I`ll explain why I don`t think it`s likely Shelley saw Oz on the
> >> >first floor at lunchtime the day of the assassination.
> >>
> >> I've already *asked* for your evidence, you couldn't provide any.
> >
> > Well, I looked up some,
>
>
> Yep... you were talking out of your ass, weren't you?
Why do you ask that?
> Now you've been embarrassed at your ignorance enough to actually go *read*
> eyewitness testimony... Good!
Who said I was embarassed? I haven`t read all the testimony, nor
do I have what I have read memorized, nor do I go running to check
every assertion a kook here makes.
> >and found that Shelley reported seeing Oz on
> >the first floor at 11:45-11:50ish. Some of the flooring guys have Oz on
> >the upper floors at 11:50. Piper has him on the first floor at noon.
> >Givens has him on the 6th floor at 12:05. So the evidence suggests
> >"down,up,down,up", which doesn`t make a lot of sense.
>
> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
You provide excellent insight into the timing I`ve presented.
Stellar.
> >But Piper said to
> >Oz "It`s about lunchtime, I think I`ll have lunch". It doesn`t seem
> >that anyone goes to lunch at 12 in the TSBD, it seems pretty lax. If
> >Piper saw Shelley eating at 11:45, he might figure it`s lunchtime. So,
> >if both Shelley and Piper saw Oz on the first floor, he may have
> >returned to the upper floors after. You say "... then Shelley *sees*
> >him were he implied he was going". That assumes he saw Oz after he came
> >down, after the flooring crew came down.
>
> Nah... anyone with a twisted bit of logic would assume that Shelley saw Oswald
> there *before* he could have been.
Are you calling Shelley a liar?
> Silly, aren't you?
No, I offered what seens to me to be a likely timeline for the Oz
sightings.
> >That makes no sense, Shelley
> >was very likely out by then, and it certainly is 11:45.
>
> Shelley couldn't have seen what he says he saw... CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've
> solved the case!
It is unlikely Shellet saw Oz on the first floor at some point
after the flooring crew came down to the first floor. He may have saw
him earlier, before the flooring crew came down.
> But this solution will only satisfy the lazy LNT'ers.
Works for this one.
> The more thoughtful ones
> are going to want a little bit more than this sad attempt.
Now you speak for thoughtful LNT`s and moviegoers.
> >> >I lay my cards
> >> >on the table, and you hint that they are rebutted, or hint at other
> >> >information that proves me wrong. Somehow, I don`t see how this
> >> >behavior makes *me* the coward.
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't be shy, Bud... you know you're a coward.
> >
> > Wasn`t me that latched onto a subjective phrase like "suggestion of
> >an alibi" and made a big fuss over it.
>
>
> Then have the balls to repudiate it.
Why would I do that when I don`t consider this work by dw to be the
suggestion of an alibi?
> >You wanted to distract attention
> >from my original assertion to Charles that "Oz had no alibi".
>
>
> Why? He didn't. Not one that will satisfy even a large minority. We simply
> don't have enough information.
What idiot said this... "Yep... LHO did supply an alibi"?
> The WC was far too effective at covering things up. But LHO *DID* have the
> suggestion of one, and you lied.
I don`t consider it such. It needs some major components
established before it could attain that status.
> >You would
> >much rather parse a vague, subjective opinion then address a clearly
> >stated fact.
>
> A "clearly stated fact" that isn't a part of this discussion.
Whether dw`s work was an alibi was a part of this discussion. Look
at Charles`s point number four. You couldn`t dispute my claim that it
wasn`t an alibi then, so you opted instead to divert attention with a
dispute about subjective opinion expressed by me.
> We are discussing
> your *LIE* that LHO didn't have even the "suggestion" of an alibi. It's simply
> untrue, and you've known this fact even when you made your statement.
I didn`t consider it to be such when I said it. I don`t regard it to
be such now.
> >That is how you operate, Ben, I`ve figured that much out
> >about you. You have no ideas or reasoning ability, so you split hairs
> >and nit-pick wording.
>
>
> Words have meanings.
Yah, they do. "subjective" is one of them.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >You lay childish little traps
>
>
> You mean "paraphrase", perhaps?
No.
> Only the ignorant can "fall into" a "trap" such as that.
No, I will occasionally use a word incorrectly. Look on the bright
side, it is the only way you can score points, you`re not going to do
it with your reasoning.
> >to score points,
> >which only bog down the discussion, but the discussion of ideas is
> >never a priority of yours. All your crys of "liar" and "coward" are
> >just a diversion to mask your inadequacies.
>
>
> Lied, didn't you?
Naw, that was accurate.
> >> >> >> All you need to do is read it. Illiterate, aren't
> >> >> >> you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You need to write it for me to read it. What is your position of
> >> >> >this article by dw? Is it an alibi?
> >> >>
> >>>> Nope. Not interested in changing the topic to my opinion. I'm dealing with
> >> >> facts here.
> >> >
> >> > You`re a piece of work, Ben. You present this offering by dw, then
> >> >say it`s off topic to ask your stance on it is.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... it's off topic to *change* the topic.
> >
> > Who died and left you keeper of the topics?
>
>
> For the quite simple reason that you cannot force me to talk about a topic of
> *your* desire.
True enough, you can opt to expose your chickenshit tendencies.
> And I *can* force you to defend your own lies.
Hows that working for you?
> >> I'm dealing with your lie that
> >> there wasn't even the "suggestion" of an alibi.
> >
> > Please, tell me what I think the criteria of something is before I
> >consider it to be "the suggestion of an alibi".
> >
> >> That there wasn't even the 'hint' of an alibi.
> >>
> >> That there wasn't even the "resemblance" of an alibi.
> >>
> >> That there wasn't even the 'beginnings' of an alibi.
> >>
> >> That there wasn't even the 'known possibility' of an alibi.
> >>
> >> That there wasn't even a 'smidgen' of an alibi.
> >>
> >> ...
> >
> > What about my question to you about whether dw`s offering *WAS* an
> >alibi?
>
>
> Already answered. Kids shouldn't have memory problems.
I agree, they shouldn`t.
> >>>>You lied when you stated that LHO didn't even have the "suggestion" of an
> >>alibi.
