Read it and weep CT's....HE'S ONE OF YOU! Embarrassing huh?
YoHarvey
After the assassination of President JFK during a press
conference in Brazilian Embassy in Havana in early September, Castro
told newsmen that CIA agents had been sent to the island to kill him
and Raul. If Kennedy was behind this, he added, the American
President
should realize that he was not the only politician that could
engineer
the assassinations of chiefs of state. This statement only added to
the mystery of the assassination and there are still no answers that
have been released by the Cubans. The quote by Fidel has to have some
importance in the deciding factor of the Warren Commission, because
why would Fidel even bring up the subject of how it was kind of like
a
pay back for the rumors. It also brought up many questions like �What
if the Cubans did do it, then how good is our security and how well
MY RESPONSE:
Press conference in early September, AFTER THE ASSASSINATION?
Healy can't even copy and paste the right information roflmao. How
damn embarrassing.
Once again, I'm going to SHOW how little Healy knows about this
assassination....contrary to HIS CLAIMING TO BE AN EXPERT.
Castro NEVER held a press conference with reporters....EVER. Castro
made the above comments to A.P. Reporter Daniel Harker at a private
party at the Brazilian Embassy on September 7th, 1963 BEFORE the
assassination. The story was FIRST reported in the New Orleans Times
Picyune on September 9th. Oswald was living in NO at the time.
Oswald was also a voracious reader who no doubt read this story.
On September 26th, the White House announced the JFK trip to Dallas.
I don't personally believe it was coindence that September 26th was
ALSO the date Oswald left for Mexico City. I believe the Harker
interview was the genesis for the assassination. Although the
motorcade round was NOT announced, Oswald now knew not Kennedy, whom
he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in Dallas,
where Oswald lived......Coincidence, chance and opportunity put
Oswald
6 floor above the President. The rest as we say....is history.
However, Healy, a KNOWN CT has said on this LN newsgroup "I've
forgotten more about the assassination than any LN will ever know".
Apparently, he's forgotten JFK's middle name, which he believes was
Francis, he's also forgotten Zapruder actually existed, although
Healy
says that's not the case. But, we have a pathological liar in our
midst, who copies and pastes information which as I've shown is
inaccurate BECAUSE HEALY DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EVENTS OF
11/22 or any other events leading up to it. He proves it with every
posting....
robcap...@netscape.com
Pure speculation, can you prove he read this story?
>
> On September 26th, the White House announced the JFK trip to Dallas.
> I don't personally believe it was coindence that September 26th was
> ALSO the date Oswald left for Mexico City. I believe the Harker
> interview was the genesis for the assassination. Although the
> motorcade round was NOT announced, Oswald now knew not Kennedy, whom
> he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in Dallas,
> where Oswald lived......Coincidence, chance and opportunity put
> Oswald
> 6 floor above the President. The rest as we say....is history.
No, only people who speculate without proof say the rest "is
history." What do you mean by, "...Oswald now (sic) knew not Kennedy,
whom he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in
Dallas where Oswald lived...?" Was Kennedy not the President of the
U.S. on 11/22/63?
>
> However, Healy, a KNOWN CT has said on this LN newsgroup "I've
> forgotten more about the assassination than any LN will ever know".
> Apparently, he's forgotten JFK's middle name, which he believes was
> Francis, he's also forgotten Zapruder actually existed, although
> Healy
> says that's not the case. But, we have a pathological liar in our
> midst, who copies and pastes information which as I've shown is
> inaccurate BECAUSE HEALY DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE EVENTS OF
> 11/22 or any other events leading up to it. He proves it with every
> posting....
And someone who has not proven anything beyond your beliefs, which you
are entitled to, but you did not show what was posted originally to be
false. He may have typed after instead of before in regards to the
assassination, so what? All you offer is speculation on LHO reading
this story which you can possibly not know for sure.
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, only people who speculate without proof say the rest "is
history." What do you mean by, "...Oswald now (sic) knew not
Kennedy,
whom he admired, but the President of the U.S. was going to be in
Dallas where Oswald lived...?" Was Kennedy not the President of the
U.S. on 11/22/63?
Jesus/Robcap/CuriousGeorge is correct. I could have been clearer.
My comment was intended to mean: LHO was NOT shooting at John F.
Kennedy. All known evidence shows that Oswald not only liked JFK; he
admired him. Oswald WAS shooting the President of the United States.
He was shooting the head of a government he dispised. He was shooting
the leader of country he had grown to hate. He was shooting a man he
believed took advantage of the working class. He was shooting a man
threatening his idol, Fidel Castro. Oswald is the singular most
investingated individual in American criminal history. His life is an
open book. As I've stated so often, it is unfortunate the CT's do not
spend any time understanding this individual and what motivated him.
You short change yourselves. While I cannot PROVE the Harker
interview was the genesis for 11/22, knowing what we do about Oswald
and using the scientific methds of evaluating the events, we can state
with a certain degree of accuracy and sophistication, that this
scenario was his motivation. I will state however, we cannot and will
never know with 100% accuracy.
As for Healy, HE KNOWS NO FACTS ABOUT 11/22. This is NOT
speculation. It is based on his demonstrated and absurd statements on
this newsgroup. He NEVER gets anything right. I've proven it time
and time again. Do not attempt to insult the intelligence of the
membership by supporting his stupidity and recklessness day after day.
robcap...@netscape.com
Thank you Bigdog/YoHarvey/Bud for making this clearer for us, but I
still see no proof that these were his thoughts on 11/22/63.
Furthermore, the proof showing LHO fired at anyone on 11/22/63 is
sorely lacking from your point of view. You are right about never
knowing with 100% accuracy how someone else thinks (unless of course
they make it known, and sadly for the official cause LHO never did),
but we do know that he did not shoot at anyone and that the Carcano
was NOT used in the crime. Ballistics show this and this is why the
WC failed to include these very important pieces of physical evidence
in their volumes. They mention it in the WCR but do NOT include the
results of the tests in hard copy for all to read. I wonder why if
everything pointed to the Carcano like they said?
>
> As for Healy, HE KNOWS NO FACTS ABOUT 11/22. This is NOT
> speculation. It is based on his demonstrated and absurd statements on
> this newsgroup. He NEVER gets anything right. I've proven it time
> and time again. Do not attempt to insult the intelligence of the
> membership by supporting his stupidity and recklessness day after day.- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course.
Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569).
No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period.
And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
(in "hard copy").....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0034b.htm
Think up another excuse to take the noose from around a double-
killer's neck, Rob. Because your current blatantly-wrong excuse about
the bullets and fragments not being linked to Oswald's rifle is a
really rotten (and stupid) one.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And this is why you're a CT. You do NOT have a clue about scientific
methodology and are too lazy or ignorant to attempt to learn. Hence,
you will live in the dark the rest of your days. As for why the WC
did or did not include certain information, this too will never be
known. Once again, this is what separates you and me. You're a
paranoid hate mongering CT with no knowledge of the assassin I
believe in anomolies in evidence and mistakes by human beings. Case
closed.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "We do know that he {Patron Saint Oswald} did not shoot at anyone and that the Carcano was NOT used in the crime. Ballistics show this, and this is why the WC failed to include these very important pieces of physical evidence in their volumes. They mention it in the WCR, but do NOT include the results of the tests in hard copy for all to read. I wonder why, if everything pointed to the Carcano like they said?" <<<
>
"There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course."
Because the things it is "tied to" are not "tied to" the victims. In
other words, the items found to be "tied to the gun" were never
proven, or found, to be from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have
not blood or tissue on them so they are useless for your cause. Yes,
the CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans,
but rather cotton wadding or water.
"Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569)."
So what? We were discussing it being used to kill JFK and wound JBC,
remember? Empty shell cases (with no fingerprints), a bullet with no
victim DNA and two fragments that were too mutilated to get groove
info don't prove anything in terms of the actual crime. Furthermore,
the fragments were not "discovered" until the limo got back to D.C. so
their chain of evidence is sorely lacking.
"No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period."
You are the one repeating lies, i.e. the Carcano is tied to the
killing and wounding of JFK and JBC, because you can't prove this
based on the physical evidence. Period.
"And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
(in "hard copy")....."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
Like he would know? He didn't do these test himself and he had NO
experience in the spectographic/ballistic area. He was a firearms
identification expert, that's it. He should not have been testifying
on this issue, why did they not bring in the man who did the test to
testify? We know why, don't we? He didn't tell them what they wanted
to hear.
"Think up another excuse to take the noose from around a double-
killer's neck, Rob. Because your current blatantly-wrong excuse about
the bullets and fragments not being linked to Oswald's rifle is a
really rotten (and stupid) one."
I like how people who believe in magic bullets and all the other crazy
stuff the WC said (I especially like how they overrode the testimony
of so many who were actually there if it didn't match their outlook)
can call anyone else stupid. Now that is stupid!
YoHarvey
wrote:
The ONLY magic bullet that exists in this case is the one that
DISAPPEARED on the shot from the front. Where did it go????? Even
David Copperfield couldn't pull that one off.
robcap...@netscape.com
Why thank you Yo (if I may be so informal)! There are some on this
board who do not think I am a CTer, so thanks. I have more than a
clue about scientific methodology, but you didn't use any in your
posts. You speculated and accused with NO proof! I don't know what
scientific methodology you think you used, but I didn't see any. Of
course it will be known (and is by anyone honest with themselves) why
the WC didn't include things that were not beneficial to their
preconceived outlook on the case. To say something as key as the
phyical evidence reports and tests were not included for some unknown
reason is pure fantasy. I'm sure if it proved what the WC said it
would have been included. No, I am one who believes things I can see
(beyond religious faith) when dealing with governmental bodies, as
they are known to be out for themselves. I am fulfilling my role of a
good citizen in a democracy by asking questions, you may think you are
more patriotic, but you are not acting like a responsible citizen when
you believe things at face value without checking for yourself. No
one can tell me after 20 minutes at looking at this case they can
honestly believe one man did this all by himself.
YoHarvey
Face value?? I believe the known evidence. YOU believe the evidence
has been tampered with, e.g. BOH, autopsy pics and x-rays tampered
with, etc. ,etc. The scientific method is very simple. Come up with
a hypothesis and does the evidence support it? EVERY single piece of
evidence supports Oswald doing the shooting which is why CT's have TO
DESTROY and belittle the evidence. There is NO physical evidence for
a BOH wound. or faked autopsy pics or x-rays. So, the scientific
method would destroy 99% of conspiracy theories.
Use of the scientic method quite simply means the evidence MUST be
observable, empirical and measureable subject to SPECIFIC RULES OF
REASONING AND LOGIC. This is where for 44 years the CT's of this
world have failed. Not ONE conspiracy theory can be establised on the
above principal. Why? Because CT's DO NOT USE ESTABLISHED LOGIC.
I've made this statement several times on this NG:
"CT's use the reverse scientific method. They determine what
happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion,
and then hail their finings as the only possible solution".
This is why the CT community has NOT advanced their case in 44 years.
cdddraftsman
wrote:
> Yes, the CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans, but rather cotton wadding or water.
S T E W P I D
S T A T E M E N T !
Conspiracy books make all kinds of assertions about the inability of
the Single Bullet to have done the things the Warren Commission said
it did. What happens if one actually experiments, shooting mock torsos
with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using bullets like those Oswald
supposedly used? John Lattimer did that. Click here for a report of
his findings :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt
Lattimer compared an experimental bullet that did the same damage to
his mock bodies that CE 399 did to Kennedy and Connally. See how
similar his experimental bullet is to CE 399 : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg
When a bullet just like Commission Exhibit 399 is fired through a
human wrist bone at 2,000 feed per second, it is almost certain to be
badly mangled. But when CE 399 hit Connally's wrist it had been slowed
by transiting Kennedy's torso and tumbling through Connally's chest.
When it finally hit the hard radius bone, it was traveling about 1,000
feet per second. Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International
Wound Ballistics Association, fired a round identical to Oswald's
bullet through a human wrist at 1,100 feet per second. Here is the
resulting bullet : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
NO
USE
DENYING
THE
SINGLE
BULLET
FACT !
tl
cdddraftsman
Hahahahahaha ! Not a once of clue but a ton of stewpid
denial bursting from between his ears !
tl
robcap...@netscape.com
You are not believing the "evidence", but rather believing what has
been said to be the evidence. The major witnesses are the ones who
saw JFK right after the shooting and these are the doctors and nurses
at Parkland, and agents Hill and Kellerman, and Jackie Kennedy. They
all said he had a major defect in the back of the head, period. If
the photos and X-rays don't show what these people said they saw
moments after the shooting then they have to be altered. It is quite
simple. To use your own logic against you, how could you get all
these people to lie and not talk about it for so many years? More to
the point, what is in it for them to lie? They didn't get away with a
crime by lying like thos involved in the murder of JFK did.
If showing the evidence is flawed is what you mean by "belittle" then
so be it, because if it was really hard core evidence you couldn't
belittle it so easily. For you to say all the evidence supports LHO
doing it alone tells me you are either not being honest, or you are
not familar with all the evidence in this case. There is no major
evidence pointing to LHO, just hearsay and suppositions.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
"dicovery" means very little.
"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
this was so, how come? They were also found many hours after the
crime and after the limo had been moved and cleaned. So this
discovery is not that important and would have not been allowed in all
liklihood.
"Shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and same floor) where
the gun linked to those shells is also found."
Was it? The officers who found it signed affadavits that they
discovered a "Mauser" on the sixth floor not the Carcano, how come?
Some say it was found on the fifth floor (ATF agent for one) and the
shell by themselves mean nothing, especially when you consider they
had no fingerprints of LHO on them.
"And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough
ballistics evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on
11/22/63."
Boy you showed me. Being used and being used to kill the President
are two totally different things and you seem to have a problem with
this point. It can not be shown to be involved in the killing and
wounding of JFK and JBC. Period.
"The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)"
At least a few would have helped, wouldn't they? The fact that they
couldn't show one fragement that was taken out of either man had come
from the alleged murder weapon is a MAJOR problem for you. No, spent
shells are corroborating evidence, but by themselves they mean
nothing.
"Heaven forbid Rob ever serves on a jury in an open-&-shut murder case
involving a gunshot victim who just happened to not have any bullets
plucked from his dead body."
No, if the prosecution ever presented a flawed case like this the
defendent would walk. I don't believe in sentencing people to many
years in prison with no proof, I'm funny that way I guess.
"One more murderer walking out the door."
The old saying amongst investigators goes like this, "if they
committed the crime you can prove it in the majority of cases." There
is always some that get away with it, but for the most part if you
kill someone you will leave evidence in some way (and not obvious
planted evidence either).