> >> >
> >> > What does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to you? You can
> >> >call dw`s offering "elephant-like", can claim you detect the outline of
> >> >a trunk and ears and a tail. Why not discuss ideas instead of parse
> >> >words?
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't bother, Bud. I'm dealing with your meaning here, not the word.
> >
> > Then what does the term "suggestion of an alibi" mean to me?
>
>
> Embarrassment, no doubt.
Cowardly exasion. You position is that I consider dw`s submittal to
be the suggestion of an alibi. When I asked you what I consider to be
the requirements of such a thing, you can`t produce the necessary
information to support the conclusion you have drawn.
> If you understood that you must be accurate with your statements in a forum
> where people know the facts, and are willing to call a spade a spade (unlike the
> censored group), you wouldn't make carelessly false statements.
This place much better suits my posting style. You can`t call the
kooks "kooks" over there.
> >> You lied.
> >
> > You think it impossible that I couldn`t regard dw`s offering not to
> >be the suggestion of an alibi? Based on what?
>
>
> Ignorance, nothing better...
It is definately based on your ignorance of what I consider to be
the "suggestion of an alibi". I`ll give you an example of one thing I
don`t regard to be the suggestion of an alibi... dw`s offering. I`ll
even give you another one. The Gettysburg Address.
> >> >> >> >Just saying
> >> >> >> >"here is something contrived by Don Willis" isn`t saying anything.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> Ah! But I didn't. My *previous* references that you denied I'd made, and
> >> >> >> didn't respond to immediately, are all clearly on the same topic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No they`re not, there were hints and innuendo, never clearly stating
> >> >> >what they were in reference to.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You're either incredibly stupid, or you're a liar. I'm quite sure its the
> >> >> later.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, thats right, 10 posts ago, you said this what I consider to be
> >> >an alibi, and this is how it applies to the case. Or was it only after
> >> >repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation, without ever saying
> >> >you thought it was an alibi?
> >>
> >>
> >>"But here's the "suggestion" of an alibi, that you refuse to admit exists, and
> >> won't answer, reposted again:"
> >
> > "Only after repeated demands did you offer up dw`s creation...".
> >Obviously I`m refering to the first time you produced it, I didn`t ask
> >for it the second time, when you inserted that line.
>
>
> Try quoting Don's title, coward...
Was "what Ben Holmes thinks" included in it?
> >> >> >Then you offered up this article by dw,
> >> >> >largely without comment.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No comment needed. It is quite clearly more than a "suggestion" of an
> >> >> alibi - that you asserted didn't exist.
> >> >
> >> > No, for a while I asserted you didn`t produce anything from the case
> >> >you thought was an alibi for Oz, because you hadn`t.
> >>
> >> Untrue. When you finally noticed my statements - IMMEDIATELY following your
> >> quoted definitions of "alibi", you claimed to think it was a "paraphrase".
> >
> > I also claimed you hadn`t clearly applied them to any specific and
> >identified part of the case.
>
>
> Untrue, isn't it?
Blatent lie. Heres is what you wrote...
"Example: When a person describes a scene in time, place, and
persons, that he *could not have been at* had he been committing the
crime he is accused of."
Person unnamed, place unnamed, time unnamed, even the crime is
unnamed.
> >You apply the definitions of "alibi" to
> >dw`s work, without ever saying you think dw`s work is an alibi. Very
> >craven.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you?
Did you do what I just related? Did you apply dw`s work to the legal
definition of "alibi", knowing full well it was no such thing?
> >> >Then, after you
> >> >produced this offering by dw, I asserted you didn`t identify what you
> >> >thought this was.
> >>
> >> The title was left in. Illiterate, aren't you?
> >
> > Did you write the header? What dw wrote in the header a year or more
> >ago doesn`t tell me what you think this offering by dw is to the
> >discussion I`m having with you now. I subsequently found out that it is
> >you opinion that this is the suggestion of an alibi. Very good, your
> >opinion is noted.
>
>
> Lied about LHO not having even the "suggestion" of an alibi, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> >Had you said "Here is an alibi advanced by dw, that I
> >> >think fits the bill as the suggestion of an alibi", we would be
> >> >discussing whether it is or isn`t about now.
> >>
> >> No, you're *STILL* too cowardly to explain or discuss the facts.
> >
> > It was the 29th of July when I used the phrase "suggestion of an
> >alibi". It was the 7th of August when you produced this offering by dw
> >as such, something like 18 of your responses later.
>
> You were well aware of it... or are you willing to lie that you had no idea?
I had an inkling of what event your vague application of the
definition of "alibi" was to. But it was written so vaguely, I
certainly wasn`t going to assume that that was what it was in reference
to. In any case, your dishonesty at producing something that you knew
wasn`t an alibi, and applying it to the definition of alibi needed to
be exposed. In order to do that, I had to have you admit what the event
was that you were describing in your example.
> >I was only saying
> >it would have saved a lot of time if back then you would have just
> >said "dw`s offering is the suggestion of an alibi". Thats all.
>
>
> No, it wouldn't. You've now known for how many posts??? And you are *STILL*
> ducking the issue.
No, this what likely would have happened. If, after I used the
phrase "suggestion of alibi" you would have offered dw`s work, I would
likely have retracted the word "suggestion", not on the grounds that it
was an incorrect application, but on the grounds that it is so
subjective as to be meaningless in a dispute.
> >> >> Lied, didn't you?
> >> >
> >> > So you say.
> >> >
> >> >> >> >I`m
> >> >> >> >having a discussion with you, I`ve had that one with him. Where do you
> >> >> >> >stand on this, are you saying you endorse and stand by everything in
> >> >> >> >this article?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why do you keep ducking, Bud?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No ducking, I asked for a clarification, which you ducked. Where do
> >> >> >you stand on this article, what is your position? Is it an alibi?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>>> Nope. This is a new stance you're taking... asking my *opinion* on an alibi
> >> >> that you refuse to admit that I've provided.
> >> >
> >> > Why, then, do you refuse to answer when I ask you wether you think it
> >> >is an alibi? Obviously, I need to know your stance on it before I can
> >> >address it.
> >>
> >>
> >> How can I give an opinion on something that 'I've not provided'?
> >
> > You produced this offering by dw.
>
>
> You claim I didn't.