"Re. Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
areas)......"
He wasn't, you should read up on this.
"Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
performed many of the tests himself."
Yes, he performed firearms tests and identification related work, but
he actual testing on the fragements and CE399 was done by someone
else. I phased that wrong, he of course was familar with ballistics,
but spectography is a different science and this was handled by
someone else.
"So, Rob, as usual, is talking bullshit. (Nothing new there, of
course.)"
The WC is the bigges talker of bullcrap going, so you should be
familar with it.
David Von Pein
<big chuckle time here>
A bullet from Lee Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
Bullet fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
Bullet shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and on the very
same floor) where the gun linked to those shells is also found.
And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough ballistics
evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on 11/22/63.
The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)
Okay, Rob, whose bullets DID hit John Kennedy and John Connally on
November 22, 1963, if not bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's
Carcano rifle?
Care to take a wild guess?
And I suppose it was just a funny coincidence that all of the "real"
bullets that were involved in the assassination just happened to get
themselves lost right after the shooting, huh?
And it was also just a weird quirk of fate that the only bullets and
fragments large enough to be tested against a particular rifle
happened to be linked to the gun owned by the resident "patsy" in the
case, right?
Or would you like to travel down that dead-end road known as "ALL THE
BULLET EVIDENCE LEADING TO OSWALD'S GUN WAS PLANTED AND/OR FAKED"?
Apparently you do wish to travel down that dead-end (based on your
previous nutty comments regarding the bullets).....so now I'll wait
for Robby-boy to explain to the masses in sufficient PROVABLE detail
just exactly WHO and HOW the covert team of bullet-planters went about
the task of pulling off this little bait-and-switch with the
ballistics evidence.
I especially want to hear about the part where the bullets and
fragments from other (non-C2766) guns went into the victims and were
dug out by conspirators after the fact (you surely have at least ONE
such occurrence, Rob, because of your anti-SBT stance; so the bullet
that you say entered JFK's throat never exited; meaning: it's either
still in Kennedy as we speak, or somebody dug the damn thing out
without being noticed).
And the part about how the covert agents planted the two large bullet
fragments in the limo should be interesting too -- even though, of
course, this "planting" of evidence was totally unneeded, because
CE399 is going to be "planted" into the evidence pile too, per most of
the kooks.
Which means, of course, that the "patsy's" gun is going to be tied
irrevocably to the crime via JUST CE399; so why plant MORE stuff,
which only increases the chances that the plot will be exposed down
the line?
And the made-up kookshit that will be coming about how the lead
residue got on the inside of the limousine's windshield and about how
the chrome got dented near that same windshield should be a fun treat
to hear as well.
Via the perfectly-reasonable "LN/LHO/C2766" scenario, of course, the
windshield/chrome damage is explained absolutely beautifully (and
logically)....i.e., the TWO damaged areas at the front of the vehicle
were struck during the assassination by the TWO large bullet fragments
from Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (with the fragments moving
from BACK to FRONT after exiting JFK's head).
I wonder how a kook named Rob will manage to explain away the perfect
"TWO & TWO" coincidence regarding the TWO different areas of
automobile damage in conjunction with the TWO supposedly-"planted"
fragments found in the front seat?
I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle
the next day (because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its
possession until around 11:30 PM on November 22nd).
Anyway, I guess the bullet-planters fired that "planted" limo bullet
into something pretty hard to make it break up into pieces -- but not
pieces that would be too small, because they obviously needed the
planted fragments linked to their proverbial "patsy's" rifle.
Otherwise, why the hell plant them at all, if the fragments are never
going to be able to be linked to ANY gun at all?
And, somewhat amazingly, the bullet-planters did an excellent job of
perfectly mimicking the end results of various future tests where
bullets were fired directly into human skulls, with those test bullets
fragmenting in just about the same fashion as CE567 and CE569. Did the
FBI fire the "planted" limo bullet into a human skull too? .....
http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
But, instead of leaning toward Occam's (and just plain ol' common
sense in general), a rabid conspiracist feels it's much better to
accuse many different people (who are always-unnamed and unidentified
by the CTers, of course) of underhanded shenanigans with respect to
the official evidence that exists in the JFK case.
Go figure that mindset.
Hopefully Rob never serves on a jury in an open-and-shut murder case
involving a gunshot victim who just happened to not have any bullets
plucked from his or her dead body.
One more murderer walking out the door because of a paranoid kook.
>>> "Yes, CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans, but rather cotton wadding or water." <<<
Great. Now CE399 is only in Rob's "probably fired from the Carcano"
file. Nothing is ever definitive enough for conspiracy lovers, is it?
Even 399, which has all of its "lands and grooves" intact for a
ballistics comparison, is only considered to have "probably" been
fired through Oswald's rifle, right Robcap? Lovely.
Did JFK even travel to Dallas on 11/22/63? That fact is probably up in
the air too, isn't it, Mister Conspiracy?
Re.: Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
areas)......
Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
performed many of the tests himself.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0034b.htm
So, Rob, as usual, is talking bullshit. Nothing new there, of course.
I wonder if Rob Caprio fingerprints his mother, father, wife, and
children before allowing them to enter his house (just to verify their
identities)? Can't be too careful in this kooky world we live in, ya
know.
Okay, Rob....you're up. Let's hear your shady pro-conspiracy scenario
regarding the bullets and fragments. And please make it good. (And
making it provable, and non-laughable, would be kind of nice for a
change too.)
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>
>So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
>victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
>at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
>claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
>The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
>"dicovery" means very little.
>
>"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>
>Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
>this was so, how come?
Because such an assertion is flatly untrue.
Frazier *clearly* testified that the two larger fragments *WERE* ballistically
tied to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
Gil Jesus
> >>> "The items found to be "tied to the gun" were never proven, or found, to be from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have no blood or tissue on them, so they are useless for your cause." <<<
>
> <big chuckle time here>
>
> A bullet from Lee Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
And the man who found the bullet told Josiah Thompson that CE 399 was
not the bullet he found and that he never found it on Connally's
stretcher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA68-rlXVIY
>
> Bullet fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
Where are the photos showing the fragments in the limo ?
>
> Bullet shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and on the very
> same floor) where the gun linked to those shells is also found.
Only one of those three shells had the marking of Oswald's firing pin
on its primer.
(Hoover memo to Rankin, 2 June 1964; FBI Ballistics Report, 25 Dec.
1964 )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/db6b917366035921
< big chuckle time here too >
David Von Pein
So, the goofball plotters who were framing Patsy Oswald decided to
leave an ASSORTMENT of different shells from various weapons under the
patsy's window, is that it?
BTW, all three bullet shells were positively linked to your beloved
patsy's rifle, Mr. Mega-Kook.
And your next hunk of kookshit is going to be.....?
Walt
What pile of B.S.!!!..... Even Hoover, and the Warren Commisssion
couldn't provide a plausible reason to hang around Oswald's neck.
They simply said the motive was not known....as if it makes sense for
a man to murder the President of the United States, a man whom he
admired, for no reason at all. You Lner's are really getting
desperate aren't you?
Walt
Oswald is the singular most
> investingated individual in American criminal history. His life is an
> open book. As I've stated so often, it is unfortunate the CT's do not
> spend any time understanding this individual and what motivated him.
> You short change yourselves. While I cannot PROVE the Harker
> interview was the genesis for 11/22, knowing what we do about Oswald
> and using the scientific methds of evaluating the events, we can state
> with a certain degree of accuracy and sophistication, that this
> scenario was his motivation. I will state however, we cannot and will
> never know with 100% accuracy.
>
> As for Healy, HE KNOWS NO FACTS ABOUT 11/22. This is NOT
> speculation. It is based on his demonstrated and absurd statements on
> this newsgroup. He NEVER gets anything right. I've proven it time
> and time again. Do not attempt to insult the intelligence of the
> membership by supporting his stupidity and recklessness day after day.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> >>> "We do know that he {Patron Saint Oswald} did not shoot at anyone and that the Carcano was NOT used in the crime. Ballistics show this, and this is why the WC failed to include these very important pieces of physical evidence in their volumes. They mention it in the WCR, but do NOT include the results of the tests in hard copy for all to read. I wonder why, if everything pointed to the Carcano like they said?" <<<
>
> There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
>
> WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
> be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course.
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
> to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
> Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
> fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569).
Let's just take this one statement and examine it......
Has anyone ever PROVED that Oswald owned or had possession of C2766??
The HONEST answer is NO!.....
a) C2766 was shipped to A Hidell at Box 2915 in the DPO........ Who
was A.Hidell? Was it G. DeM, or Mike Paine, or Ruth Paine, or lee
Oswald???
b) Marina took a photo ( CE 133A) of Lee Oswald holding a model 91/38
MC but the rifle in the photo is NOT C2766.
c) IF?? If the shells on the floor were actually fired in C2766, WHEN
were they fired in that rifle, There is NO NO evidence that the rifle
had been recently fired. In fact, If what Captain Fritz and Lt Day
said is true, then that rifle could NOT NOT have been fired in the
condition that it was in when it was found. They both swore that there
was a live round in the breech when the rifle was found. Photos of the
rifle being lifted from beneath a pilr of boxes show the bolt to be
in the position it would have been in if there was a live round in the
breech but not seated in the extractor of the bolt. Just as if someone
had put that cartridge in the breech and thought it could be fired
like a single shot rifle.
d) NONE of the bullet fragments or the complete bullet were recovered
from the bodies of the victims, they were all retrieved from sites far
removed from the victims....... There is no way you can PROVE that
the bullets recovered are in fact the bullets that wounded and killed
the victims.
>
> No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
> linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period.
>
> And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
> FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
> C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
> (in "hard copy").....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
Walt
>
> There's the "ABO kook" in you talking again.
>
> WHY on Earth do you keep insisting that Oswald's C2766 Carcano cannot
> be tied to JFK's murder? The exact opposite is true, of course.
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (#C2766) is forever tied
> to the President's murder in MULTIPLE ways -- the shells on the 6th
> Floor, CE399, and by far the best ballistics "tie" to that rifle: the
> fragments found in the limousine (CE567 and CE569).
>
> No matter how many times you repeat the lie that CE567 & 569 can't be
> linked definitively to MC Rifle C2766, it will be a lie. Period.
>
> And there is also the very detailed testimony of Bob Frazier of the
> FBI concerning the proof-positive linkage of the bullets/fragments to
> C2766, printed right here in Volume V of the WC's supporting volumes
> (in "hard copy").....
Is this the Robert Frazier yer talkin about??
Mr. Mccloy.
Can you use that rifle without the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; you can.
FACT....The MC CANNOT be used as a rifle without a clip
Mr. Mccloy.
What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. Frazier.
It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one
shot at a time.
Mr. Mccloy.
The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Frazier is either ignorant or a liar.......The carcano CANNOT be used
as a single shot rifle.
Mr. Mccloy.
When you say a six-cartridge clip, could that gun have been fired
with
the clip fully loaded and another one in the chamber?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
WRONG..... Frazier doesn't know what he's talkin about..... SOME
"expert"!!
Mr. Mccloy.
The same as the .30-06?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; the weapon will hold a maximum of seven.
If Frazier had put seven rounds in the gun he could not have fired ANY
of them...because a round dropped into the breech would merely jam the
rifle and make it inoperable. The act of attempting tp make the MC a
seven shot repeater would have converted the weapon from a firearm to
a club.
Is this yer "expert" Von Pea Brain??
Walt
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
Walt
Congratulations Dave.....You've got em on the ropes. I don't know how
you manage to irritate them like you do, but it's very obvious that
they want to drive you off..... Whatever it is that yer doin....Keep
up the good work.
Walt
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
> In article <daf51d9d-79fe-4f53-a4af-ed8372b86...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>
> >So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
> >victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
> >at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
> >claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
> >The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
> >"dicovery" means very little.
>
> >"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>
> >Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
> >this was so, how come?
>
> Because such an assertion is flatly untrue.
>
> Frazier *clearly* testified that the two larger fragments *WERE* ballistically
> tied to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
You are a sad man Ben. I guess if I'm here 10 years you will look to
jump in on every post I make. You are even sadder for BELIEVING
Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself, 2)
the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
D.C. (they easily could have been planted), and 3) you are doing a
series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
at all in order to hide them. I guess if you think it makes me look
bad you are all for it.
How about sticking to showing JFK was killed by a conspiracy for a
change. You have been challenged by quite a few LNers yet you refuse
to debate them, how come?
> >familar with it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
He's a coward and knows his bs won't hold water if he had to explain
it live.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The items found to be "tied to the gun" were never proven, or found, to be from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have no blood or tissue on them, so they are useless for your cause." <<<
>
> <big chuckle time here>
I guess a punch to the stomach causes this man to laugh.
>
> A bullet from Lee Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
>
> Bullet fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
>
> Bullet shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and on the very
> same floor) where the gun linked to those shells is also found.
>
> And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough ballistics
> evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on 11/22/63.
How about addressing the points I made instead of repeating what I
refuted already?
>
> The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
> fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
> spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)
>
> Okay, Rob, whose bullets DID hit John Kennedy and John Connally on
> November 22, 1963, if not bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's
> Carcano rifle?
>
> Care to take a wild guess?
Who knows becuase all the evidence removed from the two men was never
tested as they knew it was not from the Carcano already. In NO murder
case do you rely on outside sources (magic bullet and fragments with a
shaky origin) when you have things taken from the bodies of the
victims to use. This is crazy, so it tells me they evidence found in
the bodies DID NOT match the Carcano.
>
> And I suppose it was just a funny coincidence that all of the "real"
> bullets that were involved in the assassination just happened to get
> themselves lost right after the shooting, huh?
Not funny at all, nor lost, they were disposed of to avoid any
issues. This is why it is called a conspiracy Dave.
>
> And it was also just a weird quirk of fate that the only bullets and
> fragments large enough to be tested against a particular rifle
> happened to be linked to the gun owned by the resident "patsy" in the
> case, right?
Not when they are planted. Neither case has a strong chain of
evidence and in all liklihood neither would have been allowed in
court. If they were, the full lack of origin would have been
explained for the jury to know.
>
> Or would you like to travel down that dead-end road known as "ALL THE
> BULLET EVIDENCE LEADING TO OSWALD'S GUN WAS PLANTED AND/OR FAKED"?
It is not a dead-end road whey YOU can't show how they came into being
evidence in the first place. You have no chain of custody, therefore,
you are out of luck.
>
> Apparently you do wish to travel down that dead-end (based on your
> previous nutty comments regarding the bullets).....so now I'll wait
> for Robby-boy to explain to the masses in sufficient PROVABLE detail
> just exactly WHO and HOW the covert team of bullet-planters went about
> the task of pulling off this little bait-and-switch with the
> ballistics evidence.