Liar. I may call it something different than you consider it to be,
but I do acknowledge that you produced it.
> >I asked you questions regarding
> >it, trying to nail down your feelings about it. Of course, you make me
> >drag them out of you.
>
>
> When are you going to tell the truth, Bud?
The next time I say something, of course.
> >> >> How can I give you an opinion on something you say I've never provided?
> >> >
> >> > I don`t call it an alibi. You are reluctant to confirm whether you
> >> >think it is one. The closest I`ve seen, is you calling it the
> >> >suggestion of one. Pretty meaningless, as I`ve explained. Either it is
> >> >or it isn`t an alibi, saying it is somewhat like one doesn`t mean much.
> >> >So, do you think what dw produced is, or do you think it isn`t an
> >> >alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's the proof that *your* statement is a lie.
> >
> > That is proof that you are too much of a coward to answer a direct
> >question.
>
>
> That *was* the answer. Too stupid to get it?
Oh, I get it. You cowardly ducked my direct question about whether
what dw produced is an alibi or not.
> >> >> A coward AND a liar, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > So you say.
> >> >
> >> >> >> You lied, and it's *clear* that you lied.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So you say. Of course, you always play this "either-or" game, as if
> >> >> >this is the whole menu. You do know that saying "suggestion of an
> >> >> >alibi" is a subjective term, oh literate one. And that I might consider
> >> >> >something not to be the suggestion of an alibi that you would consider
> >> >> >to be the suggestion of an alibi.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah... it's not *that* subjective.
> >> >
> >> > <guffaw> Then why are using an abigious subjective phrase like "it`s
> >> >not *that* subjective"? How much is not *that* much?
> >> >
> >> >> In fact, this alibi that Don discusses is
> >> >> far from merely a "suggestion", and thus, your statement is a lie.
> >> >
> >> > <heehee> Now you use the ambiguous, subjective phrase "is far from".
> >> >How far is far from? An elephant isn`t far from a dog, they both have
> >> >four legs and a tail. DW`s offering is lightyears from meeting the
> >> >legal requirements of an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, *you* called it a "paraphrase". Why bother to lie about it?
> >
> > Another cowardly duck. When you are beat on a point, you bring up
> >something meaningless from somewhere else.
>
>
> It's hardly "meaningless"... you quoted the definition of an "alibi", I provided
> an "example" based on the known facts in this case,
Was the definition for alibi applied to something you considered to
be an alibi in your example?
> and you thought it was so
> close that you called it a "paraphrase".
So, what does any of that have to do with me saying that "Dw`s
offering is lightyears from meeting the legal requirements of an
alibi"? I thought, since I didn`t see any recognizable parts of the
case in your example, that you were paraphrasing the definition for
"alibi" that I produced in such a way that it could apply to some
aspect of the case, like dw`s offering for instance. I felt you were
just rewriting the definition I supplied in a manner that would apply
to some aspect of the case you had in mind, in other words. I called
this effort "a paraphrase".
> *NOW* you want to state otherwise.
>
> Change your mind, Bud?
That happens, occasionally. Rarely from anything you produce.
> >In trying to narrow down
> >exactly what the "suggestion of an alibi"
>
>
> Your words... use 'em, or repudiate them. Don't try to do both.
I`ve clarified them, but not to the point of your understanding. I
regard dw`s work not to be the suggestion of an alibi. Period. That you
and other kooks do leaves me unmoved in my assessment of it.
> >is you use further ambiguous
> >and meaningless terminology like "far from" like dw`s offering is "far
> >from the suggestion of an alibi". How does adding more subjectivity
> >help define the phrase? The Gettysburg address is "far from the
> >suggestion of an alibi" also.
>
>
> Repudiate what you said, or stand by it. It matters not at all to me.
I stand by it. I regard what I said to be true. On what grounds do
you dispute it?
> >> >> You *knew* it to be a lie when you stated it, since you've been involved
> >> >> in a discussion on this very topic, so you cannot claim ignorance.
> >> >
> >> > Not ignorance, I know dw`s concoction fairly well. I also know it
> >> >isn`t an alibi. Or, in my opinion, anything even resembling an alibi.
> >>
> >>
> >>Since you've repeatedly shown your ignorance of what the word means, who cares?
> >
> > Quite right, who cares, it is only the gist of what you`ve been
> >braying about for a week. My opinion, stated as "Oz didn`t have the
> >suggestion of an alibi".
>
> is a lie.
So you say.
> >Who cares indeed. Why all the fuss about this
> >stated opinion? To distract from you not being able to produce an
> >actual alibi for Oz perhaps?
>
>
> You really don't *have* to call your mother a whore, you know.
I know I don`t *have* to, but it`s a term of endearment between us.
You looking for a date, I`ll be happy to pimp her out to you. Just be
careful with her hunchback.
Bud
> In article <1123728510.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> > <SNIP> Conitinued from an earlier response at this point, I believe.
> >
> >> >But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and CT seem to think this is
> >> >the spitting image of one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> You knew quite well when you made the statement that LHO didn't have
> >> >> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi, that he did indeed, and you were
> >> >> >> not telling the truth.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I was aware, when I made that statement, that kooks offered things
> >> >> >they considered to be alibis, yes.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You haven't refuted a single *FACT* mentioned by Don.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I consider that I have, but mostly when this was discussed on
> >> >AAJ. But, again, who is to judge that? Kooks? I did mention here that
> >> >the assassination wasn`t at 12:20ish, so this is only an alibi for any
> >> >murders Oz might be suspected of at that time (not even that, the time
> >> >is only one of the failings of this being considered by any reasoning
> >> >person to be an alibi).
> >>
> >>
> >> 12:20 is not an alibi for 12:30.
> >
> > Good of you to admit that. This offering by dw is *not* an alibi.
>
> It is, however, far more than the "suggestion" of one that you deny exists.
So, it is your opinion that dw`s offering is far more than the
suggestion of an alibi? You opinion is once again noted.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >> But as you've so carefully pointed out, you
> >>don't believe he was downstairs because of the way people were moving around, he
> >> couldn't have gotten *back* upstairs at that time.
> >
> > No, you misunderstood the point. I don`t think Oz could come down to
> >the first floor and in time to be seen by Shelley (who went out early)
>
>
> Even though Shelley *SAYS* he saw LHO.