I go where the evidence, or lack of evidence in this case, leads me.
The poor handling of evidence in regards to chain of custody and
origin lead anyone to conclude they could have been planted. Your
beloved WC makes anyone come to this conclusion that is being honest
by what is presented.
>
> I especially want to hear about the part where the bullets and
> fragments from other (non-C2766) guns went into the victims and were
> dug out by conspirators after the fact (you surely have at least ONE
> such occurrence, Rob, because of your anti-SBT stance; so the bullet
> that you say entered JFK's throat never exited; meaning: it's either
> still in Kennedy as we speak, or somebody dug the damn thing out
> without being noticed).
It is simple, the fragments were disposed of at the autopsy just like
the brain. No big cloak and dagger scenario is needed. They had the
evidence in place at Parkland and the limo so their bases were
covered.
>
> And the part about how the covert agents planted the two large bullet
> fragments in the limo should be interesting too -- even though, of
> course, this "planting" of evidence was totally unneeded, because
> CE399 is going to be "planted" into the evidence pile too, per most of
> the kooks.
The more the better I guess. The limo fragments were found 16 hours
later in D.C. at the FBI labs (or Secret Service HQ)so planting could
have been done very easily.
>
> Which means, of course, that the "patsy's" gun is going to be tied
> irrevocably to the crime via JUST CE399; so why plant MORE stuff,
> which only increases the chances that the plot will be exposed down
> the line?
The more the better, especially if the "crime scene", i.e. the limo,
has evidence too.
>
> And the made-up kookshit that will be coming about how the lead
> residue got on the inside of the limousine's windshield and about how
> the chrome got dented near that same windshield should be a fun treat
> to hear as well.
Made-up? The only made-up stuff is called the WCR and its 26 volumes
of paper weights.
>
> Via the perfectly-reasonable "LN/LHO/C2766" scenario, of course, the
> windshield/chrome damage is explained absolutely beautifully (and
> logically)....i.e., the TWO damaged areas at the front of the vehicle
> were struck during the assassination by the TWO large bullet fragments
> from Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (with the fragments moving
> from BACK to FRONT after exiting JFK's head).
Prove it.
>
> I wonder how a kook named Rob will manage to explain away the perfect
> "TWO & TWO" coincidence regarding the TWO different areas of
> automobile damage in conjunction with the TWO supposedly-"planted"
> fragments found in the front seat?
I wonder how nutjob Dave will explain the witnesses who said the glass
has a hole in it and one of the agents stuck a pencil through it? Or
how a fragment causes a major dent in hardened crome? Or where the
middle part of the bullet went since it was not in JFK's head?
>
> I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle
> the next day (because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its
> possession until around 11:30 PM on November 22nd).
>
It could have been done the day before too.
> Anyway, I guess the bullet-planters fired that "planted" limo bullet
> into something pretty hard to make it break up into pieces -- but not
> pieces that would be too small, because they obviously needed the
> planted fragments linked to their proverbial "patsy's" rifle.
> Otherwise, why the hell plant them at all, if the fragments are never
> going to be able to be linked to ANY gun at all?
Pretty hard? You don't get it do you? Most bullets break apart on
contact with something hard like a bone or a tree. Only magicial
bullets from LN fantasy land cause 7 wounds, including bones, and come
out nearly intact.
>
> And, somewhat amazingly, the bullet-planters did an excellent job of
> perfectly mimicking the end results of various future tests where
> bullets were fired directly into human skulls, with those test bullets
> fragmenting in just about the same fashion as CE567 and CE569. Did the
> FBI fire the "planted" limo bullet into a human skull too? .....
>
When one controls all aspects of the investigation this stuff is not
real hard, and the FBI, CIA and Military Intelligence did contol this
investigation.
> http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
>
> But, instead of leaning toward Occam's (and just plain ol' common
> sense in general), a rabid conspiracist feels it's much better to
> accuse many different people (who are always-unnamed and unidentified
> by the CTers, of course) of underhanded shenanigans with respect to
> the official evidence that exists in the JFK case.
Occam's does not apply to murder cases, this tired LN chant is old
news. In science and medicine Occam's is not the truth more times
that not.
>
> Go figure that mindset.
>
> Hopefully Rob never serves on a jury in an open-and-shut murder case
> involving a gunshot victim who just happened to not have any bullets
> plucked from his or her dead body.
>
> One more murderer walking out the door because of a paranoid kook.
>
> >>> "Yes, CE 399 was probably fired from the Carcano, but not into humans, but rather cotton wadding or water." <<<
>
> Great. Now CE399 is only in Rob's "probably fired from the Carcano"
> file. Nothing is ever definitive enough for conspiracy lovers, is it?
> Even 399, which has all of its "lands and grooves" intact for a
> ballistics comparison, is only considered to have "probably" been
> fired through Oswald's rifle, right Robcap? Lovely.
It was fired as it had the grooves to match the rifle. Calm down. It
still was not fired at anyone though.
>
> Did JFK even travel to Dallas on 11/22/63? That fact is probably up in
> the air too, isn't it, Mister Conspiracy?
Sure divert attention away from the main point that you have no answer
for.
>
> Re.: Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
> qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
> areas)......
He wasn't, he had no spectographic training.
>
> Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
> firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
> regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
> performed many of the tests himself.
No, I think he makes mention of the fact that he did not do the
spectographic aspect himself in the WCR.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
>
> So, Rob, as usual, is talking bullshit. Nothing new there, of course.
Sure, try to blame me for your lousy case.
>
> I wonder if Rob Caprio fingerprints his mother, father, wife, and
> children before allowing them to enter his house (just to verify their
> identities)? Can't be too careful in this kooky world we live in, ya
> know.
At least I have a family, I'm not a LONE NUT like you.
>
> Okay, Rob....you're up. Let's hear your shady pro-conspiracy scenario
> regarding the bullets and fragments. And please make it good. (And
> making it provable, and non-laughable, would be kind of nice for a
> change too.)
One can draw their own conclusion once it is made clear to the suspect
origins of this "evidence."
robcap...@netscape.com
Good post Walt, thanks!
>
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_003...
>
> > Think up another excuse to take the noose from around a double-
> > killer's neck, Rob. Because your current blatantly-wrong excuse about
> > the bullets and fragments not being linked to Oswald's rifle is a
> > really rotten (and stupid) one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 12, 12:01 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>>In article <daf51d9d-79fe-4f53-a4af-ed8372b86...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>>
>> >So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
>> >victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
>> >at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
>> >claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
>> >The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
>> >"dicovery" means very little.
>>
>> >"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>>
>> >Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
>> >this was so, how come?
>>
>> Because such an assertion is flatly untrue.
>>
>> Frazier *clearly* testified that the two larger fragments *WERE*
>> ballistically tied to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
>You are a sad man Ben.
And yet, the statement I just made is 100% accurate, isn't it?
>I guess if I'm here 10 years you will look to
>jump in on every post I make.
Only your lies... And even then, only the ones that I'm competent enough to
point out.
>You are even sadder for BELIEVING
>Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself,
Why bother to lie about the facts, Samantha?
Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did
you receive that?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3
admitted as Commission 569?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to
determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
When you lie, you should expect me to correct the record.
If you were *honest*, you'd retract such lies. But you clearly are not.