Yah, he gives 11:45 as a posible time. That is before the flooring
crew broke for lunch, leaving Oz in the upper floors.
> When the eyewitnesses say things that
> are inconvenient... just toss 'em out.
What do you kooks do if a witness on the 1st floor says Oz is there
at 11:50, and a witness on the 6th floor says Oz was there at 11:50?
Assume Oz was on both floors at the same time?
> Right, Bud?
Whatever you say, you reasoning being you.
> >and not be seen by all the other people going to and fro.
>
>
> Ah... but he *was* seen by others.
None of the flooring crew who returned to the 1st floor and
proceeded to move around.
> >It seems
> >likely Shelley went out before the flooring crew even came down, or
> >very shortly after they had.
>
>
> "I don't think..." "It seems likely..."
>
>
> Speculating, again, I see...
Yah, offering what sems to be the most likely explaination for the
timing problems. You could do it do, if you could reason.
> >> Why don't you believe your own argument?
> >
> > I use different arguments to make different points, I don`t need to
> >believe them to attack another person`s assertions with them. For
> >instance, I mentioned in my rebuttal to dw`s work that Oz could have
> >looked out the window and saw those guys going around back, heard them
> >come in under him, and surmised that this journey would take them
> >across the first floor in front of the domino room. I don`t think that
> >happened, I don`t think what dw offered even establishes Oz saying he
> >saw them walking to the elevators. But I still mention that idea as an
> >argument against his premise.
>
>
> The improbabilities that LNT'ers must believe everyday simply boggle the mind.
It is a possibility that accounts for Oz knowing those guys crossed
the 1st floor. There is no reason to believe that if Oz saw them cross
that floor (which I see no reason to believe), that his doing so must
be from the domino room.
> >> >> >> Still waiting for you to *correct* that statement.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You`re a piece of work, Ben, never change.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You lied, and are unwilling to admit it. Of *course* I'm going to keep
> >> >> repeating it.
> >> >
> >> > You do just that.
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> At least most people are too stupid - in *YOUR* world.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I know who I`m dealing with. You`re trying to argue by proxy. If I
> >> >> >> >dispute something in this article, you merely say "*I* never said
> >> >> >> >that".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I stand by the evidence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Whatever that means to a kook.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Deal with it, coward... how did LHO name the two individuals in the
> >> >> lunchroom?
> >> >
> >> > A better question would be where did he?
> >>
> >>
> >> In the notes of the DPD officers who were questioning him. But you knew the
> >> answer, why bother to ask?
> >
> > He named two individuals in the lunchroom with him eating lunch
> >with him. The individuals say they didn`t do that. That is conflict,
> >not confirmation.
>
>
> Oh? They didn't eat lunch? News to me.
Playing dumb suits you. I clearly say "eating lunch with him". The
witnesses say they didn`t do that (eat lunch with Oz).
> >>>>>> >> Me, I think only LNT'ers who are afraid of facts would go to the bother
> >>of
> >> >> >> >> trying to miss the obvious.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I missed nothing. You said "here is something from Don Willis", and
> >> >> >> >cut and ran.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Untrue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I believe my characterization of your actions to be dead-on
> >> >> >accurate.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Refuted by my previous statements on the same topic.
> >> >>
> >>>>The ones you denied I'd made, and refused to answer at the time they were
> >>made.
> >> >>
> >> >> You know... the statements that you "discovered" later.
> >> >
> >> > The ones that mentioned nothing specific about the case,
> >>
> >>So precisely specific, that you were embarrassed when you found out that you'd
> >> mistakenly called it a "paraphrase"... LOL!!
> >
> > Doesn`t change the fact that you were vague about what specific part
> >of the case you were applying that definition to.
>
>
> Nothing vague at all. You were simply asleep and stupid.
You just neglected to name the people, the place, the time and the
crime. Other than that, all the information was supplied. Not vague at
all.
> >> >or how any
> >> >understanding of the legal term "alibi" applied to the case?
> >>
> >> "Paraphrase".... LOL!!
> >
> > Heres a real funny one... in the post that started this thread,
> >Charles Wallace offers...
> >
> > "What is the evidence for someone framing Oswald for the murder of
> >JFK?
> >
> > 1. Oswald himself exclaims, "I`m just a patsy!" when questioned
> >by the media after the shooting in Dealy Plaza."
> >
> > I disputed that this was evidence, and clueless Ben got involved,
> >only to make this claim a few responses in...
> >
> > "No-one I know of is claiming that because LHO claimed to be a
> >patsy, that that statement is evidence of innocence."
>
>
> Already answered. Do you have the balls to quote my comments on this, Bud?
What do I care what you wrote after? You claimed no-one did what
Charles clearly did in the post that started this discussion.
> >> >If you
> >> >would have mentioned dw`s offering as an example of an alibi, you
> >> >wouldn`t have blisters on your feet from all that dancing.
> >>
> >> Can't help it if you can't read.
> >>
> >> Or, more accurately, are a coward.
> >
> > If you had any guts, you would have addressed whether dw`s offering
> >was an alibi,
>
>
> Already did. Repeatedly.
It`s not, is it?
That is where I located it.
> So, let me repeat myself: You haven't the first time. This is, perhaps, why you
> restricted any such "rebuttal" to the censored group, rather than here where
> people aren't constrained in telling the truth.
Then let me repeat my explaination to you again, you seem too stupid
to have grasped it the first time around. "... and also in the habit to
respond whenever and wherever I saw something I wanted to respond to."
The dictionary contains what I consider to be the suggestion of an
alibi?
> But sadly... it wouldn't be the truth.
Since when do you tell the truth?
> >> >I`d prefer a more substantial endorsement,
> >> >something less vague and subjective, but I only expect to live so long,
> >> >dragging that out might take more of my mortality than I`m willing to
> >> >expend.
> >>
> >>
> >>There's nothing vague and subjective about it. LHO did *indeed* have far more
> >> than the suggestion of an alibi.
> >
> > So you seek to narrow down the meaning of subjective phrase
> >"suggestion of an alibi" by including the more subjective phrase "far
> >more". Stellar.
>
>
> Repudiate what you said, or stand by it. You can't do both.