Frazier DID conduct the ballistics tests himself - he *TESTIFIED* to that fact,
and as many times as I've told you that you should read Frazier's testimony, you
still haven't done so yet, have you?
>2) the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
>D.C. (they easily could have been planted),
Yep, they could have. But I was correctly your lie. This has nothing to do
with it.
>and 3) you are doing a
>series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
>did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
>at all in order to hide them.
They *DID* put the ballistics test results *AND* evidence into their report.
I've pointed this out before. Any lurker can go examine CE568.
>I guess if you think it makes me look
>bad you are all for it.
When you lie, it *DOES* make you look bad.
>How about sticking to showing JFK was killed by a conspiracy for a
>change.
Been doing so for many years.
>You have been challenged by quite a few LNers yet you refuse
>to debate them, how come?
LOL!!! Disinfo agent, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Dec 11, 11:39 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "The items found to be "tied to the gun" were never proven, or found, to be
>>from the victims (JFK and/or JBC). You have no blood or tissue on them, so they
>>are useless for your cause." <<<
>>
>> <big chuckle time here>
>
>I guess a punch to the stomach causes this man to laugh.
>>
>> A bullet from Lee Oswald's gun is in the hospital;
>>
>> Bullet fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;
>>
>> Bullet shells from Oz's gun are in the same building (and on the very
>> same floor) where the gun linked to those shells is also found.
>>
>> And yet, per Robby-boy, this isn't nearly sufficient enough ballistics
>> evidence to prove that Oz's gun was even used AT ALL on 11/22/63.
>
>How about addressing the points I made instead of repeating what I
>refuted already?
It seems just a tad funny to see someone who's currently running away from his
lies about the evidence excoriating someone else for the same...
>> The only thing that will satisfy Robby is if ALL of the bullets and
>> fragments had been found INSIDE Kennedy & Connally. (And would the
>> spent shells need to be buried inside the victims too, Rob?)
>>
>> Okay, Rob, whose bullets DID hit John Kennedy and John Connally on
>> November 22, 1963, if not bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's
>> Carcano rifle?
>>
>> Care to take a wild guess?
>
>Who knows becuase all the evidence removed from the two men was never
>tested as they knew it was not from the Carcano already.
And yet, we *do* have the testimony from the ballistics expert who *DID* do the
testing...
Lying about it won't help you with anyone who reads Frazier's testimony.
>In NO murder
>case do you rely on outside sources (magic bullet and fragments with a
>shaky origin) when you have things taken from the bodies of the
>victims to use. This is crazy, so it tells me they evidence found in
>the bodies DID NOT match the Carcano.
Nothing was large enough to be *capable* of matching to the Carcano.
Your mistaken impression that anything *other* than ballistics matching of the
rifling characteristics can match a bullet or fragment to a rifle is amusing,
and already corrected... (you're clearly thinking of either spectrographic or
NAA here...)
Unless you don't believe it, then you lie about it. Such as Frazier's
testimony.
>The poor handling of evidence in regards to chain of custody and
>origin lead anyone to conclude they could have been planted
Or, far more likely, AND IN ACCORD WITH THE EXISTING EVIDENCE - swapped.
(CE399)
Looks like Samantha *IS* capable of learning...
When I *first* pointed out this "middle part of a bullet", Samantha scoffed.
I'll try to refrain from pointing out that Samantha can't prove it's the
*MIDDLE* of a bullet, since the tip and base of that bullet are claimed by
Samantha to come from two separate bullets. (Oops... just couldn't refrain!)
>> I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle
>> the next day (because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its
>> possession until around 11:30 PM on November 22nd).
>>
>It could have been done the day before too.
It could have been done *ANYTIME* prior to producing the evidence for the WC.
(A lack of clear thinking running rampant...)
Strangely enough, so did CE567 & CE569 - as testified to by Frazier - THE FBI
BALLISTICS EXPERT WHO ACTUALLY DID THE BALLISTICS TESTING ON THESE TWO
FRAGMENTS.
>Calm down. It
>still was not fired at anyone though.
>>
>> Did JFK even travel to Dallas on 11/22/63? That fact is probably up in
>> the air too, isn't it, Mister Conspiracy?
>
>Sure divert attention away from the main point that you have no answer
>for.
>>
>> Re.: Robert Frazier (and Rob's silly assertion that Frazier wasn't
>> qualified to testify as an expert in some ballistics-matching
>> areas)......
>
>He wasn't,
Of course he was.
>he had no spectographic training.
He didn't *try* to qualify as a spectrographic expert. He *was* however, fully
qualified to run the ballistics testing that he testified about.
Lying about this is silly... anyone can go read Frazier's testimony.
>> Read Frazier's testimony....it's quite detailed in many areas of
>> firearms and bullet identification. He was amply qualified to testify
>> regarding the matters he testified about in 1964. He physically
>> performed many of the tests himself.
>
>No, I think he makes mention of the fact that he did not do the
>spectographic aspect himself in the WCR.
"Spectrographic" is not "ballistic". Samantha, you *really* need to understand
what you're talking about.
aeffects
> >>> "Only one of those three shells had the marking of Oswald's firing pin on its primer." <<<
>
> So, the goofball plotters who were framing Patsy Oswald decided to
> leave an ASSORTMENT of different shells from various weapons under the
> patsy's window, is that it?
you on crack?
charle...@hotmail.com
on the subject of secret societies and said the following words:
"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless
conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its
sphere of influence".
The head of the FBI - a Maason - was J. Edgar Hoover. He was also a
homosexual who dressed up as "Mary" and hated women. The Supreme
Commander of the American Massons could therefore blackmail Hoover - a
standard technique - into committing worse and worse crimes - rising
by "degree". Once Hoover had "attained" a high degree, he could be
blackmailed with the threat of torture and death to do anything the
"Supreme Commander" commanded:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/c15inemengl.htm
Kennedy - a Catholic - clearly knew about these machinations. However,
he probably did not know that his opponent Nixon and his vice-
president Johnson were BOTH members of the gang.
Part of the "creed" of the gang is that superstition is "good". So it
seems that a Lincoln Continental was deliberately chosen as part of
the murder plot. After all, Lincoln was shot and Kennedy was shot in a
Lincoln.
Directly after Kennedy's speech, the Lincoln went back to the Ford
Motor Company (who had adapted it) for its security features to be
spoilt. The privacy window was one of the things that were removed.
There is every bit of evidence that Oswald - the PATSY - admired
Kennedy deeply. He himself was passionate about bringing an end to the
Cold War, and had even married a Russian girl. He was a true American
patriot.
At Love Fields, where Air Force One landed, there were no motorcycles
to protect Kennedy. Those that were there all protected the SUPPORT
car. Then Kennedy's personal bodyguard Henry J. Rybka was withdrawn
and protested "WHY WON'T YOU LET ME DO MY JOB"? They left him behind.
Oswald had no hand in the withdrawal of Rybka.
The grassy knoll was being cleared of people by a man showing an FBI
badge. Oswald had no control of this.
There was a concealed car-park with concealed exits behind the wooden
picket fence on the grassy knoll. The "firing squad" would shoot from
the picket fence, jump into the getaway car and escape undetected.
Fifty-five witnesses reported seeing gunsmoke or flashes at the picket
fence, or hearing gunshots coming from the fence. In contrast, in the
fake "sniper's nest" there was a very narrow field of view steeply
downwards at between thirty and forty-five degrees. Not exactly
optimal conditions.