Or else what, you will add still more subjective phrases to the
dispute? Tell me again how you think this offering by dw is "far more
than the suggestion of an alibi". What next, will you tell me it is the
best kinda-sorta alibi you ever saw?
> >> >> Makes your lies even more transparent. Particularly as I've stated the
> >> >> essence of what Don stated quite a while back, and you've been continually
> >> >> denying that I've stated it.
> >> >
> >> > You didn`t state it. You played a childish hint and guessing game.
> >>
> >>
> >> Embarrassed that you called it a "paraphrase", aren't you?
> >
> > Which has what to do with your childish hints and guessing games?
>
>
> Nothing at all.
Correct.
> It has *everything* to do with your lie about LHO not having
> even the "suggestion" of an alibi - for by your *OWN WORDS*, you referred to an
> example (using the known facts in this case)
What known facts? You didn`t name the people involved, the time, the
place or even the crime. All you did was omit the specific known facts
of the case.
> as a "paraphrase" of the definition
> of alibi.
>
> Embarrassed to be caught arguing my point, Bud?
Embarassed to have been caught applying the definition for alibi
onto something you don`t think is an alibi, aren`t you?
> >> >> Been there... done that.
> >> >
> >> > So you say.
> >> >
> >> >> >I not looking to beat these things out of you in dribs and
> >> >> >drabs, say what you mean, clearly, with no guessing games, or shut the
> >> >> >fuck up.
> >> >>
> >> >> I did, you snipped it. Cowardly of you, isn't it?
> >> >
> >> > I didn`t snip anything until recentlly. Are you admitting that until
> >> >recently you hadn`t offered that information I repeatedly requested?
> >>
> >>
> >> You'd be lying to so state.
> >>
> >>I provided it IMMEDIATELY after you quoted alibi definitions from the Internet,
> >> as you well know.
> >
> > I know you played childish hint and guessing games, never clearly
> >applying the definition to any specific and specified aspect of the
> >case. If you would have clearly said you were applying the legal
> >definitions of alibi to dw`s work, I would have pointed out that dw`s
> >work is not an alibi.
>
>
> It is, however, the suggestion of an alibi that you claim doesn't exist.
dw`s work does not meet the legal requirements to be called an
alibi, even though you dihonestly applied the definition for alibi to
what dw produced. Why would you apply a definition of alibi to
something you knew wasn`t?
> Lied,
> didn't you?
So you say.
> >> Liar, aren't you?
> >
> > So you say.
> >
> >>I provided full and complete detail, by quoting Don Willis' excellent synopsis,
> >> and you *STILL* lie about it.
> >
> > Not only is dw`s "excellent synopsis" not an alibi, I regard it to
> >be not even the suggestion of one.
>
> Yep... still lying. Even when faced with the facts in front of you. "Brazen"
> liar, would be the appropriate description, I suspect.
Are you claiming that I do regard dw`s offering to be the suggestion
of an alibi? Liar.
> >> >> >> >Are you saying this fits the bill of what I`ve been
> >>>> >> >repeatedly requestiong from you? Something from Oz that meets the legal
> >> >> >> >requirements of an alibi? I`m tired of repeating this request only to
> >> >> >> >watch you dance.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I hear you quacking, Bud...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But you don`t answer my requests for information on your position.
> >> >> >Do I need to shame you to get you to comply?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't shame an honest man.
> >> >
> >> > Nor was I addressing one.
> >> >
> >> >> Now you're asking my "opinion" on something that
> >> >> you claim I've never provided...
> >> >
> >> > I was asking your position on something you produced, dw`s article.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry, that's simply not true.
> >
> > Yah, it is. You produced dw`s offering. I asked your position on it.
> >Try not to lie so blatently.
> >
> >> You're asking for my opinion on the "suggestion"
> >> of an alibi that you keep asserting I've never produced.
> >
> > I`ve never asked for a "suggestion of an alibi" from you, I`ve no
> >interest in such a thing.
>
>
> Interested enough to lie repeatedly about it... Grow up, kid.
What was your motivation to focus on such a subjective argument?
Was it your frustration at not having anything to produce for Oz that
met th legal requirements of an alibi?
> >> >Namely, what you think it was. Now, finally and recentlly, after much
> >> >badgering, you say it`s the suggestion of an alibi.
> >>
> >> Untrue. Why lie?
> >
> > Anyone following the discussion were witness to both the badgering,
> >and the producing of dw`s work. Wasn`t what I wanted, I wanted
> >something that met the legal requirements of an alibi. This isn`t even
> >the suggestion of an alibi, althouh dw suggests it is.
>
>
>
> Liar, aren't you?
So you say.
I`m not seeing the "single item" phrase that you inserted.
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> >"A reasoning person knows
> >that snippits of information can be arranged in a variety of ways."
> >"Why do you think it copywrited it"? You`re a stellar thinker, Mr
> >Holmes.
>
>
> Lied about Don, didn't you? Attempted to imply that Don 'created' anything in
> his synopsis,
"in" his synopsis? Why do you dishonestly keep inserting words I
never implied?
> yet can't name a single factoid.
Sure I can. In the rebuttal I put up of his creation
> >> >> Try to avoid ducking the question a second time, coward.
> >> >
> >> > I gave you a second chance at understanding the point I made. Waste
> >> >of time really, you have no reasoning, you are stuck in a minsdet that
> >> >has no use for it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lied, didn't you?
> >
> > No, you still missed the point. Maybe I can dumb it down to your
> >grasp. Lets see, when you arrange musical notes, what you produce can
> >be called "a creation". That doesn`t mean the person who did the
> >arranging had anything to do with creating the B flat. They may use the
> >B flat in their creation, though.
>
>
> Lied, didn't you?
So you say.
> Faced with the facts, and you *STILL* lie about it!
Even my examples don`t help you. You are stupid.
> >> Can't support that lie, can you?
> >
> > You challenged what I said, you show it to be a lie. Repeating the
> >same tired claims without offering anything to back them up is becoming
> >your trademark. But, of course I can, in a variety of ways. Lets see,
> >if I give two people a deck of cards, and ask each to build a house of
> >cards, the two creations might differ, although they both used the same
> >exact types of cards. The created something, but they didn`t create the
> >cards themselves. You asserted something stupid, and now you hope I`ll
> >supply you with an escape from the ridiculous position you`ve taken. My
> >advice is that you keep claiming that my characterization of dw`s work
> >as a "creation" is nothing more than a lie.
>
>
> Quack... quack...
If dw`s offering isn`t a creation, why did he copyright it?
> >> >> >> >> >is no more an
> >> >> >> >> >alibi than it is a description of an elephant.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Then surely you didn't need to bother attempting to explain the
> >> >> >> >> evidence that LHO wasn't on the 6th floor during the assassination.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Wow, that hasn`t a thing to do with the point I just made.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Had Don's essay discussed the description of an elephant, it wouldn't
> >> >> >> have had anything to do with the rather strong probability that LHO
> >> >> >> spent the time of the assassination in the lunchroom.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "a rather strong possibility" is as much a description of an
> >> >> >elephant as it is an alibi.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And yet, you are now asking my "opinion" of this 'non-existent' alibi.
> >> >
> >> > No, I was asking for your position on the article by dw you
> >> >produced. Had you said I afrree with everything in this article, I
> >> >could have treated it as something you wrote, and attacked it
> >> >accordingly. You keep a distance from it I wanted to see closed before
> >> >I proceeded demolishing it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >
> > So you say.
> >
> >> And, as proven by your inability to refute Don's article, you lied when you
> >> asserted that LHO didn't even have a "suggestion" of an alibi. Don clearly
> >> discusses something that is far more than a mere hint of an alibi.
> >
> > He clearly does no such thing.
>
> Your willingness to attempt to support your concept of the "truth" with brazen
> lies is rather funny!
So is dw`s offering. And that you hold that junk in such high
esteem. It reaffirms my opinion of CT.
> >I have refuted his work, in it`s
> >entirety.
>
> And yet, you refuse to quote this "refutation". How brave of you!
Thank you. But I have refuted it. I even told you where to find
that refutation.
> >And
> >what he produced isn`t even the suggestion of an alibi for Oz (although
> >Don does suggest it is such).
>
>
> Liars lie. That's simply what they do.
You do.
> >> >> Looking more and more foolish, kid.
> >> >
> >> > Yah, Ben, gd will agree wuth you there.
> >> >
> >>>>>>>> For if evidence tending to show that LHO was not on the 6th floor during
> >> >>the
> >> >> >> >> time of the assassination is not an alibi - why are you bothering?
> >> >> >> >
> >>>> >> > Then all you need to do is to produce a definition for "alibi" that
> >> >> >> >says "evidence tending to show".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sorry Bud, I've already pointed out that you didn't understand what
> >> >> >> an alibi is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, I admitted that my original definition was in error. I then
> >> >> >suppied others, and applied the correctly to the case, and found the
> >> >> >case of an alibi for Oz in this case to be non-existant.
> >> >>
> >> >> Even though, when I noted the *facts*, you thought I was paraphrasing your
> >> >> definition. LOL!!
> >> >
> >> > When you have no ideas, you can always parse words.
> >>
> >>
> >> *YOU* called it a paraphrase, not me! LOL!!
> >
> > You neglected to include the specific people and events your
> >"example" was refering to.
>
>
> It's specific enough now, isn't it?
Yes, at the time you wanted it vague, because you realized what you
were applying the definition of alibi to was not an alibi.
> Changed your mind about it being a "paraphrase"? Why?
Why were you applying the definition of alibi to something you knew
wasn`t an alibi?
> How does replacing "persons", for example, with specific *names* of persons -
> change the meaning?
I would have pointed out that the incident you were refering to was
not an alibi, like I did to Charles when he offered the same thing as
an alibi in the original post.
Yah, now trace it back, and you will see that I offered this
incident as something someone might consider to be evidence tending to
show innocence.
I suppose he could have told the cops that he hadn`t offered the
cab to the lady, and for some reason it just didn`t appear in the
reports.
> And admit that you lied about who's "example" this was.
I used this as an example of something. You just missed the point I
tried to make using this as an example, is all.
> >> >*If true*, it was evidence indicating
> >> >innocence, right?
> >>
> >>Actions that you denied existed. Your comment was that LHO's actions after the
> >> assassination showed guilt. I've given a couple of examples of his actions
> >> after the assassination that *DO NOT SHOW GUILT*.
> >
> > Only if you can show that giving up the cab would have significantly
> >increased his chance of being apprehended. Or that Oz felt one cab or
> >another gave him a better chance to avoid capture.
>
>
> Can lead a horse to water...
And you can also assume to know things that you really don`t.
> >> >But even if it was true, it wasn`t an alibi.
> >>
> >> Nor have I ever claimed it was. We went through this once before, liar.
> >
> > I thought I could use these events to illustrate a "completely
> >different point", and you were so distracted by the examples you
> >totally missed the point.
> >I can only point you any anyone else interested back to the genesis of
> >this dispute, I`ve already expended more effort on this point than it
> >was worth.
>
>
> Yep... all you *needed* to do was simply state that yes, LHO did indeed have the
> "suggestion" of an alibi, but that you believed it has not risen to the level of
> "alibi".
That wasn`t my position. My position is that I don`t regard this to
be even the suggestion of an alibi. It`s testimony in a blender. It`s
wishful CT thinking. They are so desperate to get their client off the
hook, they cling to this stupid shit.
> But the truth is an alien concept for most LNT'ers.
So you say.
> >> >Therein,
> >> >I was illustrating the difference between the two. You`ll miss this
> >> >point again.
> >>
> >>Considering that you lied about who brought up what, your point has been missed
> >> again.
> >>
> >> How can you support the "truth" with lies?
> >
> > You can`t tell the two apart.
>
>
> *YOU* can't, it's clear.
No. *YOU* can`t. So there.
> >> >> >> >Stop with the
> >> >> >> >diversionary bullshit, offer a real alibi,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Still dancing. If you consider Don Willis`s offering a *real* alibi,
> >> >> >than call it one. You won`t, because you know it isn`t one. So you
> >> >> >dance.
> >> >>
> >>>>Coward, aren't you? Why do you want my opinion on an alibi you assert doesn't
> >> >> exist?
> >> >
> >> > Why did you fear to say your assessment of the article you produced?