The rifle that Oswald was alleged to have bought was unsuitable to
blow out a president's brain. Only a HIGH VELOCITY rifle would do
this. Indeed, as the bullet passes through an environment of low
mechanical resistance (air), with a narrow bow wave, into a region of
high mechanical resistance (the inside of the head), the bow-wave
widens. It is like a "fist" of brain tissue that strikes the back of
the skull from inside. Jacqui jumped onto the trunk (boot) of the car
as if trying to retrieve a hat. Kennedy had a small hole in the front
of his head and a huge one at the back.
Had Oswald done the shooting, the brain tissue and bone would have
flown FORWARDS, leaving a gaping hole in Kennedy's forehead.
The alleged murder weapon was not purchased in Oswald's name. The gang
covered this up by saying that Oswald used an assumed name when buying
it. However, there was no evidence presented in support of this.
Nixon and Johnson were in Dallas on that day. Oswald did not arrange
this.
As the car turned into Elm Street, the replacement bodyguard Agent
Ready and Jacqueline's bodyguard Clint Hill were recalled. At the
point of killing, the car was UTTERLY UNDEFENDED. Look at the
pictures. Oswald had no power to arrange such things.
At Parkland hospital, ostensible FBI agents crowded out the doctors,
who were trying to do their work. Oswald could not arrange this.
Kennedy was put in the finest casket (coffin) they had. It looks as if
this was reported to J. Mary Hoover - who hated Kennedy. He must have
said "Take him out". The coffin was now empty. Oswald could not
arrange this.
Within two hours of Kennedy being declared dead, Johnson was being
sworn in - with Jacqueline by his side. This was clearly to humiliate
Jacqui. After all, Hoover HATED women. Oswald could not have organized
such a rapid change of government. It had been planned in advance.
When the body arrived in Washington, it was in a cheap pink plastic
casket. Hoover - who hated Kennedy - had clearly ordered that Kennedy
should be humiliated even in death by being in a "girlie" casket.
Oswald had nothing to do with this.
The brain had been removed from the corpse. Oswald had no power to
arrange this.
Hoover was clearly running to a brisk timetable. He had called Robert
Kennedy, and asked "Is that Robert Kennedy"? Bobby replied "Yes it
is". Hoover said "Your brother is dead", and hung up the phone. Oswald
had no part in this.
Furthermore, at the time of the killing Oswald was not in the building
as expected. He had obeyed his CIA boss, and stayed in the building
for the time stated. Then, with clockwork precision, he left the Book
Depository and was either on the bus, or on the way to the bus when
the killing took place. After the killing, the crooked agents entered
the building and found him missing. However, their Master Mmasons had
commanded them that Oswald was to be declared guilty, and they dared
not disobey. So they arrested Oswald next day without a pretext. There
had been no evidence against him.
Charles Douglas Wehner
justm...@gmail.com
And there ya have it CT's....the true story of JFK's assassination,
but remember Oswald couldn't have planned this ROFLMAO....Amazing this
guy even has the balls to sign his name to such an idiotic post.
Pink girlie casket? ....If I didn't know better, I would say robcrap
was behind this, but knowing robcrap the way we do he'll probably
believe 95% of this ridiculous story. These CT's get dumber as the
days get longer.
David Von Pein
>>> "How about addressing the points I made instead of repeating what I refuted already?" <<<
<Large-Sized Belly-Laugh Here>
You've "refuted" nothing. And it's absolutely incredible that you
actually THINK you have.
You've merely buried yourself deeper in the CT kookshit you've been
ejaculating on this forum since you arrived.
(Find any of those non-C2766 bullets yet? Try the roof of the Records
Building. You've probably got a shooter up there.)
robcap...@netscape.com
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On Dec 11, 8:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"A bullet from Oswald's gun is in the hospital;"
>
> >> >So, how did it get there? Was it found in the body of one of the
> >> >victims? Was it discovered by one of the attending doctors or nurses
> >> >at the hospital? Was it known to be from one of the stretcher it was
> >> >claimed to be found on? Did it have DNA from either victim on it?
> >> >The answer to all these important questions is NO. Therefore, this
> >> >"dicovery" means very little.
>
> >> >"Fragments from Oz's gun are in the limo;"
>
> >> >Yet they couldn't get the man who did the test to testify under oath
> >> >this was so, how come?
>
"Because such an assertion is flatly untrue. Frazier *clearly*
testified that the two larger fragments *WERE* ballistically tied to
the Mannlicher-Carcano."
No, he testified he took the fragments into custody and then he "eye-
balled" them in terms of the grooves. He never testified that he did
a spectographic test on them, prove it if you can.
>
> >You are a sad man Ben.
>
"And yet, the statement I just made is 100% accurate, isn't it?"
Yes it is true Frazier said it, but it doesn't make it true
scientifically. He said a lot of things the WC changed for their
benefit.
>
> >I guess if I'm here 10 years you will look to
> >jump in on every post I make.
>
"Only your lies... And even then, only the ones that I'm competent
enough to
point out."
And aren't we lucky to have you watching over us so well, especially,
when you don't know everything to begin with. It is nice someone who
doesn't know the facts calls others liars. I have proven many times
with cites what I say is so, but you never do, yet you keep calling me
a liar.
>
> >You are even sadder for BELIEVING
> >Frazier's testimony when: 1) he didn't even do the test himself,
>
"Why bother to lie about the facts, Samantha?"
Whose lying? You obviously don't know the facts to begin with so of
course you think I'm wrong.
>
> Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did
> you receive that?
> Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
It is well documented (if you care to research) by this he meant
looked at and cataloged, not do a full spectographic analysis of.
I'll show this later.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3
> admitted as Commission 569?
> Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
> Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to
> determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>
"When you lie, you should expect me to correct the record."
The big, bad defender of all that is CT calls me a liar based on WC
testimony! I love it, what a kook. He is agreeing he examined the
bullet for a comparison to the alleged rifle, but notice he doesn't
say here that it is a match, does he? He is simply answering a
question. Also, examining is very different from testing, you should
know this, but of course you don't. Where's your second pencil?
>
"If you were *honest*, you'd retract such lies. But you clearly are
not."
I am honest, and I have retracted things when I made a mistake, quite
a few times to you, but in this case I'm not lying, I just know more
about it than you and you obviously have a problem with that. You on
the other hand, have never admitted to being wrong from what I see on
here.
>
"Frazier DID conduct the ballistics tests himself - he *TESTIFIED* to
that fact,
and as many times as I've told you that you should read Frazier's
testimony, you
still haven't done so yet, have you?"
I have, including his tetimony beyond the WCR, something you obviously
have not done. There is more to the WC report than the 912 page
report, you should look at it sometime. He stated in the hearings, on
May 13, 1964, that John F. Gallager who is a spectographics expert
(5H67, 69) did the testing, and he was accepted as a witness being
qualified in "firearms" only (3H392) and was NOT an expert in
spectographics. You need expertise in physics and chemistry to do
spectographic work, and Frazier did not have it. Gallager should have
been the one the WC called but he became the WC's most avoided
witness. His testimony, *the last taken in the entire investigation*,
was given in a deposition attended by a stenographer and a staff
member the week before the Warren Report was submitted to President
Johnson. At this time, he was not asked a single question relating to
the spectrographic analyses.[5] (See 15H746ff.)
So once again Ben is wrong, but instead of saying he doesn't know
everything he wants to call me a liar. Then he wonders why I don't
want to do these posts with him anymore?