> >>
> >>
> >>Because it's meaningless to the larger picture that *YOU LIED* about LHO having
> >> even the "suggestion" of an alibi.
> >
> > That is not a good enough reason to fear answering a question.
>
>
>
> It's good enough for me.
Apparently. Is the fear so great that answering the question would
cause you to start convulsively shaking?
> I don't *need* a reason to avoid changing the topic.
But you need a backbone to answer a direct question that is
relevant to the discussion. You did produce dw`s article, so you
should answer direct questions
about it. What if everytime you said something, I just produced an
article from an LN in response. Then refused to answer any questions
regarding those articles. Methinks you`d scream like a scalded cat.
> >> I have no intention of letting the topic drift from this, until you admit it.
> >
> > Well, Skipper, keep your hand on that tiller. Funny thing is, the
> >original topic was Charles offering the dw creation as an alibi, and me
> >pointing out that it wasn`t. You only leapt at my use of the pharse
> >"suggestion of an alibi" to divert attention from the original topic,
> >because you didn`t have a leg to stand on asserting dw`s creation was
> >an alibi, and you knew you didn`t. So you cowardly shifted focus from
> >the original clear point, to this subjective one.
>
>
> Repudiate your statement, or stand by it. You can't do both.
I think I`ve clearly stated my position. And I think what you just
ignored above there was dead-on accurate.
> >> >> >> >or continue this ridiculous
> >> >> >> >dance indefinately, I could care less.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nah... it's amusing to see what contortions you have to go through to
> >> >> >> defend the impossible.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nothing statements like this you can offer. Anything resembling an
> >> >> >original idea is nowhere to be seen.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Such as LHO offering the cab to the lady? Lied about it, didn't you?
> >> >
> >> > So you say.
> >>
> >>
> >> So did Whaley. It was non-verbal, but an offering nontheless.
> >
> > He said so non-verbally?
>
>
> Whaley said so. LHO did so. Can't follow simple English?
Sure. I said "So you say". You said "So did Whaley. It was
non-verbal..."
> >> >> >Offer an alibi for Oz.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Been there, done that. Coward, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > No, you didn`t. You offered dw`s contrived "alibi". You never said
> >> >"here is Oz`s alibi", or "this is Oz`s alibi"...
> >>
> >>
> >> Coward, aren't you? Liar too, since you can't list any fact that Don
> >> "contrived".
> >
> > Nor can you point to anywhere I said that Don contrived facts.
>
>
> "Without you saying what the significance of this article is, I`m not going to
> assume. Just saying 'here is something contrived by Don Willis' isn`t saying
> anything."
Now, can you point to anywhere that I said that Don contrived
*facts*?
> >You
> >really are clueless when it comes to reason, you have your facts and
> >evidence, and you can`t apply the slightest bit of sense to any of it.
> >Yes, it is a fact that Fritz`s notes contain the phrase "two negroes
> >came in" (or something close, thats from memory). But it isn`t a fact
> >that dw`s reading of that as meaning "came into the TSBD" is correct.
> >The offering by dw, in it`s entirety, is contrived, even if he
> >contrives it from actual facts, there is still much conjecture and
> >opinion. It`s shocking to me that you don`t even have this basic
> >understanding of what dw actually produced.
>
>
> What I'm *quite* aware of, is that these five sentences are the longest
> discussion *YOU'VE* stated on Don's synopsis in dozens of posts.
What is this, a new way to cowardly avoid the points I made. You
had a problem with the way I was using "contrived". I explained it to
you. You blow it off because of the number I sentences I used to
explain it to you. I love when you do things like this, nothing exposes
your chickenshit nature better.
> >> >> >Is dw`s article one. Say so here, and I`ll be glad to list why it isn`t.
> >> >>
> >> >> Coward, aren't you?
> >> >
> >> > Shoot, you produced it. Surely you`re not afraid to say what it is.
> >>
> >>
> >> I've already stated what it is - it's the proof that you lied when you stated
> >> that LHO didn't have even a "suggestion" of an alibi.
> >
> > Why are you so afraid to answer simple questions?
>
>
> Been there, done that. Illiterate, aren't you?
So you say.
> >You produced this
> >offering by dw. Yet all questions about your stance or feelings or
> >opinions about it are out of bounds.
>
>
> Why change the subject when you refuse to admit that you lied?
You brought the submittal, but you cowardly rule all questions
about it out of bounds.
> You've finally gotten to the point where you almost repudiate your statement,
> but you *still* don't have the balls to do so.
If thats what you think, let me reaffirm it. This creation by dw is
not the slightest suggestion of an alibi. But it may be to kooks.
Caeruleo
wrote:
> In article <1123096851.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud
> says...
>
> >> >Why did Oz have the cab driver drive past the
> >> >boardinghouse before getting out?
> >>
> >> Didn't happen.
> >
> > No? Caeruleo said that is what happened. He seems a reliable source
> >to me.
>
> Take your time - research it *YOURSELF*.
Dunno if he has, but I have. In person, no less. Whaley's testimony
seems contradictory on this point of where he dropped off Oswald. At
one point he said that it was at the intersection of Beckley & Neches,
which is just north of the rooming house & within sight of it, & would
not have required the cab to go past the rooming house on Beckley before
dropping Oswald off. However, at another part of the testimony he said
that it was just north of the intersection of Beckley & NEELY, not
Neches, where he dropped off Oswald, specifically describing the left
turn onto Beckley from Zang Blvd. & then going the several blocks south
on Beckley to Neely. This is indeed past the rooming house by several
blocks:
**********
Mr. BELIN. Now when this man that you picked up on November 22 got into
your cab, where did he say he wanted to go?
Mr. WHALEY. To the 500 block of North Beckley.
Mr. BELIN. I will take you back to November 22.
You turned south on Beckley and then where did you go as you turned
south on Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. I went right up on Beckley headed toward the 500 block.
Mr. BELIN. Then what happened
Mr. WHALEY. When I got to Beckley almost to the intersection of Beckley
and Neely, he said, "This will do right here." and I pulled up to the
curb
Mr. BELIN. Was that the 500 block of North Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; that was the 700 block.