>
> >2) the fragments were mutilated and found at 16 hours after the crime in
> >D.C. (they easily could have been planted),
>
"Yep, they could have. But I was correctly your lie. This has
nothing to do
with it."
In your crazy world of pointing out how the WC lies, yet in posts with
me you defend them, no I guess it means nothing. In my world of CT
thoughts it does though as they say they weren't too mutilated to make
a match (if they even say this, I think they say it is similar), but
with a group of liars who don't put these tests in the final report
how do we know this is true? Furthermore, since the fragments were
found so much later in the process, how do we know they weren't
planted? It is also nearly impossible to tell the if the fragments
came from the rifle in the sixth floor window, so even IF they could
have proved this, it means nothing.
>
> >and 3) you are doing a
> >series of posts on how the WC has lied, yet you BELIEVE this when they
> >did not put the spectography and ballistic test results in the report
> >at all in order to hide them.
>
"They *DID* put the ballistics test results *AND* evidence into their
report. I've pointed this out before. Any lurker can go examine
CE568."
Well you know more than Harold Weiberg then, because he spent a ton of
money, effort and time with two lawsuits and as of the time of the
HSCA I don't believe they had been released (if so it just happened).
Why don't you ever put a link for the lurkers since you are so worried
about them. For everyone interested in seeing a photo, not a report,
go to the WC Volume XVII page 256. Ben lies again.
> >I guess if you think it makes me look
> >bad you are all for it.
>
"When you lie, it *DOES* make you look bad."
I think you are the one who lies like a rug here, not me. You just
don't know the info and instead of saying this, you call people a
liar.
>
> >How about sticking to showing JFK was killed by a conspiracy for a
> >change.
>
"Been doing so for many years."
Real funny, anyone can show the WC lied, any pre-schooler, how about
taking the lies further out and show what really happened?
>
> >You have been challenged by quite a few LNers yet you refuse
> >to debate them, how come?
>
"LOL!!! Disinfo agent, aren't you?"
Yeah, I'm a disinfo agent, that is why I put full cites with my stuff
and you leave everything vague. Good try John.
David Von Pein
>>> "...I put full cites with my stuff..." <<<
This is a laugh. Rob The Kook rarely cites anything at all. And yet he
claims just the opposite.
~shrug~
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fda71679-e85b-434a...@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
We're STILL able to spot a Criminal Cunt when we see one>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/orders_of_silence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/gil_jesus_page.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/autopsy.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/characters.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/croft_photo_with_anaylisis.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/VEITNAM.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CIA.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
> >Who knows becuase all the evidence removed from the two men was never
> >tested as they knew it was not from the Carcano already.
>
"And yet, we *do* have the testimony from the ballistics expert who
*DID* do the
testing..."
Forgive my snips everyone, but since I have to debate DVP and Beth
Holmes all at the same time it will get long otherwise. If you are
interested in the snipped area, just see earlier posts.
Lurkers - Frazier was not a ballistic spectographic expert, period.
He testified to this fact in the hearings of the WC (5H67, 69) when he
stated the expert was John Gallager. Gallager was highly avoided by
the WC and they did not take his depostion until the week BEFORE the
report was given to Lyndon Johnson. I wonder why? Frazier also stated
under oath, (3H392), that he was a "firearms" expert and this is how
he was accepted by the WC in terms of what type of witness he was. Why
would the WC let him testify to spectographic tests (that need
expertise in physics and chemistry - Frazier did not have this) when
they could have simply called Gallager? I think anyone who is on the
ball can figure that one out.
>
"Lying about it won't help you with anyone who reads Frazier's
testimony."
This from a man who has not read ALL of Frazier's testimony. How
ironic, hey liar?
>
> >In NO murder
> >case do you rely on outside sources (magic bullet and fragments with a
> >shaky origin) when you have things taken from the bodies of the
> >victims to use. This is crazy, so it tells me they evidence found in
> >the bodies DID NOT match the Carcano.
>
"Nothing was large enough to be *capable* of matching to the Carcano."
I thought the two fragments they found in JFK's head would qualify, if
not, that was their problem. They are using secondary, non-controlled
"evidence" then.
>
"Your mistaken impression that anything *other* than ballistics
matching of the fling characteristics can match a bullet or fragment
to a rifle is amusing, and already corrected... (you're clearly
thinking of either spectrographic or NAA here...)"
Beth lies again, Part XX. I never said this as I have mentioned
"grooves" I don't know how many times, you haven't. I realize if the
fragments are not too mutilated you can get the groove info from them.
> >It is not a dead-end road whey YOU can't show how they came into being
> >evidence in the first place. You have no chain of custody, therefore,
> >you are out of luck.
>
> >> Apparently you do wish to travel down that dead-end (based on your
> >> previous nutty comments regarding the bullets).....so now I'll wait
> >> for Robby-boy to explain to the masses in sufficient PROVABLE detail
> >> just exactly WHO and HOW the covert team of bullet-planters went about
> >> the task of pulling off this little bait-and-switch with the
> >> ballistics evidence.
>
> >I go where the evidence, or lack of evidence in this case, leads me.
>
"Unless you don't believe it, then you lie about it. Such as
Frazier's testimony."
Go read all of Frazier's testimony please, so I can get some peace.
Unlike you, I won't even call you out later on. I feel bad for your
wife if you are married as you don't let anything go do you?
>
> >The poor handling of evidence in regards to chain of custody and
> >origin lead anyone to conclude they could have been planted
>
> Or, far more likely, AND IN ACCORD WITH THE EXISTING EVIDENCE - swapped.
> (CE399)
> >> I wonder how a kook named Rob will manage to explain away the perfect
> >> "TWO & TWO" coincidence regarding the TWO different areas of
> >> automobile damage in conjunction with the TWO supposedly-"planted"
> >> fragments found in the front seat?
>
> >I wonder how nutjob Dave will explain the witnesses who said the glass
> >has a hole in it and one of the agents stuck a pencil through it? Or
> >how a fragment causes a major dent in hardened crome? Or where the
> >middle part of the bullet went since it was not in JFK's head?
>
"Looks like Samantha *IS* capable of learning..."
Beth, I said this all along. I think the game we were playing
confused you. I know there was a hole, it is the WC he denied it.
"When I *first* pointed out this "middle part of a bullet", Samantha
scoffed."
I didn't scoff, I had no idea that was what you were infering. You
seem to think everything you write is crystal clear, it is not, and
the same goes for me. An open dialogue is fine with me, but you resort
to name calling.
"I'll try to refrain from pointing out that Samantha can't prove it's
the *MIDDLE* of a bullet, since the tip and base of that bullet are
claimed by Samantha to come from two separate bullets. (Oops... just
couldn't refrain!)"
Case in point!!! Who can make sense of this gibberish? Not me. I was
never trying to prove it was the middle, rather the question that
needs to be answered by the LNers is, where did the middle part go?
> I guess the evil FBI must have fired a bullet through Oswald's rifle the next day
> (because the FBI didn't even have the gun in its possession until around 11:30 PM on November 22nd)."
>
> >It could have been done the day before too.
>
"It could have been done *ANYTIME* prior to producing the evidence for
the WC. (A lack of clear thinking running rampant...)"
You think? It was a "for instance" Einstein. Boy you do think you
are a brainiac don't you? I guess if you NEED it to build yourself up,
go ahead. I'm comfortable with who I am, so I don't need to beat
people down all the time.