Mr. BELIN. You let him out not at the 500 block but the 700 block of
North Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Had you crossed Neely Street yet when you let him off?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. About how far north of Neely street did you let the man off?
Mr. WHALEY. About 20 feet.
**********
It seems that Whaley in the other part of the testimony was merely
confusing "Neches" with "Neely," but note that he still said there that
Oswald wanted to go to the 500 block, that Oswald then told him to stop
short of that block & let him off, & that the cab was going southbound
at the time:
**********
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; that is not what I said, but that is the reason I
didn't call one at the time and I asked him where he wanted to go. And
he said, "500 North Beckley."
Well, I started up, I started to that address, and the police cars, the
sirens was going, running crisscrossing everywhere, just a big uproar in
that end of town and I said, "What the hell. I wonder what the hell is
the uproar?"
And he never said anything. So I figured he was one of these people that
don't like to talk so I never said any more to him.
But when I got pretty close to 500 block at Neches and North Beckley
which is the 500 block, he said, "This will do fine," and I pulled over
to the curb right there. He gave me a dollar bill, the trip was 95
cents. He gave me a dollar bill and didn't say anything, just got out
and closed the door and walked around the front of the cab over to the
other side of the street. Of course, traffic was moving through there
and I put it in gear and moved on, that is the last I saw of him.
Mr. BALL. When you parked your car you parked on what street?
Mr. WHALEY. I wasn't parked, I was pulled to the curb on Neches and
North Beckley.
Mr. BALL. Neches, corner of Neches and North Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. Which is the 500 block.
Mr. BALL. What direction was your car?
Mr. WHALEY. South.
Mr. BALL. The cab was headed?
Mr. WHALEY. South.
Mr. BALL. And it would be on the west side of the street?
Mr. WHALEY. Parked, stopped on the west side of the intersection, yes,
sir.
**********
Had the cab gone to the corner of Beckley & *Neches* it would have had
to make a *right* turn off Zang to the *north*. I know, I've seen the
intersection with my own eyes, both on foot & driving.
> Better yet, pull up a map of Dallas on the Internet, and try to put an "x"
> where
> the cab dropped LHO off at.
That may be necessary for him; it certainly isn't for me, as I've walked
past both these intersections, & the boarding house, several times on
multiple dates, an advantage of living only c.170 miles from the Oak
Cliff area of Dallas. If you're talking about an X on Beckley & Neches,
sure, that doesn't indicate a route past the rooming house; an X at
Beckley & Neely most certainly does, however.
Bud
Caeruleo wrote:
> In article <dcu8i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <1123096851.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud
> > says...
> >
> > >> >Why did Oz have the cab driver drive past the
> > >> >boardinghouse before getting out?
> > >>
> > >> Didn't happen.
> > >
> > > No? Caeruleo said that is what happened. He seems a reliable source
> > >to me.
> >
> > Take your time - research it *YOURSELF*.
>
> Dunno if he has, but I have.
Hey Caeruleo, it`s been a while since I saw a response with your
name on it. Do a search to see if anyone was using your name in vain?
Anyway, I did look into it a little, I read Whaley`s affidavit and WC
testimony.
You bet. I did take Ben`s advice, and looked for some maps of
Dallas. I couldn`t find any detailed enough to have the small streets
and street numbers (I didn`t look hard or long, and Google maps
required a browser upgrade to use, so I didn`t bother).
> it certainly isn't for me, as I've walked
> past both these intersections, & the boarding house, several times on
> multiple dates, an advantage of living only c.170 miles from the Oak
> Cliff area of Dallas. If you're talking about an X on Beckley & Neches,
> sure, that doesn't indicate a route past the rooming house; an X at
> Beckley & Neely most certainly does, however.
In any case, why didn`t Oz have the driver take him to the
boardinghouse at 1026 Beckley? Thanks for the input, C.
Caeruleo
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> Caeruleo wrote:
> > In article <dcu8i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1123096851.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Bud
> > > says...
> > >
> > > >> >Why did Oz have the cab driver drive past the
> > > >> >boardinghouse before getting out?
> > > >>
> > > >> Didn't happen.
> > > >
> > > > No? Caeruleo said that is what happened. He seems a reliable source
> > > >to me.
> > >
> > > Take your time - research it *YOURSELF*.
> >
> > Dunno if he has, but I have.
>
> Hey Caeruleo, it`s been a while since I saw a response with your
> name on it. Do a search to see if anyone was using your name in vain?
Heh.
> Anyway, I did look into it a little, I read Whaley`s affidavit and WC
> testimony.
Yes, & both the handwritten & typewritten versions of the affidavit,
both dated the day after the assassination, make reference to turning
left (i.e. south) on Beckley from Zang, going toward the 500 block of
Beckley, & to the passenger saying "This will do" & being dropped off:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0138-001.gif
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0438-001.gif
This is indeed past the rooming house, as the block numbers decrease as
one goes south on Beckley; 1026 N. Beckley, where the rooming house is,
is just south of the intersection with Zang, where the left turn was
made onto Beckley, & both the 700 & 500 blocks are farther south.
Well I should make one correction to what I said. It's been a while
since I've been there, but I seem to recall now that there actually
*isn't* an intersection of Beckley & Neches, & this can even be seen on
maps.yahoo.com. Neches intersects another street a short distance away
from Beckley, a street whose name I can't remember & is not named on the
Yahoo map & runs diagonal to Beckley. It is this street, not Neches,
which intersects Beckley. Quite obviously Whaley was simply temporarily
confusing the words "Neches" & "Neely" in his WC testimony, but in both
that & the affidavits he was clear in the matter of heading south on
Beckley from Zang toward the 500 block of Beckley, past the rooming
house. Neches is NORTH of the intersection of Beckley & Zang; to go
toward it would have required a turn in the opposite direction.
> > it certainly isn't for me, as I've walked
> > past both these intersections, & the boarding house, several times on
> > multiple dates, an advantage of living only c.170 miles from the Oak
> > Cliff area of Dallas. If you're talking about an X on Beckley & Neches,
> > sure, that doesn't indicate a route past the rooming house; an X at
> > Beckley & Neely most certainly does, however.
>
> In any case, why didn`t Oz have the driver take him to the
> boardinghouse at 1026 Beckley?
We'll never know.
> Thanks for the input, C.
No prob.